text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
address: |
Department of Astronomy, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721\
e-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Adam Burrows
title: A theoretical look at the direct detection of giant planets outside the Solar System
---
å[[*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} ]{} \#1[$\underline{\smash{\hbox{#1}}}$]{}
=+2.5pc
Heading
=======
****
Astronomy is at times a science of unexpected discovery. When it is, and if we are lucky, new intellectual territories emerge to challenge our views of the cosmos. The recent indirect detections using high-precision Doppler spectroscopy of now more than one hundred giant planets orbiting more than one hundred nearby stars is an example of such rare serendipity. What has been learned has shaken our preconceptions, for none of the planetary systems discovered to date is like our own. However, the key to unlocking a planet’s chemical, structural, and evolutionary secrets is the direct detection of the planet’s light. I review the embryonic theory of the spectra, atmospheres, and light curves of irradiated giant planets and put this theory into the context of the many proposed astronomical campaigns to image them.
Introduction: The Newly-Discovered Worlds {#sumegp}
=========================================
Direct detection of an extrasolar planet requires that its dim light be separated from under the glare of its bright parent star. However, such high-contrast imaging (e.g., a part in $10^{7-10}$ in the visible) has not to date been achieved. Instead, the vast majority of known extrasolar giant planets (EGPs) have been discovered from the ground using the indirect technique of high-precision stellar spectroscopy[@MayorQueloz95; @mb96; @encycl]. Due to gravitational attraction, an orbiting planet induces a Doppler wobble in its parent star. If the planet is massive and close enough, the periodic variation in the stellar spectral lines can be measured. The planet’s period ($P$), eccentricity ($e$), orbital semi-major axis ($a$), and projected mass (M$_{\rm p}\sin(i)$), where $i$ is the inclination of the orbit, can thereby be determined. The larger M$_{\rm p}\sin(i)$, the larger the signal. This is the reason the first planets detected were the EGPs. Terrestrial planets, such as Earth and Venus, are $\sim$300 times lighter than Jupiter, while ice giants, such as Uranus and Neptune, are $\sim$20 times lighter.
Before I delve into the physical theory of EGPs and their direct detection, I summarize the basic facts of the known members of the EGP family. The first extrasolar giant planet culled was 51 Peg b [@MayorQueloz95] and it is in a tight 4.2-day orbit, one hundred times closer to its primary than is Jupiter to the Sun. To date, more than 140 EGPs/planets have been discovered, more than 25 of which are in more than 10 multiple systems. 55 Cancri houses a quadruplet [@mcarthur], one of which has a mass near that of Neptune ($\sim$17 Earth masses), $\upsilon$ And house a triplet, and GJ 876 houses a doublet in a two-to-one orbital resonance. (We follow the convention by which the planet’s name is given by the star’s name, with an appended lower-case letter, either b, c, or d, in discovery order.)
The projected masses of the known Doppler planets vary from $\sim$0.06 (!) to above 10 , where is a Jupiter mass, which is 318 Earth masses or roughly $10^{-3}$ solar masses. The more massive objects may be brown dwarfs with a different provenance (see Box). Radial-velocity (Doppler) techniques can not distinguish EGPs and Neptune-mass planets from brown dwarfs. The orbital periods of the known EGPs span a vast range from $\sim$1.2 [*days*]{} to $\sim$12 [*years*]{}, their semi-major axes extend from $\sim$0.022 AU to $\sim$6.0 AU, where an AU is an Astronomical Unit, the distance between the Earth and the Sun, and their orbital eccentricities vary from 0.0 to above 0.9. For comparison, Jupiter resides 5.2 AU from our Sun, has an orbital period of $\sim$12 years, and has an orbital eccentricity of $\sim$0.05. Table 1 provides these basic data for a representative subset of the current EGP bestiary. The extremely close-in EGPs, such as 51 Peg b, $\tau$ Boo b, HD209458b, and OGLE-TR56b[@konacki; @torres; @sasselov03], were a surprise, but no less so than was the heterogeneity of the masses and orbital properties of the emerging EGP family. To be sure, the Doppler technique selects for the closer representatives, but they must exist to be detected. As would be expected due to tidal dissipation, the close-in EGPs with orbital distances smaller than $\sim$0.06 AU all have nearly circular orbits.
There seems to be a correlation between the probability of finding an EGP and the metallicity of its parent star. The “metallicity" of a star is the mass fraction of elements, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, neon, magnesium, silicon and iron, that are heavier than helium. Hydrogen and helium predominate in stars and giant planets, comprising $\sim$98% by mass of the Sun. The more super-solar the heavy-element composition of the potential parent, the more likely we are to find an EGP in orbit. This may be a hint concerning the processes of giant planet formation, and is in keeping with the 3-5$\times$solar excesses measured in Jupiter and Saturn. The current census reveals that there is a $\sim$5% a priori chance of finding a giant planet by the Doppler technique around a nearby ( 50 parsecs $\equiv$ 160 light-years) star, but a $\sim$20% chance of finding one around a star with at least twice the Sun’s metallicity (J. Valenti & D.A. Fischer, in preparation).
Presumably, the inclinations of EGP orbits are distributed randomly on the sky. Hence, the probability that the orbit is edge-on ($i = 90^{\circ}$) is approximately /(2$a$), where is the stellar radius. Given this, the close-in EGPs have the largest chance of transiting the stellar disk, during which time the star will dim by a fraction (/)$^2$, where is the planet’s radius. Since (the radius of Jupiter, $\sim$$7.14\times 10^4$ kilometers) is roughly 10% of the radius of the Sun, this ratio is expected to be roughly 1%. A 1% dimming is easily detectable from the ground. At $a$=0.045 AU and a distance ($d$) of 47 parsecs, the planet around the F8V/G0V star HD209458 was the first of only a handful of EGPs that are now known to transit their primaries and a periodic dimming at the $\sim$1.6% level was measured [@Henry00; @Charbonneau00; @brown01]. The transit of HD209458 lasts $\sim$3 hours (out of a total period of 3.524738 days). This was followed by the photometrically-selected transiting EGPs OGLE-TR-56b, OGLE-TR-113b, OGLE-TR-132b, OGLE-TR-111b, and TrES-1[@konacki; @torres; @sasselov03; @bouchy; @alonso; @pont]. Many more EGP transits are anticipated during the [*Kepler*]{} [@Koch98] and [*Corot*]{} [@AntonelloRuiz02] space missions. These projects are focussed on detecting transits around a fraction of the tens of thousands of stars they will monitor and will boast photometric accuracy ($\sim$10$^{-5}$) sufficient to measure not only transits by EGPs, but by Earth-like planets. The import of an EGP transit lies in the simultaneous measurement of both the orbital inclination (and, hence, with Doppler spectroscopy, the mass) and the radius of the planet. Knowledge of and (with some knowledge of the star) can be used to constrain theories of the structure and evolution of the close-in EGP [@bur.rad; @bur.ogle; @baraffe]. Currently, non-transiting EGPs are mute concerning such physical information.
HD209458 is close and bright enough that the STIS instrument on HST was used not only to obtain photometric precision of $\sim$0.01% [@brown01], but to distinguish a difference at the 4-$\sigma$ level in the planetary transit radius in and out of the Na-D line at 0.589 . In this way, neutral sodium atoms were discovered in HD209458b’s atmosphere [@Charbonneau02; @SeagerSasselov00; @Hubbard01]. Though indirect, this is the first measurement of the composition of the atmosphere of an extrasolar planet. Since then, the Lyman-$\alpha$ line of hydrogen has similarly been detected in HD209458b’s atmosphere [@vidal], and by the large magnitude ($\sim$15%) of the photometric dip at this UV wavelength ($\lambda$) a planetary wind[@lunine95] comprised of molecular break-up products has been inferred. However interesting, transits are rare and no substitute for direct imaging and optical and infrared spectra. Spectra can provide diagnostics for atmospheric composition, radius, gravity, and mass. Images are ground truth for the existence of a planet and provide orbital information that complements that gleaned from Doppler measurements. Furthermore, direct detection might be able to distinguish the different models of giant planet formation, such as nucleation around an ice/rock core[@mizuno] and direct collapse[@boss], and can probe the outer orbits where the majority of EGPs might reside.
Since the indirect radial-velocity technique for EGP discovery selects for the closer variety, it is likely that a large reservoir of giants exists at distances and orbital periods beyond the reach of Doppler spectroscopy. Furthermore, the best theory for the orbits of the closest EGPs is that they migrated in from further out during the early phase of star and planet formation[@trilling]. This too would imply that a large pool of EGPs resides at larger separations. Indeed, it may be that the majority of stars in the solar neighborhood harbor planetary systems, that only new techniques can reveal. This is where the direct planet detection methods, most effective at large angular distances from the parent star, will come into their own.
Theoretical Atmospheres and Chemistry of EGPs {#chemistry}
=============================================
After formation, without any significant internal sources of energy, an EGP gradually cools and shrinks. Its rate of cooling can be moderated by stellar irradiation, or by hydrogen/helium phase separation when old and light[@fortney04], but is inexorable. Jupiter itself is still cooling and its total infrared plus optical luminosity is about twice the power intercepted from the Sun. The rate of cooling is a function of mass and composition, with more massive EGPs cooling more slowly. Hence, the instantaneous state of an EGP is a function of mass, age, composition, orbital distance, and stellar type, not just mass and composition.
Unlike a star, EGP atmospheric temperatures are sufficiently low that chemistry is destiny. This is a distinguishing characteristic of substellar-mass objects (SMOs). The atmosphere of a gaseous giant planet is the thin outer skin of molecules that regulates its emission spectrum and cooling rate. Molecular hydrogen (H$_2$) is the overwhelming constituent, followed by atomic helium. An EGP’s effective temperature (, the temperature of its “photosphere") can vary from $\sim$1500 K for the more massive EGPs at birth to $\sim$50 K for the least massive EGPs after a Hubble time. This wide range translates into a rich variety of atmospheric constituents that for a given mass and elemental composition evolves significantly. At birth, Jupiter had a near 600-1000 K and the appearance of a T dwarf[@burgasser] brown dwarf. It had no ammonia or water clouds and, due to the presence of atomic sodium in its hot atmosphere, had a magenta color in the optical[@bur.rmp]. Its atmosphere was depleted of aluminum, silicon, iron, calcium, and magnesium due to the formation and settling to depth of the refractory silicates (“dirt") that condense in the temperaure range $\sim$1700-2500 K[@BurrowsSharp99; @Lodders99; @Lodders02]. Water vapor (steam) was the major reservoir of oxygen, gaseous methane was the major reservoir of carbon, gaseous ammonia and molecular nitrogen were the reservoirs of nitrogen, and H$_2$S was the reservoir of sulfur. As it cooled, the layer of alkali metals was buried below the photosphere to higher pressures, but gaseous H$_2$, H$_2$O, NH$_3$, and CH$_4$ persisted to dominate the atmospheric composition. At a of $\sim$400 K, water condensed in the upper atmosphere and water clouds appeared. This occurred within its first 100 million years. Within less than a gigayear, when reached $\sim$160 K, ammonia clouds appeared on top of the water clouds, and this layering persists to this day. Stellar irradiation retards cloud formation, as does a large EGP mass, which keeps the EGP hot longer. Around a G2V star like the Sun, at 5 Gyr and for an EGP mass of 1.0 , water clouds form at 1.5 AU, whereas ammonia clouds form beyond 4.5 AU[@bur.hub]. Jupiter’s and Saturn’s current effective temperatures are 124.4 K and 95 K, respectively. Jupiter’s orbital distance and age are 5.2 AU and 4.6 Gyr. The orbital distance, mass, and radius of a coeval Saturn are 9.5 AU, 0.3 , and 0.85 . However, as an EGP of whatever mass cools, its atmospheric composition evolves through a similar chemical and condensation sequence. Figure 1 depicts the atmospheric temperature/pressure (T/P) profile for a sequence of 1-, 5-Gyr models as a function of orbital distance from a G2V star. As the planet “moves" outward, its atmospheric temperature at a given pressure decreases. Superposed on the plot are the H$_2$O and NH$_3$ condensation lines. In an approximate sense, a given atmospheric composition and temperature can result from many combinations of orbital distance, planet mass, stellar type, and age. This lends an added degree of complexity to the study of EGPs with which the study of stars does not need to wrestle.
The atmospheres of close-in EGPs (“roasters") at orbital distances of $\sim$0.02-0.07 AU from a G, F, or K star are heated and maintained at temperatures of 1000-2000 K, roughly independent of planet mass or composition. An edge star of the solar-composition, hydrogen-burning main sequence ($\sim$75 ) has a of $\sim$1700 K. Therefore, an irradiated EGP, with a radius comparable to that of such a star, can be as luminous. Its atmospheric composition is predominantly H$_2$, He, H$_2$O, Na, K, and CO. At high temperatures, carbon is generally in carbon monoxide. This is the dominant molecule of carbon for M dwarfs with of 2200-3500 K. At the highest , clouds of iron particulates can form and persist in the upper atmosphere, as may be the case in HD209458b. There are, however, significant day/night differences and unique reflective properties that distinguish a roaster from a lone and isolated edge star. Exotic general circulation models (GCMs)[@menou; @Cho03; @burk04] may soon be necessary to understand the equatorial currents, jet streams, day/night differences, terminator chemistry, and global wind dynamics of severely irradiated roasters, in particular, and of orbiting, rotating EGPs, in general.
It is useful to note that a young EGP in a wide orbit with a mass of 1.0 to 5.0 has an atmosphere and spectrum that are similar to those of an old brown dwarf with a mass of 30-60 . As it evolves, the spectroscopic class of a giant planet can transition from that of a hot M dwarf, into an L dwarf (where the silicate clouds are [*in*]{} the atmosphere), then into a T dwarf, ending up in the territory, as yet unexplored, between the Jovian planets and the “stars." If its mass is low enough, an EGP can cool within gigayears to assume the aspect of our Jovian planets. Hence, by chemistry, clouds, and , the study of brown dwarfs and EGPs are inextricably linked.
Finally, the best theoretical fits to Saturn’s internal structure suggest that it contains a 5–20 Earth-mass core of heavy elements[@saumon]. This core of (perhaps) ice and rock may have been the nucleus around which Saturn formed and resembles the ice giants Neptune and Uranus. The latter may be aborted giant planets that were able to accrete but little hydrogen from the protosolar/protoplanetary nebula. The Neptune-mass extrasolar planet, 55 Cancri e, may be a stripped or aborted EGP. An alternative mode of giant planet formation is by direct collapse[@boss]. Under such a scenario, one would expect a closer correspondence between the heavy-element abundances of planet and parent star. Hence, the composition of its atmosphere and its heavy-element-dependent radius might be keys to an EGP’s formation. These are in principle measureable.
> [**Box: Brown Dwarfs**]{}
>
> Brown dwarfs are substellar-mass objects (SMOs) ( [0.07]{} solar masses $\equiv$$\sim$75 ) that are unable to ignite light hydrogen stably to become a star, but are otherwise formed like stars. The radiative surface losses of a star balance the thermonuclear power generated in its core. This requires sufficient mass. The surface losses of a less-massive brown dwarf are not fully compensated by thermonuclear burning and it cools inexoribly after formation over a Hubble time. Nevertheless, brown dwarfs constitute the low-mass, low-temperature extension of the stellar family and are an important subject in their own right[@bur.rmp; @Burrows97]. Masses in the range of $\sim$10 to $\sim$75 are frequently discussed, but overlap with the mass distribution of the EGP family is entirely possible.
Spectral Features of EGPs {#spectra}
=========================
In principle, as with stellar atmospheres, direct detection of the spectrum of an extrasolar giant planet can reveal its elemental composition, radius, gravity (G/$^2$), and . Furthermore, when a cloud dwells in its atmosphere, its associated absorption and scattering properties might be used to determine the cloud’s particle size and makeup. Moreover, short-term temporal variations of the planet’s flux and spectrum might indicate rotation and/or meteorology. Finally, irradiation introduces the star-planet-Earth angle as an important parameter, so the orbit’s orientation and instantaneous orbital phase must be factored in (§\[phase\]). Along with the dependences on , age, stellar type, and orbital distance, this variety of influences and parameters makes the study of EGP spectral signatures and light curves, and their inversion to obtain planetary properties, rather complicated.
Nevertheless, the molecular mix described in §\[chemistry\] determines the emergent and reflected spectrum. Though H$_2$ is abundant, it has no permanent electric dipole moment, and, hence, a very low photon absorption cross section in the optical and infrared. Similarly, helium is all but transparent. The result is that gaseous water vapor, with its strong absorption features from 0.94 to $\sim$7 , can define much of an EGP’s spectrum. Because water resides in both the Earth’s and an EGP’s atmosphere, the water bands that bracket and determine the Earth’s photometric windows at $\sim$1.0 ($Z$), $\sim$1.25 ($J$), $\sim$1.65 ($H$), $\sim$2.2 ($K$), $\sim$3.45 ($L^{\prime}$), and $\sim$4-5 ($M$), through which ground-based infrared astronomy is possible, are exactly the same windows in an EGP or brown dwarf atmosphere through which emergent flux can pour. Thus, and fortuitously for brown dwarf observations, the emission peaks for SMOs coincide with the classic Terrestrial atmospheric bandpasses.
In lieu of measurements, theory fills the vacuum. Figure 2, taken from Burrows, Sudarsky, & Hubeny[@bur.hub], depicts “phase-averaged"[@Sudarsky00] planet/star flux ratios ($f$) from 0.5 to 30 for a 1-/5-Gyr EGP in a circular orbit at various distances from a G2V star like the Sun. These models are the same as those depicted in Fig. 1. Similar plots for different assumed parameters can be generated. The water absorption troughs are manifest throughout. For the closer EGPs at higher atmospheric temperatures, carbon resides in CO and methane features are weak. For these close-in EGPs, the Na-D line at 0.589 and the corresponding resonance line of K I at 0.77 are important absorbers, suppressing flux in the visible bands. Otherwise, the optical flux is buoyed by Rayleigh scattering of stellar light. As $a$ increases, methane forms and the methane absorption features in the optical (most of the undulations seen in Fig. 2 for $a$ 0.5 AU shortward of 1 ), at $\sim$3.3 , and at $\sim$7.8 appear. Concomitantly, Na and K disappear from the atmosphere and the fluxes from $\sim$1.5 to $\sim$4 drop. For all models, the mid-infrared fluxes longward of $\sim$4 are due to self-emission, not reflection. As Fig. 2 makes clear, for larger orbital distances a bifurcation between a reflection component in the optical and an emission component in the mid-infrared appears. This separation into components is not so straightforward for the closer, more massive, or younger family members. For these EGPs, either the large residual heat coming from the core or the severe insolation prop up the fluxes from 1 to 4 . The more massive EGPs, or, for a given mass, the younger EGPs, have larger $J$, $H$, and $K$ band fluxes. As a result, these bands are diagnostic of mass and age. For EGPs with large orbital distances, the wavelength range from 1.5 to 4 between the reflection and emission components may be the least favorable search space, unless the SMO is massive or young.
When water or ammonia clouds form, scattering off them enhances the optical fluxes, while absorption by them suppresses fluxes at longer wavelengths in, for example, the 4–5 window. Because water and ammonia clouds form in the middle of this distance sequence, the reflection efficiency (or “albedo"; §\[phase\]) is not a monotonic function of $a$. These effects are incorporated into Fig. 2, but their precise magnitude depends upon unknown cloud particle size, composition, and patchiness. As a consequence, direct spectral measurements might constrain cloud properties.
Importantly, trace non-equilibrium molecular species, difficult to model, can be present in quantities sufficient to alter colors. Such a “chromophore," whose molecular nature is not yet known, absorbs in the blue and creates the reddish cast of both Jupiter and Saturn, lowering their albedos shortward of 0.55 by a factor of $\sim$1.5–2. (Chromophores were not modelled to produce Fig. 2.)
As Fig. 2 suggests, the planet/star contrast ratio is better in the mid- to far-infrared, particularly at wide separations. For such separations, the contrast ratio in the optical can sink to 10$^{-10}$. For the closest-in EGPs, such as HD209458b, OGLE-TR56b, 51 Peg b, and $\tau$ Boo b, the contrast ratio in the optical is between 10$^{-5}$ and 10$^{-6}$ and is more favorable. Such EGPs are not shown in Fig. 2; there are in fact about 20 known EGPs with orbital distances less than 0.08 AU. Due to the possible formation of iron clouds in their atmospheres, HD209458b and OGLE-TR56b may be brighter in the optical than 51 Peg b and may have higher reflection albedos. Figure 3 portrays a generic absolute flux spectrum at 10 parsecs of a close-in EGP (“Class V" in the nomenclature of Sudarsky et al.[@Sudarsky00]), not unlike HD209458b. Highlighted are the positions of some of the important spectral features. Since modern telescopes can easily detect fluxes at the milliJansky level, Fig. 3 demonstrates that the fluxes themselves are not small. The problem is seeing the planet from under the glare of the star (§\[telescopes\]). At 10 parsecs and an orbital separation of 0.05 AU, the maximum angular separation is a challenging $\sim$5 milliarcsecs.
Phase Functions for EGPs and Orbital Orientation {#phase}
================================================
The planetary albedo and the phases executed as planets traverse their orbits are central quantities in the theory of EGP light curves. In addition, as we discuss in this section, the wavelength-dependent albedos are strong functions of orbital distance as well. Furthermore, the changing orientation of the illuminated face of a planet from the Earth’s perspective translates into a light curve that can show significant flux and color variations. In Fig. 2, these variations were averaged out over the orbit, assumed circular. The longitude independence of Jupiter’s $T/P$ profile results in little day/night variation in the mid-infrared and, hence, little phase variation, but such a planet is too cold to be self-luminous enough in the optical for its reflected component not to dominate at these shorter wavelengths. Hence, Jupiter’s optical fluxes can vary from superior conjunction (full face) to first quarter (90$^{\circ}$ from superior conjunction, not seen from Earth) or last quarter (270$^{\circ}$ from superior conjunction, also not seen from Earth) by a factor of $\sim$3[@dyudina]. Note that the phase dependence of an EGP’s light curve in the mid-infrared will depend on the degree to which heat can be efficiently redistributed over its entire face. This will depend on 3-dimensional GCM effects that have not been worked out. For the close-in EGPs, due to expected day/night temperature differences[@GuillotShowman02; @ShowmanGuillot02], it is likely that there will be phase variations at all wavelengths. In particular, phase variations at thermal wavelengths are likely to shed light on the atmospheric dynamics and longitudinal temperature distribution of an EGP.
Since its orbit and orientation play such an important role in an EGP’s flux at the Earth and in its interpretation, we summarize the basic formulae and concepts. We restrict ourselves to the optical, for which the concept of an albedo has a clear meaning, but note that the approach we summarize has general applicability.
The planet/star flux ratio ($f$) is given by: $$f = p ({\rm R}_{\rm p}/R)^2 \Phi(\alpha),
\label{falpha}$$ where $R$ is the planet/star distance, $p$ is the geometric albedo, $\Phi(\alpha)$ is the phase function, and $\alpha$ is the star-EGP-Earth angle. $\Phi(\alpha)$ is normalized to be 1.0 at full face, thereby defining the geometric albedo, and is a decreasing function of $\alpha$. For so-called “Lambert" reflection in which an incident ray on a planetary patch emerges uniformly over the exit hemisphere, $p$ is 2/3 for purely scattering atmospheres and $\Phi(\alpha)$ is given by the formula: $$\Phi(\alpha) = \frac{\sin(\alpha) + (\pi - \alpha)\cos(\alpha)}{\pi}\, .
\label{lambert}$$ However, EGP atmospheres are absorbing and the anisotropy of the single scattering phase function for grains, droplets, or molecules results in non-Lambertian behavior. For instance, back-scattering off cloud particles can introduce an “opposition" effect for which the planet appears “anomalously" bright at small $\alpha$s. This spike might be a useful signature of cloud particle size. Moreover, the light scattered from EGPs is likely to be strongly polarized[@SWS]. The degree of polarization as a function of wavelength and phase angle $\alpha$ can also be used to determine cloud properties. However, polarization will be rather more difficult to measure.
Both $p$ and $\Phi(\alpha)$ are functions of wavelength, but the wavelength-dependence of $p$ is the most severe. In fact, for cloud-free atmospheres, due to strong absorption by molecular bands, $p$ can be as low as 0.03. Rayleigh scattering serves to support $p$, but mostly in the blue and UV, where, however, chromophores can decrease it. The presence of clouds increases $p$ significantly. For instance, at 0.48 , Jupiter’s geometric albedo is $\sim$0.46 and Saturn’s is 0.39[@kark99]. Note that for orbital distances less than 1.5 AU, we expect the atmospheres of most EGPs to be clear. The albedo would be correspondingly low. As a consequence, the theoretical albedo is very non-monotonic with distance, ranging in the visible from perhaps $\sim$0.3 at 0.05 AU, to $\sim$0.05 at 0.2 AU, to $\sim$0.4 at 4 AU, to $\sim$0.7 at 15 AU [@bur.hub; @Sudarsky00; @Sudarsky03]. In the visible ($\sim$0.55 ), the geometric albedo for a roaster is severely suppressed by Na-D at 0.589 . Due to a methane feature, the geometric albedo can vary from 0.05 at $\sim$0.6 to $\sim$0.4 at 0.625 . Hence, variations with wavelength and with orbital distance by factors of 2 to 10 are not unexpected. Those planning programs of direct detection should be aware of such possibilities.
$\Phi(\alpha)$ and $p$ must be calculated or measured, but the sole dependence of $\Phi(\alpha)$ on $\alpha$ belies the complications introduced by an orbit’s inclination angle ($i$), eccentricity ($e$), argument of periastron ($\omega$), and longitude of ascending node ($\Omega$). Along with the period ($P$) and an arbitrary zero of time, these are the so-called Keplerian elements of an orbit. Figure 4 diagrams and defines these orientational and orbital parameters. In the plane of the orbit, the angle between the planet and the periastron/periapse (distance of closest approach to the star) at the star is $\theta$. In the jargon of celestial mechanics, $\theta$ is the so-called “true anomaly." For an edge-on orbit ($i = 90^{\circ}$), and one for which the line of nodes is perpendicular to the line of sight ($\Omega = 90^{\circ}$) and parallel to the star-periapse line ($\omega = 0^{\circ}$), $\theta$ is complementary to $\alpha$ ($\alpha = 90^{\circ} - \theta$). As a result, $\theta = 0^{\circ}$ at $\alpha = 90^{\circ}$ (greatest elongation) and increases with time. Also, for such an edge-on orbit, $\alpha = 0^{\circ}$ at superior conjunction. In general, $$\cos(\alpha) = \sin(\theta + \omega)\sin(i)\sin(\Omega) - \cos(\Omega)\cos(\theta + \omega) \, .
\label{cosinef}$$ This is merely an application of the law of cosines.
For a circular orbit, $R$ is equal to the semi-major axis ($a$). However, a planet in an eccentric orbit can experience significant variation in $R$, and, therefore, stellar insolation (by a factor of $(\frac{1+e}{1-e})^2$). For example, if $e = 0.3$, the stellar flux varies by $\sim$3.5 along its orbit. For $e$ = 0.6, this variation is a factor of 16! Such eccentricities are by no means rare in the sample of known EGPs (cf. Table 1). Therefore, it is possible for the composition of an EGP atmosphere to change significantly during its orbit, for clouds to appear and disappear, and for there to be delays (“hysteresis") in the accommodation of a planet’s atmosphere to a varying “insolation" regime. Ignoring the latter, eqs. \[falpha\] and \[cosinef\] can be combined with $\Phi(\alpha)$ and the standard Keplerian formula connecting $\theta$ and time for an orbit with a given $P$ and $e$ to derive an EGP’s light curve as a function of wavelength, $i$, $e$, $\Omega$, $\omega$, and time. The upshot is that, depending upon orientation and eccentricity, the brightness of an EGP can vary in its orbit not at all (for a face-on EGP in a circular orbit) or quite dramatically (e.g., for highly eccentric orbits at high inclination angles). Since astrometric measurements of stellar wobble induced by EGPs can yield the entire orbit (including inclination), data from the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)[@UnwinShao00] (expected to achieve 1-microarcsecond narrow-angle accuracy) or Gaia[@perryman] could provide important supplementary data to aid in the interpretation of direct detections of EGPs.
As Saturn itself demonstrates, depending upon orbital orientation, planetary rings can greatly augment reflected light [@dyudina; @arnold]. Their possible presence is a wild card in the interpretation of direct EGP signatures. Also, since $\Phi({\alpha})$ is wavelength-dependent, the potentially large variation in reflected optical flux with epoch will be complemented by an interesting variation in color. The phase functions $\Phi({\alpha})$ are wavelength-dependent. For example, planets should execute trajectories in the color-color space $V-R$ vs. $B-V$, where $B$, $V$, and $R$ are the standard blue, visible, and red bands. These trajectories will be functions of cloud particle size, among other things, and will be useful atmospheric diagnostics. Similar behavior in the near- and mid-infrared colors, though more modest, may be seen.
Ground-based and Space-based Telescopes for Direct Detection {#telescopes}
============================================================
As Fig. 2 implies, the wide range of planet/star contrast ratios and spectral diagnostics suggests different technological solutions to direct detection. Furthermore, the relative merits of searching in the optical, near-infrared, or the mid-infrared have yet to be determined. Both ground-based (less expensive) and space-based (more capable) paths are being pursued and while a discussion that does justice to the many initiatives whose goal is the remote sensing of EGPs is far beyond the scope of this review, we summarize a few representative approaches.
EGPs, especially if they are young, massive, and close, are bright enough that current 8- to 10-meter class ground-based telescopes or near-term space telescopes (such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)[@mather] with a 6-meter aperture) might be sensitive enough to pick up their light. This is particularly true in the near- and mid-infrared (see Figs. 2 and 3). However, under the extreme glare of its parent star and at small angular separations of from $\sim$milliarcsecs to around an arcsecond (Table 1), traditional telescope optics spills far too much light in the vicinity of the planet. The major culprits on the ground are the turbulence of the atmosphere (“seeing" and scintillation), scattering off dust and the spider mount of the secondary, and imperfections in the mirror(s). Also at issue is the stability of the optical system. Even for perfect optics, the diffraction pattern due to the finite telescope aperture leaves a characteristic “Airy" pattern that for a “Jupiter" at 10 parsecs around a solar-type star would in the optical be hundreds of times brighter.
Hence, for large (8–10-meter) ground-based telescopes, (e.g., the two Kecks[@Akeson00; @AkesonSwain00], the four VLTs[@Paresce01; @beuzit], the two Geminis[@macintosh], Subaru[@tamura], the binocular LBT[@Hinz00; @Hinz01]) and mammoth proposed telescopes (e.g., the 100-meter OWL[@hawarden], the 20-meter GMT[@davison], the 30-meter GSMT[@strom]), special efforts will be required. These include adaptive optics (AO) to compensate for atmospheric fluctuations (and mirror imperfections) with many hundreds or thousands of fast (millisecond) actuators and very accurate wavefront sensing. The latter can, in principle, be achieved using artificial laser guide stars or stars in the field of view. (With AO, there is usually a bright star close enough to obviate the need for an artificial beacon.) Interferometry to null out the stellar light is also being pursued by the LBT, VLT, and Keck, and the depth of the null is crucial, as is the angular region over which a sufficient null can be achieved. Finally, apodizing masks and/or coronagraphic spots to occult the star and, by diffractive interference, redistribute the star’s light away from the planet are highly desirable (and may be necessary). Note that since Dome C in Antartica has some of the best seeing on the planet and the quietest atmosphere, placing a giant next-generation telescope there may have its advantages[@antar].
An EGP imaging system will be judged by the planet/star contrast ratio, $f$, it can achieve at a given wavelength and for a given angular separation from the star. Angles of 0.05 to 2.0 arcsecs are contemplated (Table 1), with the requisite contrasts at smaller angles deemed too difficult for first-generation imaging. Note that the actual requirements are a function of distance to the star. As Fig. 2 indicates for a 5-Gyr/1-EGP at 10 parsecs, $f$s better than $10^{-4}$ at 10 and better than $10^{-8}$ in the optical might be necessary. At the 4-5 bump, $f$s from $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-8}$ may be called for. Fortunately, these performance goals can be relaxed for more massive and younger EGPs at angular separations greater than $\sim$0.1$^{\prime\prime}$. For the roasters, almost independent of mass and age, $f$ reaches $10^{-3}$ in the mid-infrared and [$10^{-5}$]{} in the optical, but at the corresponding milliarcsecond separations even these contrast ratios may be too challenging for imaging. Figure 5 compares the theoretically required contrast ratios for the fiducial 5-Gyr/1-EGP at various wavelengths (taken from Fig. 2) as a function of angular separation from a solar-type star at 10 parsecs with the putative capabilities of a sample of proposed imaging systems, both on the ground and in space. Contrast ratios for a 0.5-Gyr/7-EGP in the $H$ band are also shown. Orbit and orientation effects have been ignored and large error bars should be assigned to both theory and projected capability. In addition, care should be taken to compare theoretical numbers with experimental hopes for the same wavebands. In the interests of brevity, we have included multiple wavebands on Fig. 5.
Telescopes are stages of components (primary mirror, secondary mirror, lens, apertures, apodizing masks, coronagraphs, etc.) that in series act on the incident source wavefront to focus light of a desired character on instruments. Daisy-chained together, each “optical" component convolves itself with an input wavefront to produce an output wavefront. In spatial frequency space, the operation of each stage along the optical path is to multiply the Fourier transform of the incident wavefront by a Fourier transform characteristic of that component’s optical properties and geometry. If you can introduce components in the optical path that filter or alter the frequency distribution of the wavefront in such a way that its inverse (the spatial distribution of the light in the last image plane) has little or no light in a 2-dimensional angular realm around the star where a planet might reside, then you have a planet-imaging system. Though a telescope’s classical angular resolution ($\sim$$\lambda/D$, where $D$ is the diameter of the telescope primary) improves with decreasing $\lambda$, the negative effects of the atmosphere actually diminish with increasing $\lambda$. As a result, many ground-based planet-finding initiatives (e.g., MMT(AO)[@Hinz01], LBT-I, VLT-I, VLT-PF, Keck-I, Gemini-XAOPI/ExAOC, OWL) are planning to optimize in the near- or mid-infrared. Figure 5 summarizes the performance goals of some of them.
In coronagraphic mode, the space-bourne JWST may achieve $f$s of $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-6}$ for wavelengths from $\sim$1.0 to $\sim$5.0 . HST/NICMOS has already achieved comparable $f$s in $H$ band at angular separations from 0.3$^{\prime\prime}$ to 1.0$^{\prime\prime}$[@glenn]. However, for single space telescopes without the atmosphere with which to contend, the optical is clearly preferred (small $\lambda/D$). Curiously, above the atmosphere mirror imperfections and thermal flexure are still problems and an AO system is necessary to cancel the wavefront errors introduced by the corrugations that remain on an otherwise almost perfect mirror surface after state-of-the-art machining and polishing. Two major space-based projects to image EGPs are being proposed. The first, $EPIC$[@shaoepic], is a nulling coronagraph which converts a single telescope pupil into a multi-beam nulling interferometer, producing a null which is then filtered by an array of single-mode fibers to suppress the residual scattered light. The design goal of $EPIC$ is for $f$s of $10^{-9}$ to 10$^{-10}$. The second, [*ECLIPSE*]{}[@Trauger00; @Trauger01], is an off-axis coronagraph with an exquisitely-figured 1.8-meter primary that is designed to achieve $f$s in the $V$ band better than $10^{-9}$ for angular separations from $\sim$0.1$^{\prime\prime}$ to $\sim$2.0$^{\prime\prime}$. Both [*ECLIPSE*]{} and $EPIC$ will be challenging, but if successful will directly detect within $\sim$7 years many EGPs in the solar neighborhood out to 10–15 parsecs.
However, the flagship of the NASA [*Origins*]{} program, the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF[@beichman]), whose goal is to image planetary systems and extrasolar Earths and to obtain low-resolution ($\lambda/\Delta\lambda$ = 10-20) spectra that may reveal in rudimentary fashion the O$_2$, H$_2$O, CH$_4$, O$_3$, or CO$_2$ signatures of life, will also be a formidable instrument for directly detecting and characterizing EGPs. As Fig. 5 indicates, for angular separations between $\sim$0.05$^{\prime\prime}$ and $\sim$2.0$^{\prime\prime}$, either the more-straightforward optical coronagraphic design (TPF-C) or the multi-telescope infrared (5–20 ) interferometer (TPF-I/Darwin) would detect EGPs much more readily than the extrasolar Earths that are its primary targets.
For the close-in EGPs, direct imaging seems out of the question for the forseeable future. However, this does not mean that the planetary flux can not be measured. From the ground, there are a variety of techniques to use the planet-plus-star light to distinguish the planetary component (particularly for known roasters). These include 1) using precision photometry to a part in $10^{5}$ (!) to measure the phase variations of the summed optical or near-infrared light, 2) measuring the motion of the light centroid, perhaps best done in the mid-infrared with an Antarctic 30-meter telescope, 3) spectral deconvolution of a known EGP/star system using its RV-measured velocities and ephemeris, and 4) multi-frequency differential interferometric imaging (pioneered for Keck, among others). Further transit studies of HD209458b (such as led to the discovery of the Na-D and Lyman-$\alpha$ features) are certainly warranted. The ground-based methods will be challenging, but less expensive than space-based efforts. However, there is currently in space a micro-satellite, MOST[@Matthews01], with a 15-centimeter aperture, that is designed to achieve photometric accuracy in the optical of a few$\times 10^{-6}$. It has on its current observing manifest programs to stare at 51 Peg b, $\tau$ Boo b, and HD209458b. There have as yet been no announcements.
The Future {#conclusions}
==========
With many programs of direct planet detection planned on a large subset of the LBT, VLT, Keck, Gemini, GMT, GSMT/CELT, and OWL on the ground and HST, [*Corot*]{}, [*Kepler*]{}, MOST, SIM, Gaia, TPF-C, TPF-I/Darwin, [*ECLIPSE*]{}, EPIC, and JWST in space, during the next twenty years there will be an increasing crescendo of new results on extrasolar planets that will completely transform our view of the nature of planetary systems.
EGPs, being brighter, are the natural technological and scientific stepping stones on the path to imaging extrasolar Earths. We will encounter them first. Both the NASA and ESA roadmaps[@origins] have given planet detection pride of place. Strategies are now being formulated to establish a logical sequence of missions and telescope construction that will optimize the pace of discovery. Moreover, theoretical work in support of mission planning is maturing to the point that it may be ready to interpret what we observe. However, a theorist’s prejudices aside, one can’t help but wonder: What is it we will actually find? What discoveries will be made? As the hunt for worlds beyond our solar system quickens, an ancient curiosity stirs to ask: What will [*our*]{} generation see from that fabled peak in Darien[@quote]?
[99]{}
Mayor, M. & Queloz, D. A Jupiter-Mass Companion to a Solar-Type Star. [*Nature*]{} [**378**]{}, 355 (1995).
Marcy, G.W. and R.P. Butler, R.P. A Planetary Companion to 70 Virginis. , L147-151 (1996).
see J. Schneider’s Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia at `http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html` for an up-to-date listing.
MacArthur, B. et al. Detection of a Neptune-mass planet in the $\rho^1$ Cancri system using the Hobby-Eberly Telescope. (55 Cancri e) submitted to (2004).
Konacki, M., Torres, G., Jha, S., and Sasselov, D. An extrasolar planet that transits the disk of its parent star. [*Nature*]{} [**421**]{}, 507-509 (2003).
Torres, G, Konacki, M., Sasselov, D., & Jha, S. New Data and Improved Parameters for the Extrasolar Transiting Planet OGLE-TR-56b. , 1071-1075 (2003).
Sasselov, D. The New Transiting Planet OGLE-TR-56b: Orbit and Atmosphere. , 1327-1331 (2003).
Henry, G., Marcy, G.W., Butler, R.P., & Vogt, S.S. A Transiting “51 Peg-like” Planet. , L41-44 (2000).
Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.M., Latham, D.W., & Mayor, M. Detection of Planetary Transits Across a Sun-like Star. , L45-48 (2000).
Brown, T. M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R.L., Noyes, R.W., and Burrows, A. Hubble Space Telescope Time-Series Photometry of the Transiting Planet of HD 209458. , 699-709 (2001).
Bouchy, F., Pont, F., Santos, F.C., Melo, C., Mayor, M., Queloz, D., & Udry, S. Two new “very hot Jupiters” among the OGLE transiting candidates. , L13-16 (2004). Alonso, R. et al. TrES-1: The transiting planet of a bright K0V star. in press (2004).
Pont, F., Bouchy, F., Queloz, D., Santos, N.C., Melo, C., Mayor, M., & Udry, S. The “missing link": A 4-day period transiting exoplanet around OGLE-TR-111. , in press (astro-ph/0408499) (2004).
Koch, D., Borucki, W., Webster, L., Dunham, E., Jenkins, J., Marrion, J., & Reitsema, H. Kepler: a space mission to detect earth-class exoplanets. [*SPIE Conference 3356: Space Telescopes and Instruments V*]{}, 599-607 (1998).
Antonello, E. & Ruiz, S.M. The Corot Mission. [*Memoria della Societa Astronomica Italiana*]{} [**73**]{}, 1241 (2002).
Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Hubbard, W.B. A Theory for the Radius of the Transiting Giant Planet HD 209458b. , 545-551 (2003).
Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., Hubbard, W.B., & Sudarsky, D. Theoretical Radii of Transiting Giant Planets: The Case of OGLE-TR-56b. , L53-56 (2004).
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., and Hauschildt, P.H. Evolutionary models for cool brown dwarfs and extrasolar giant planets. The case of HD 209458. å[**402**]{}, 701-712 (2003).
Charbonneau, D., Brown, T.M., Noyes, R.W., & Gilliland, R.L. Detection of an Extrasolar Planet Atmosphere. , 377-384 (2002).
Seager, S. & Sasselov, D.D. Theoretical Transmission Spectra during Extrasolar Giant Planet Transits. , 916-921 (2000).
Hubbard, W.B., Fortney, J.F., Lunine, J.I., Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Pinto, P.A. Theory of Extrasolar Giant Planet Transits. , 413-419 (2001).
Vidal-Madjar, A., des Etangs, A., Desert, J.-M., Ballester, G.E., Ferlet, R., Hebrard, G., & Mayor, M. An extended upper atmosphere around the extrasolar planet HD209458b. [*Nature*]{} [**422**]{}, 143-146 (2003).
Burrows, A. & Lunine, J.I. Extrasolar Planets - Astronomical Questions of Origin and Survival. [*Nature*]{} [**378**]{}, p. 333 (1995).
Mizuno, H. Formation of the Giant Planets. [*Progress of Theoretical Physics*]{} [**64**]{}, 544-557 (1980).
Boss, A.P. Gas Giant Protoplanet Formation: Disk Instability Models with Thermodynamics and Radiative Transfer. , 367-373 (2001).
Trilling, D., Benz, W., Guillot, T., W.B. Hubbard, W.B., J.I. Lunine, & Burrows, A. Orbital Migration of Giant Planets: Modeling Extrasolar Planets. , 428-439 (1998).
Fortney, J.J. & Hubbard, W.B. Effects of Helium Phase Separation on the Evolution of Extrasolar Giant Planets. , 1039-1049 (2004).
Burgasser, A. et al. The Spectra of T Dwarfs. I. Near-Infrared Data and Spectral Classification. , 421-451 (2002).
Burrows, A., Hubbard, W.B., Lunine, J.I., & Liebert, J. The theory of brown dwarfs and extrasolar giant planets. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{}, 719-765 (2001).
Burrows, A. & Sharp, C.M. Chemical Equilibrium Abundances in Brown Dwarf and Extrasolar Giant Planet Atmospheres. , 843-863 (1999).
Lodders, K. Alkali Element Chemistry in Cool Dwarf Atmospheres. , 793-801 (1999).
Lodders, K. & Fegley, B. Atmospheric Chemistry in Giant Planets, Brown Dwarfs, and Low-Mass Dwarf Stars. I. Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. [*Icarus*]{} [**155**]{}, 393-424 (2002).
Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., & Hubeny, I. Spectra and Diagnostics for the Direct Detection of Wide-Separation Extrasolar Giant Planets. , 407-416 (2004).
Menou, K., Cho, J. Y-K., Seager, S. & Hansen, B.M.S. “Weather” Variability of Close-in Extrasolar Giant Planets. , L113-116 (2003).
Cho, J. Y-K., Menou, K., Hansen, B.M.S., & Seager, S. The Changing Face of the Extrasolar Giant Planet HD 209458b. , L117-120 (2003).
Burkert, A., Lin, D.N.C., Bodenheimer, P., Jones, C., & Yorke, H. On the Surface Heating of Synchronously-Spinning Short-Period Jovian Planets. astro-ph/0312476 (2004).
Saumon, D. & Guillot, T. Shock Compression of Deuterium and the Interiors of Jupiter and Saturn. , 1170-1180 (2004).
Burrows, A., Marley, M., Hubbard, W.B., Lunine, J.I., Guillot, T., Saumon, D., Freedman, R., Sudarsky, D., & Sharp, C. A Nongray Theory of Extrasolar Giant Planets and Brown Dwarfs. , 856-875 (1997).
Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., & Pinto, P. Albedo and Reflection Spectra of Extrasolar Giant Planets. , 885-903 (2000).
Dyudina, U.A., Sackett, P.D., Bayliss, D.D.R., Seager, S., Porco, C., Throop, H.B., & Dones, L. Phase light curves for extrasolar Jupiters and Saturns. astro-ph/0406390 (2004).
Guillot, T. & Showman, A.P. Evolution of “51 Pegasus b-like” planets. , 156-165 (2002).
Showman, A.P. & Guillot, T. Atmospheric circulation and tides of “51 Pegasus b-like” planets. , 166-180 (2002).
Seager, S., Whitney, B.A, & Sasselov, D.D. Photometric Light Curves and Polarization of Close-in Extrasolar Giant Planets. , 504-520 (2000).
Karkoschka, E. Methane, Ammonia, and Temperature Measurements of the Jovian Planets and Titan from CCD-Spectrophotometry. [*Icarus*]{} [**133**]{}, 134-146 (1999).
Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., & Hubeny, I. Theoretical Spectra and Atmospheres of Extrasolar Giant Planets. , 1121-1148 (2003).
Unwin, S.C. & Shao, M. Space Interferometry Mission. in [*Interferometry in Optical Astronomy*]{} (eds. P. J. Lena & A. Quirrenbach) 754-761 (2000).
Perryman, M.A.C. GAIA Spectroscopy: Science and Technology. in ASP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 298 (ed. Ulisse Munari) p. 3 (ASP Conf. Series, 2003).
Arnold, I. & Schneider, J. The detectability of extrasolar planet surroundings I. Reflected-light photometry of unresolved rings. astro-ph/0403330 (2004).
Mather, J.C. and Stockman, H.S. [*Proc. SPIE*]{} [**4013**]{}, 2-16 (2000).
Akeson, R.L., Swain, M. R., & Colavita, M.M. Differential phase technique with the Keck Interferometer. in [*Interferometry in Optical Astronomy*]{} (ed. P. J. Lena) [*Proc. SPIE*]{} [**4006**]{}, 321-327 (2000).
Akeson, R.L. & Swain, M.R. Differential Phase Observations of Extrasolar Planets with the Keck Interferometer. in [*From Giant Planets to Cool Stars*]{}, (ed. C.A. Griffith & M.S. Marley) p. 300 (ASP Conference Series Vol. 212, 2000)
Paresce, F. Scientific Objectives of the VLTI Interferometer. [*The Messenger*]{} [**104**]{}, 5-7 (2001).
Beuzit, J.-L., et al. The Planet Finder project for the VLT. in [*SF2A-2004: Semaine de l’Astrophysique Francaise*]{} (eds. F. Combes, D. Barret, T. Contini, F. Meynadier & L. Paganii) p. 32 (EdP-Sciences, Conference Series, 2004).
Macintosh, B. et al. Extreme Adaptive Optics Planet Imager (XAOPI). in [*Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets.*]{} (ed. Coulter, D. R.) pp. 272-282 (Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 5170, 2003).
Tamura, Itoh, I., & Oasa, Y. Searches for Extrasolar Planets with the Subaru Telescope: Companions and Free-Floaters. in [*Proceedings of the IAU 8th Asian-Pacific Regional Meeting: Volume I*]{}, (ed. Satoru Ikeuchi, John Hearnshaw and Tomoyuki Hanawa) pp. 73-76 (San Francisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 289, 2003).
Hinz, P.M., Angel, J.R.P., Woolf, N.J., Hoffman, W.F., & McCarthy, D.W. BLINC: a testbed for nulling interferometry in the thermal infrared. in [*Interferometry in Optical Astronomy*]{} (ed. P.J. Lena) [*Proc. SPIE*]{} [**4006**]{}, 349 (2000).
Hinz, P.M. Nulling interferometry for studying other planetary systems: Techniques and observations. PhD Thesis, The University of Arizona (2001).
Hawarden, T.G., Gilmozzi, R., & Hainaut, O. Using a 100-meter ELT (e.g., “OWL") for Extrasolar Planet and Extrasolar Life Detection. in [*Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets*]{} ASP Conference Series, Vol. 294 (ed. Drake Deming and Sara Seager) pp. 581-586 (San Francisco: ASP, 2003).
Davison, W.B., Woolf, N.J., & Angel, J.R.P. Design and Analysis of 20-m track mounted and 30-m telescopes. in [*Future Giant Telescopes*]{} (eds. Angel, J.R.P. & Gilmozzi, R.) Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 4840, pp. 533-540 (2003).
Strom, S. Toward a Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope: A Progress Report from AURA’s New Initiatives Office. American Astronomical Society Meeting 203, \# 24.04 (2003).
Aristidi, E., Agabi, A., Vernin, J., Azouit, M., Martin, F., Ziad, A., & Fossat, E. Antarctic site testing: First daytime seeing monitoring at Dome C. , L19-L22 (2003).
Schneider, G. et al. Domains of observability in the near-infrared with HST/NICMOS and adaptive-optics augmented large ground-based telescopes. unpublished manuscript at `http://nicmosis.as.arizona.edu:8000/REPORTS/NICMOS_AO_WHITEPAPER.html` (2002).
Shao, M., Levine, B.M., Wallace, J.K., Serabyn, E., & Liu, D.T. The Visible Nulling Coronagraph–Progress Towards Mission and Technology Development. [*BAAS*]{} [**203**]{}, \#03.04 (2003).
Trauger, J. Eclipse, A Direct Imaging Investigation of Nearby Planetary Systems. [*BAAS*]{} [**197**]{}, \# 49.07, p. 1486 (2000).
Trauger, J., Hull, A.B., & Redding, D.A. Eclipse Test Bed for Very High Contrast Space Astronomy. [*BAAS*]{} [**199**]{}, \# 86.04 p. 1431 (2001).
Beichman, C.A., Coulter, D.R., Lindensmith, C., & Lawson, P.R. Selected Mission Architectures For The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF): Large, Medium, and Small. in [*Future Research Direction and Visions for Astronomy.*]{} (ed. Dressler, Alan M.), Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 4835, pp. 115-121 (2002).
Matthews, J.M., Kuschnig, R., & Shkolnik, E. Ultraprecise photometry from space: exploring pulsations with the “Humble Space Telescope." in [*Proceedings of the SOHO 10/GONG 2000 Workshop: Helio- and asteroseismology at the dawn of the millennium*]{} (ed. A. Wilson) ESA SP-464, Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 385-390 (2001).
Roadmap for the Office of Science [*Origins*]{} theme. NASA/JPL-400-1060 (2003); NASA 2003 Strategic Plan. Document \# NP-2003-01-298-HQ (2003).
Keats, J. On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer. (1816).
Racine, R., Walker, G.A.H., Nadeau, D., Doyon, R. & Marois, C. Speckle Noise and the Detection of Faint Companions. , 587-594 (1999).
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Adam Burrows ([email protected]).
The author acknowledges David Sudarsky, Ivan Hubeny, Bill Hubbard, Jonathan Lunine, Jim Liebert, Jason Young, John Trauger, Jonathan Fortney, Aigen Li, Christopher Sharp, and Drew Milsom for fruitful conversations or technical aid and help during the course of this work, as well as NASA and the NASA Astrobiology Institute for their financial support.
[cccccccc]{} [EGP]{} & $a(1+e)/d$ ($^{\prime\prime})$$^a$ & [star]{} & [a (AU)]{} & [d (pc)]{} & [P]{} & [M$_p$sin($i$) ()]{} & [$e$]{}\
$\epsilon$ Eri b & 1.61 & K2V & 3.3 & 3.2 & 6.85 yrs. & 0.86 & 0.61\
55 Cnc d & 0.51 & G8V & 5.9 & 13.4 & 14.7 & 4.05 & 0.16\
47 UMa c & 0.31 & G0V& 3.73& 13.3 & 7.10 & 0.76 & 0.1\
HD 160691c & 0.27 & G3IV-V&2.3&15.3& 3.56&$\sim$1&$\sim$0.8\
$\upsilon$ And d & 0.27& F8V& 2.50& 13.5 & 3.47 & 4.61 & 0.41\
HD 39091b & 0.26& G1IV& 3.34& 20.6 & 5.70 & 10.3 & 0.62\
Gl 777A b & 0.23& G6V& 3.65& 15.9 & 7.15 & 1.15 & $\sim$0\
14 Her b & 0.20 & K0V& 2.5 & 17 & 4.51 & 3.3 & 0.33\
47 UMa b & 0.17 & G0V& 2.09& 13.3 & 2.98 & 2.54 & 0.06\
HD 33636b & 0.17 & G0V& 3.56 & 28.7 & 4.43 & 7.71 & 0.41\
HD 10647b & 0.16 & F9V& 2.10 & 17.3 & 2.89 & 1.17 & 0.32\
$\gamma$ Cephei b & 0.15 & K2V& 1.8& 11.8 & 2.5 & 1.25 & $\sim$0\
HD 147513b & 0.15 & G3V& 1.26& 12.9 & 1.48 & 1.0 & 0.52\
HD 216437b & 0.134 & G4V & 2.7 & 26.5 & 3.54 & 2.1 & 0.34\
HD 160691b & 0.127& G3IV-V&1.48&15.3 & 1.74 & 1.7 & 0.31\
HD 70642b & 0.121& G5IV-V&3.3& 29 & 4.79 & 2.0 & 0.10\
HD 50554b & 0.109 & F8V& 2.38& 31.03& 3.50 & 4.9 & 0.42\
HD 106252b & 0.108 & G0V& 2.61& 37.44& 4.11 & 6.81 & 0.54\
HD 168443c & 0.107 & G5V& 2.87& 33 & 4.76 & 17.1 & 0.23\
HD 10697b & 0.075& G5IV& 2.0 & 30 & 2.99 & 6.59 & 0.12\
\
$\upsilon$ And c & 0.072 & F8V & 0.83 & 13.5 & 241 days & 2.11 & 0.18\
GJ 876b &0.049 & M4V & 0.21 & 4.72 & 61.0 & 1.89 & 0.1\
GJ 876c &0.036 & M4V & 0.13 & 4.72 & 30.1 & 0.56 & 0.27\
HD 114762b &0.017& F9V&0.35 & 28 & 84.0 & 11.0 & 0.34\
55 Cnc b &$8.4\times 10^{-3}$&G8V& 0.12 & 13.4 & 14.7 & 0.84 & 0.02\
$\upsilon$ And b &$4.5\times 10^{-3}$&F8V& 0.059 & 13.5 & 4.62 & 0.71 & 0.034\
51 Peg b &$3.4\times 10^{-3}$&G2V& 0.05 & 14.7 & 4.23 & 0.44 & 0.01\
$\tau$ Boo b &$3.3\times 10^{-3}$&F7V& 0.05 & 15 & 3.31 & 4.09 & $\sim$0\
HD 49674b &$1.6\times 10^{-3}$& G5V&0.057& 40.7 & 4.95 & 0.12 & 0.17\
HD 209458b &$9.6\times 10^{-4}$&G0V& 0.045& 47 & 3.52 & 0.69 & $\sim$0\
HD 83443b &$9.4\times 10^{-4}$& K0V&0.038& 43.5 & 2.99 & 0.35 & 0.08\
OGLE-TR56b &$1.5\times 10^{-5}$& G0V&0.023& $\sim$1500 & 1.21 & 1.45 & $\sim$0\
$^a$ Maximum possible angular separation (at apoapse/apastron).
[Figure 1. Profiles of atmospheric temperature (in Kelvin) versus the logarithm base ten of the pressure (in bars) for a family of irradiated 1-EGPs around a G2V star as a function of orbital distance. Note that the pressure is decreasing along the ordinate, which thereby resembles altitude. The orbits are assumed to be circular, the planets are assumed to have a radius of 1 , and the orbital separations vary from 0.2 AU to 15 AU. The intercepts with the dashed lines identified with either {NH$_3$} or {H$_2$O} denote the positions where the corresponding clouds form. Taken from Burrows, Sudarsky, and Hubeny[@bur.hub]. See text for a discussion.]{}
[Figure 2. Planet to star flux ratios versus wavelength (in microns) from 0.5 to 30 for a 1-EGP with an age of 5 Gyr orbiting a G2V main sequence star similar to the Sun. This figure portrays ratio spectra as a function of orbital distance from 0.2 AU to 15 AU. Zero eccentricity has been assumed and the planet spectra have been phase-averaged as described in Sudarsky, Burrows, and Hubeny[@Sudarsky03]. The associated $T/P$ profiles are given in Fig. 1. Note that the planet/star flux ratio is most favorable in the mid-infrared. Water features at 0.94 , 1.2 , 1.4 , 1.9 , 2.6 , and 6.5–8 , methane features in the optical and at 0.89 , 2.2 , 3.3 , and 7.8 , carbon monoxide features at 2.3 and 4.67 , the Na-D doublet at 0.589 , and the K I doublet at 0.77 help shape these spectra. Taken from Burrows, Sudarsky, and Hubeny[@bur.hub]. See text for discussion.]{}
[Figure 3. The logarithm of the absolute flux in milliJanskays ($\equiv 10^{-26}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$) at 10 parsecs for a “Class V" roaster versus wavelength (in microns) from 0.4 to 5 . This could be a 1-EGP in a 0.05 AU orbit around a solar-type star. The planet spectrum has been phase-averaged as described in Sudarsky et al.[@Sudarsky00; @Sudarsky03]. Shown are the positions of various relevant molecular bands and atomic lines. Figure taken from Sudarsky, Burrows, & Hubeny[@Sudarsky03]. See text for discussion.]{}
[Figure 4. Keplerian orbital elements. The intersection of the orbit plane with the observational plane defines the angles $i$, $\omega$, $\Omega$, and $\theta$. The angle between the observer (Earth) and the line of nodes (intersection of the orbit plane with the horizontal plane) is the longitude of the ascending node ($\Omega$), the angle between the line of nodes and the focus(star, in yellow)–periapse(black dot) is the argument of periastron ($\omega$), the angle between the orbit plane and the Z-axis (perpendicular to the horizontal plane) is the inclination ($i$), and the angle between the focus–periapse line and the position of the planet (red dot) is the true anomaly ($\theta$). See text for details.]{}
[Figure 5. A comparison of the planet/star contrast ratios (and contrast magnitudes $= -2.5\log(f)$) versus angular separation (in arcseconds) achievable for some proposed planet imaging systems. A distance of 10 parsecs is assumed. Integration times and signals-to-noise assumed vary and are taken from preliminary studies by the associated instrument teams. At $H$ band (red), the imaging telescopes represented include the Canada/France/Hawaii Telescope (CFHT)[@racine], HST/NICMOS, and the Gemini/XAOPI. Not shown on this plot is the MMT (AO) system, which should achieve at a wavelength of 5 $f$s from 10$^{-4}$ to a few $\times 10^{-6}$ for angular separations of 0.3$^{\prime\prime}$ to 1.0$^{\prime\prime}$, respectively. The LBT, also not shown, should achieve at a wavelength of 10 approximately 10$\times$ better performance than this. At 5 , a notional curve for a 20- or 30-meter telescope in Antarctica and the JWST (in fact at 4.6 ) are provided. At 10 , a notional curve for a 100-meter in Antarctica is given. Also included on this plot is the interferometric version of TPF (TPF-I/Darwin), which might have a sensitivity of one part in $10^7$ from 5 to 20 . All the mid-infrared curves are in blue. In the optical (green, $V$), putative sensitivities for $EPIC$, [*ECLIPSE*]{}, and TPF-C are plotted. Superposed are corresponding “phase-averaged" theoretical curves (dashed) for a 5-Gyr/1-EGP around a G2V star in the $H$ band ($\sim$1.65 ), in the 4–5 band, and at 10 (see Fig. 2). Also included are a theoretical curve in the $H$ band (dashed red) for a 0.5-Gyr/7-EGP around a G2V star and a green swathe where the known EGPs may reside in the optical ($V$ band). Note that the theoretical curves for more massive and younger EGPs than represented on this plot can be [*considerably*]{} higher. Orientation effects have been ignored. Each curve is for a given wavelength or bandpass and the imager and theory must be compared at the same wavelength. Very generous error bars should be assumed. The photometric sensitivity curves for MOST and [*Kepler*]{} are also superposed. See text for details.]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Arun V. Sathanur'
- Mahantesh Halappanavar
- Yi Shi
- Yalin Sagduyu
title: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Nodal Activation on the Spread of Influence in Complex Networks
---
Introduction and Related Work {#sec:intro}
=============================
The advent and rapid adoption of social media platforms allows people to self-organize into complex social networks with rich dynamics. Users can disseminate their views, opinions, and other content while simultaneously consuming and reacting to the content created by the friends, people, and organizations they follow. The success of such platforms depends on the myriad of content creators, the quality of their content, and the activities their audiences generate because of the various types of engagement possible with the posted content. These actions can be attributed to influence. The dynamics of influence and resulting diffusion of information in complex networks has been the subject of intense scrutiny for researchers and practitioners in many fields with particular attention to the identification of central or influential nodes on the network. One rigorous approach to finding influential users with motivations originating in viral marketing is the approach based on [*influence maximization*]{}.
We can define the influence maximization problem as follows : Consider a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ that abstracts a complex network, where $V$ is the set of nodes $V = \{v_1,v_2,v_3\dots\}$ and $E$ is the set of directed edges $\{\left(v_u,v_w\right) | v_u$, $v_w \in V \}$. The directed edge $\left(v_u,v_w\right)$ implies that $v_u$ can influence $v_w$ and not the other way round. However, it is possible that both $\left(v_u,v_w\right)$ and $\left(v_w,v_u\right)$ are valid edges. We denote by $|V|$ the total number of nodes and by $|E|$ the total number of edges in the graph $G$. Further, the nodes are labeled as either *Passive* or *Active*, denoting the state of the vertex. A necessary but not sufficient condition for an active vertex $v_u$ to activate a passive vertex $v_w$ is that $\left(v_u,v_w\right) \in E$. Other conditions come from the nature of the diffusion model. Given that it is possible to initially activate $k$ nodes, the influence maximization problem aims to find the particular set of $k$ *seed nodes*, called the *seed set* $S$. When the nodes in the set $S$ are activated, the spread of influence results in maximal activations on the network among all possible such sets of $k$ nodes. Note that in the subsequent discussions, we use the terms *reachability*, *number of activations on the network*, and *influence spread* synonymously to denote the total number of active nodes on the network after running the diffusion models, starting from the initial set of active nodes, until no more activations are possible.
Starting with the landmark paper by Kempe, Kleinberg, and Tardos [@Kempe:2003], several works have explored newer diffusion models and variations to the ones studied in the work by Kempe et al., namely, the independent cascade (IC) model and the linear threshold (LT) model. These models explicitly address the various sociological aspects of influence. Li [*et al.*]{} in [@li2013influence] consider influence dynamics and influence maximization under a general voter model with positive and negative edges. In a follow-up work, Kempe et al. [@kempe2005influential] discuss a diverse set of models including the so called decreasing cascade model where attempts by multiple neighbors to activate a node results in decreasing probability of activation, as the size of the set of neighbors trying to activate the node increases. The authors in ref. [@srivastava2014influence] propose a general diffusion model that takes into account different granularities of influence, namely pair-wise, local neighborhood etc. The authors in [@chen2011influence], consider influence maximization under the scenario where negative opinions may emerge and propagate. In [@gionis2013opinion], the authors consider the problem of identifying the individuals whose strong positive opinion about a product will maximize the overall positive opinion about the product. In the process, the authors leverage the social influence model proposed by Friedkin and Johnson [@friedkin1999social]. For a comprehensive survey on the various models of influence, we refer the reader to the paper by Zhang et al. [@zhang2014recent].
Next, we consider the models that address two different types of activation : intrinsic and influenced. The interplay of these two mechanisms are exemplified by three different scenarios outlines below.
- Users posting content on social media due to their own initiative constitutes intrinsic activation. Actions such as sharing , re-tweeting , commenting constitute influenced activation.
- Posting behavior that is external to a given network can be considered to be intrinsic activation. This would include watching a video on a website from a shared email link and then sharing it on Twitter. From the perspective of just the Twitter network, it appears that such users are intrinsically activated.
- In a traditional social network, such as a physical community, that is not an OSN (online social network), intrinsically activated users would be those who take the initiative to start an activity, for example a campaign for social good. The same can then spread through word of mouth, flyers etc.
Myers, Zhu, and Leskovec investigate the diffusion of information, with origins external to that of a social network, through the internal social influence mechanism [@myers2012information]. In a recent work [@farajtabar2014shaping], the authors recognize that the events on social media can be categorized as exogenous and endogenous and model the overall diffusion through a multivariate Hawke’s process to address activity shaping in social networks. In another recent work, the authors in [@Quach2016] propose a novel diffusion model based on factor graphs and graphical models where the node potentials can correspond to the notion of intrinsic activation in our case. However, the focus of their work in on the diffusion model itself, not on the aspects of intrinsic activation. While being similar in spirit to these works, our work is geared toward modeling the spread of influence and mining influential nodes in scenarios with intrinsic and influenced activation - aspects that have not been studied in existing literature.
We make the following contributions in this work.
1. Our approach results in a probabilistic model for two different types of nodal activations, namely intrinsic and influenced mechanisms found in real-world networked systems, such as OSNs.
2. We examine these mechanisms in the context of influencer mining from *two different perspectives*: the well-known combinatorial influence maximization perspective and a generalized centrality perspective.
3. We define a modified influence spread function, sketch a proof of its sub-modularity, and provide a modified version of the influence maximization algorithm to maximize the new influence spread function
4. We examine the nature of content creators and consumers on a social network in light of the two activation mechanisms.
5. Carefully chosen experiments on synthetic and real-world graphs are used to illustrate various aspects of the model and compare it to the independent cascade model.
6. We derive a new centrality metric from the activation model and show that this metric can accurately identify influential users in a computationally efficient manner.
The initial aspects of this work was published in [@Sathanur2016]. The present version is a significant extension of the above work where we have extensively examined the content creation and content spreading mechanisms, formally sketched a proof of the submodularity of the modified influence function, added an extensive set of experiments on a real-world Twitter graph and improved the overall narrative by means of several smaller additions.
Modified Influence Maximization Approach {#sec:modification}
========================================
Formulation {#sec:formulation}
-----------
Considering that nodal activation can originate from two different mechanisms, *Intrinsic* and *Influenced*, allows us to effectively model the so-called *self-evolving* systems (eg. OSNs) that are comprised of content creators (higher probability of getting activated intrinsically) and content spreaders (activated via influence and spreading the information). Recognizing that most of the users are in some sense both activity creators and content spreaders (typically also the content consumers) at the same time, we introduce a real-valued parameter $\alpha \in [0,1]$ that models the probability of self activation. The total probability for activation of a given node (user) $i$ is composed of the probability of activation from the two different mechanisms. The parameter $\alpha(i)$ denotes the probability of intrinsic activation, and $\beta(i)$ denotes the probability through influence with $\alpha(i) \ge 0$ and $\beta(i) \ge 0$. The influenced part of the probability for activation is comprised of the activation probabilities due the 1-hop neighbors of the user under consideration.
Note that there are many interaction models that are studied under influence maximization as pointed out in Section \[sec:intro\]. Our model with intrinsic activation is based on one of the most widely-studied models namely, the independent cascade model and this will be the focus of the current work. Specifically, in this work, we do not consider developing the variants of other models incorporating intrinsic activation. Similar to the IC model, the weights $w_{ij}$ ($0 \le w_{ij} \le 1$) when multiplied by $\beta(i)$ denote the probability of user $j$ activating user $i$, given that user $j$ is activated by either of the above means. Figure \[fig:intro\] describes these mechanisms and the associated coefficients. The described probabilistic formulation has similarities to the Friedkin-Johnson social influence model for opinion change [@friedkin1999social] where the authors recognize that the dynamics of opinion change are governed by two mechanisms - the intrinsic opinion and the influenced opinion.
![A concise representation of the self and influenced mechanisms of activation of a node $i$.[]{data-label="fig:intro"}](figs/intro.png){width="10cm"}
We also adopt the weighted-cascade version of the IC model by normalizing the edge probabilities [@Kempe:2003], so that the expected number of nodes influencing a given node is 1. Henceforth, in this work, when we refer to the IC model, we imply the weighted cascade version of the IC model. However this is not a limitation of the model since our model can also be used in the pure IC model setting. Thus, if $\boldsymbol{W}$ denotes the sparse weight matrix that characterizes the IC edge probabilities, we require that $\boldsymbol{W}$ be row stochastic. That is, $\sum_{j,(j,i) \in E} w_{ij} = 1 $. Further by assuming that the nodes are not *lazy* and are activated by either of the two mechanisms that we outline, we set $\beta(i) = \left(1-\alpha(i)\right)$. This will render the overall IC probability between nodes $j$ and $i$ to be $(1-\alpha(i))w_{ij}$. While the changed probabilities denote a departure from the weighted-cascade model, when the effect of intrinsic activation is added back, the expected number of nodes activating a given node is still 1.
Note that all the model parameters discussed can be efficiently determined either by a maximum-likelihood-based approach (as in this work) or by alternative methods such as the expectation-maximization (EM) approach followed in reference [@saito2008prediction]. For example, the proportion of tweets by a user $i$ that are intrinsic in nature can quantify $\alpha(i)$, while a particular weight $w_{ij}$ can be determined by the proportion of user $i$’s retweets (or influenced activity) having their origin in the activity of user $j$ that user $i$ follows. While these *local influence models* can be determined in alternate ways, our goal is to find the overall influencers once these model parameters are estimated.
Our formulation addresses the problem of identifying influential nodes on a network without explicit seeding. The original influence maximization approach with roots in viral marketing explicitly activates the seed nodes while in our formulation, the system is self-evolving in that nodes get activated intrinsically with a probability (content creation) and subsequently these activations spread (content consumption and spreading) on the network. This is the focus of the next section which describes the modifications to the original influence maximization algorithm necessary to identify the influencers under intrinsic activation.
Algorithm for mining influential nodes under intrinsic activation {#sec:algo}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We propose a simple modification to the classic influence maximization framework using the greedy hill-climbing optimizer [@Kempe:2003], working with the IC model, to incorporate the self-activation mechanism. Let us assume that we are seeking $k$ influential nodes out of a total of $N$ nodes on the network. Let $S^p$ be the set of influential nodes at step $p \le k$. The greedy hill-climbing optimizer expands the set to size $(p+1)$ by polling each of the nodes not in $S^p$ and augmenting those nodes, one at a time to form the set $S^p \cup \{v\}$ and looking for the best marginal gain in terms of the activations. At each such step $p$, instead of setting each of the nodes in $S^p \cup \{v\}$ to be activated and then computing the activations according to the IC model, we probabilistically activate each node in $S^p \cup \{v\}$ with a probability given by the corresponding $\alpha$ values to simulate the intrinsic activation process. This modification is depicted in line 9 of Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\]. Given the probabilistic nature of the algorithms, the overall activation numbers are obtained by running the diffusion model in a Monte Carlo fashion by invoking $n$ independent trials involving randomized graphs with corresponding edge weights.
Generate $n$ random numbers $r\sp{1}\sb{uv}$ ...$r\sp{n}\sb{uv}$ for each edge in $E$ and generate a set $SG$ containing $n$ subgraphs such that in subgraph $i$, $w\sb{ij}\geq r\sp{i}\sb{uv}$ $S \gets \emptyset$ $v\sb{best} \gets \emptyset$, $a\sb{best} \gets 0$ $a \gets 0$ $\hat{S} \gets $ active nodes in $S \cup \{v\}$ based on $\alpha$ Compute number of nodes, $\hat{a}$, in $V\setminus \hat{S}$ that are reachable from the $\hat{S} $ $a \gets a + \hat{a}$ $v\sb{best} \gets v$ $a\sb{best} \gets a$ $S \gets S \cup \{v\sb{best}\}$ **return** $S$
Note that this algorithm results in the computation of a modified influence spread objective function $\sigma(S)$ (same as $a_{best}$ in the algorithm), which gives us the total number of activations on the network attributable to the multi-hop influence of nodes in the set $S$ when the corresponding nodes are activated intrinsically, in accordance with their $\alpha$ values. Thus, during this process, at the step denoted by line 10, the nodes in the set $\left(V \setminus {S^p \cup \{v\}}\right)$ are not activated intrinsically, instead they are activated via influence. These aspects are discussed further in Sections \[sec:local\_influ\] and \[sec:submodularity\].
The running time of Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\] depends on the $\alpha$ values since they affect whether a particular node is active in the given sample or not (line 9 of the algorithm). If the node is not active, then reachability will not be computed from that node. The worst-case complexity of the algorithm is the same as that for the independent cascade model and can be derived to be $O(nk^2|V||E|)$ where $n$ is the number of Monte Carlo samples, $k$ is the number of influential nodes sought, $\left|V\right|$ is the number of nodes (vertices) in the graph and $\left|E\right|$ is the number of edges in the graph. The approach to solve the problem as detailed in Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\], is based on the classic greedy algorithm to maximize monotone sub-modular functions. There are two ways to make the algorithm scalable. One is to accelerate the outer greedy optimization loop and the second method is to improve the scalability of the reachability computation. There is prior work on both the areas. For example, the work presented in [@leskovec2007cost] uses lazy evaluations to speed up the greedy algorithm while reference [@mirzasoleiman2015lazier] uses a stochastic version of the greedy algorithm to improve the scalability. References [@Cohen2014] and [@Borgs2014] on the other hand use techniques to speed up the reachability evaluations on the sampled sub-graphs. Because our objective function is also monotone sub-modular (more on this in Section \[sec:submodularity\]) and uses reachability computations, it can benefit from these algorithms to scale to networks with millions of nodes.
Content creators and engagement in online social networks {#sec:local_influ}
---------------------------------------------------------
With the help of the described activation model, we examine aspects of content creation, consumption, and content spreading in OSNs, and how these are tied to the success of the platform as a whole. Figure \[fig:local\_outneighborhood\] shows the out-links around a source node ($s$) and the various receiver (follower) nodes ($r_1...r_k$) with the $\alpha$ and $w$ values.
![The out-links from a source node ($s$) to the receiver nodes ($r_1...r_k$), and the associated node and edge attributes.[]{data-label="fig:local_outneighborhood"}](figs/out-neighborhood.png){width="10cm"}
Using the described activation model, it is evident that by restricting ourselves to one hop, we can write the modified influence function $\sigma(s)$ that denotes the expected number of nodes activated by node $s$ as follows:
$$\sigma(s) = \alpha_{s}\sum_{k=1}^{d_s^{o}}\left(1-\alpha_{r_k}\right)w_{r_{k}s}
\label{eqn:influSpreadSmall1}$$
Here, ${d_s^{o}}$ denotes the out-degree of the node $s$. We are only modeling the activation through influence when the source node $s$ gets activated intrinsically. We do not add the term $\sum_{k=1}^{d_s^{o}}\alpha_{r_k}$ that denotes the intrinsic activation of the nodes ($r_1...r_k$). This is because, activation via influence creates engagement on the social network platform (for example sharing, commenting, liking). Thus $\sigma(s)$ can be viewed as a surrogate for engagement. The set of influential nodes (users) that we wish to compute by following Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\] denotes the set of influential content creators that are able to maximize this engagement (by which we mean the influence spread under intrinsic activation of the creator nodes), and are quite valuable to the platforms.
The scenario in which all nodes have large values of $\alpha$, will result in nodes creating high volume of content on their own, and there is not much spreading of the content through different forms of engagement. Alternatively, all nodes having rather small values of $\alpha$ means that while the nodes are eager to spread the content, there is not much content created in the first place, again reducing the engagement. Therefore, we hypothesize there is an optimal assignment of the $\alpha$ values for a given assignment of the interaction probabilities and the network topology that can maximize the spread of influence under intrinsic activation. While we provide evidence of this with experiments on a real-world Twitter dataset in Section \[sec:twitter\_graph\], solving an actual optimization problem is beyond the scope of this work.
Equation \[eqn:influSpreadSmall1\] provides a quick preview of the distribution of the $\alpha$ values that can lead to maximizing this engagement. The objective function $\sigma(s)$ favors a source node with large $\alpha_s$ and high out-degree, connected to receivers with low $\alpha_{r_k}$ values who easily engage with the intrinsic activity of the source node (higher value of the IC probability along these edges and lower value of the receiver $\alpha$). In practice when users can have arbitrary $\alpha$ values, Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\] is able to seamlessly identify such influential content creators by simulating the two mechanisms of activation. The same will not be possible with the independent cascade model because every node that is selected to be a part of the seed set is necessarily activated thereby over-estimating a given node’s influence.
Optimality of the influence maximization algorithm with intrinsic activation {#sec:submodularity}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the classic influence maximization problem with the IC model, the greedy hill-climbing optimizer is shown to be optimal in the sense that it provides ($1-\frac{1}{e}-\epsilon$) approximation guarantee on the expected influence spread function. This is because the expected influence spread $\sigma(S)$ is a monotone submodular function [@krause2012submodular; @Kempe:2003]. The greedy algorithm expands the seed set $S$ by the addition of nodes with highest marginal gain in terms of the number of activations. For the case of intrinsic nodal activation, we have nodes activated intrinsically, as well as through influence. Thus, it appears that an influence function defined by the total number of activations on the network is not submodular. However, given that we are only interested in the total number of activations caused by the spread of intrinsic activations ($a_{best}$ in Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\]), the submodularity property can be shown to remain valid.
For each node on the network $i \in V$, we can introduce an edge pointing from a newly created dummy node $i_D$ to the actual node $i$ with an activation probability equal to $\alpha_i$. This process is illustrated in Figure \[fig:local\_outneighborhood\]. Let $V_D$ denote the set of dummy nodes. Note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the nodes in $V_D$ and $V$. Also, because every node $i_D$ in $V_D$ has a single outgoing edge to the corresponding node $i$ in $V$, $i_D$ cannot be activated by $i$. On the other hand, given a large number of samples $n$, the expected number of times the edge between any pair of nodes $\left(i_D \in V_D , i \in V \right)$ is activated is $n\alpha_i$ leading to us to represent the IC probability between $i_D$ and $i$ to be $\alpha_i$. This is represented by Line 9 of Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\]. Thus, the original influencer mining problem can now be transformed to mining for influential nodes in the set $V_D$ under the IC model. Given that the influence (cumulative reachability) function is submodular under the IC model [@Kempe:2003], the influence function in the case of intrinsic activation being present, namely $a_{best}$ in Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\], is also submodular.
Synthetic Experiments
=====================
Small organization tree
-----------------------
![The small organizational tree network (left) and the behavior of the influence functions with the various $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:small_influ"}](figs/small_influ.png){width="\textwidth"}
We first consider a small directed and weighted network with 23 nodes, organized in a tree-like fashion. The graph is depicted on the left side of Figure \[fig:small\_influ\]. In this experiment, we consider the tree-like network to depict a small organization with a Director (Node D), two Managers (M1 and M2) and 20 Employees (E1-E20), with 10 employees each working under the two Managers. We set $\alpha^{0}(D)= 0.95$, signifying that the Director almost exclusively acts intrinsically. We also set $\alpha^{0}(M1) = \alpha^{0}(M2) = 0.25$. All Employees have an $\alpha$ of 0.25 as well. As for the weights (same as the activation probabilities in the IC model), the edges ending at node D receive weights of 0.5 each (when the Director chooses to be influenced, the Director gets influenced equally by the two Managers). As for the Managers, they have a weight of 0.5 each on the edges that are incoming from D and the remaining 0.5 is split equally among the edges originating at the 10 Employees each. All Employees carry a weight of 1.0 on the edges originating from the Managers. We then perturb this baseline case to mimic a situation where the Director starts becoming more susceptible to influence, while the Manager $M1$ becomes inflexible. This is simulated by setting $\alpha(D) = \alpha^{0}(D) - \delta$ and $\alpha(M1) = \alpha^{0}(M1) + \delta$. We then sweep $\delta$ from 0.05 to 0.45. The results are shown in the right panel of Figure \[fig:small\_influ\], where we can see that D begins as the most influential node as expected, but then M1 becomes more influential than D at a certain value of $\delta$ and will eventually have reach over most of the employees on the network. Note that the activation numbers plotted on the y-axis are the expected numbers over a Monte Carlo analysis with $n=3200$ samples. This simple experiment shows that the nature of influence spread on social networks is sensitive to the extent of intrinsic activation of the key nodes. Clearly these scenarios cannot be easily captured by the IC model, where the concept of intrinsic activation with a continuous probability value ($\alpha \in [0,1]$) does not exist.
Larger graphs and the influence function {#sec:larger_graphs}
----------------------------------------
Our next experiment involves two larger graphs where the topology of one is from a real-world dataset, while the other is synthesized. In both cases, the node $\alpha$ values are drawn from a uniform distribution $U[0,1]$, and the $w_{ij}$ values are also drawn from $U[0,1]$ and then normalized as described earlier in Section \[sec:formulation\]. The graphs under consideration are described below:
- LFR-1000 graph with 1000 nodes and 11433 edges is a synthetic network that follows the generative LFR model that mimics real-world graphs [@lancichinetti2009benchmarks].
- The PBlogs graph [@adamic2005political] represents a real-world blogs network and has 1095 nodes and 12597 edges.
Further details of these graphs are discussed in [@Halappa:2016].
![Submodular nature of the influence function under self-activation. *Inset: The PBlogs (left) and LFR-1000 (right) networks visualized in Gephi [@ICWSM09154]*. The x-axis refers to the number of influential nodes mined and the y-axis refers to the expected number of activations achieved due to influence. This is represented as $E(I)$[]{data-label="fig:submodular"}](figs/submodular-new.png){width="10cm"}
When we applied the modified influence maximization approach given by Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\] to the LFR-1000 and the PBlogs graphs and requested for 50 seeds, we observed ( Figure \[fig:submodular\]) that the cumulative influence spread (total number of influenced activations) showed a sub-modular character as evidenced by the diminishing gains in the total number of activations for each new seed added to the set.
Experiments on a Real-world Twitter Dataset {#sec:twitter_graph}
===========================================
In this section we consider the various aspects of intrinsic activation on an interaction graph constructed from Twitter data.
Data collection {#sec:data}
---------------
We first build a directed follower/friend graph from Twitter data using the public Twitter API [@TwitterAPI], where each user is a vertex and a directed edge $(u,v)$ from user $u$ to user $v$ means that $v$ follows $u$. Our goal is to capture a portion of the Twitter graph such that there are enough interactions between the nodes to estimate the $\alpha$ and the $w_{ij}$ parameter values with reasonable confidence as required by our model. Algorithm \[alg:Twitter-GraphGen\] depicts the graph construction details.
Algorithm \[alg:Twitter-GraphGen\] starts by adding a seed twitter user $u_0$ to the set $S$ (Line $2$) and adding followers. In order to improve the density of the graph (as measured by $\frac{|E|}{|V|^{2}}$), we pick up to $k_{in}$ ($k_{in}$ is set to $15$ in our experiment) users with highest in-degree values in the set $S$ to form a new set $S^{'} \subseteq S$. If $k_{in}>|S|$, then we will just pick all the nodes in set $S$. New vertices and edges are added accordingly (Lines $9$ to $15$). Note that new vertices are added if the users are being introduced for the first time. Low out-degree nodes (based on the threshold $k_{out}$, which is set to $11$ in our experiments) are excluded in the graph construction (Line $18$). The process is repeated until required number of vertices have been added to $G$. Random seeds are added to $S$ when it becomes empty (Line $17$).
$S = \{u_0\}$ $V(G) \gets \{u_0\}$ $E(G) \gets \emptyset$ $S^{'} \subseteq S$ $S \gets S \setminus S^{'}$ $F \gets \emptyset$ $F \gets F \cup \{$ all followers of user $u\}$ $V \gets V \cup \{v\}$ $S \gets S \cup \{v\}$ $E \gets (u,v)$
$S = \{u_{rand}\}$ **return** $G$
Starting with the user “PurdueEngineers" as the `seed_user` $u_0$ to collect data, and following Algorithm \[alg:Twitter-GraphGen\], we obtain a graph with $1167$ nodes and $10292$ edges. We then generate an interaction graph from the follower/friend graph by assigning a weight on each edge $(u,v)$ based on the number of interactions, where interactions refer to replies, retweets, or mentions. We define weight $\gamma_{(u,v)}$ for a directed edge $(u,v)$ as one plus the number of times user $v$ replies to, retweets, or mentions user $u$. Note that we need to define positive weights and thus we define weight prior to normalization by one plus the number of interactions.
Influence spread results
------------------------
Given the dataset with tweets and interactions in the form of retweets, replies, and mentions, we estimate the node-specific parameters $\alpha_i$ and the edge-specific parameters $w_{ij}$ as below.
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_i = \sum_j \gamma_{(j,i)}, \\
\alpha_i = \frac{k_i}{\gamma_i +k_i}, \\
\beta_i = 1 - \alpha_i, \\
w_{ij} = \frac{\gamma_{(j,i)}}{\gamma_i}. \;
\label{eqn:parameters}\end{aligned}$$
Here, $k_i$ refers to the total number of intrinsic tweets from user $i$ and $\gamma_i$ is the total number of interactions that user $i$ participated in. Meanwhile $\gamma_{(j,i)}$ breaks this up according to the interactions with the users that user $i$ follows.
Note that the nature of interactions between two users can be highly complex and may be dependent on a host of features. However, in this work, we are not concerned with the complexities of the interactions. We simply compute the parameters based on counts of tweets and interactions in a [*maximum likelihood manner*]{} without regard to other features, such as topics and sentiment strength.
On the same Twitter graph, we compare the activations achieved by the IC model and the present model, incorporating intrinsic activation. We retain the interaction probabilities as the same between the two models while noting that any interaction probability $w_{ij}$ becomes $(1-\alpha_i)w_{ij}$ for our model. We then randomized the intrinsic activation parameter $\alpha$ for each of the users to observe if the influenced activations can match that of the IC model over a number of trials. Figure \[fig:cmp\_twitter\] illustrates the results from a Monte Carlo analysis with 50 trials. Here the influence spread curves corresponding to the Monte Carlo runs for the model with intrinsic activation (IC-Int) are all well below the influence spread curve for the IC model as expected. Furthermore, these results are in line with the observation that the authors make in [@Quach2016] where they show that the IC model significantly over-estimates the activations.
![Comparing the influence spread with the IC model (Green) and the Monte Carlo runs on our model with intrinsic activation (Red). *Inset: The constructed Twitter graph is visualized in Gephi*[]{data-label="fig:cmp_twitter"}](figs/comparison-twitter-new.png){width="10cm"}
Next, for each of the Monte Carlo runs, we identify the percentage overlap between the sets of influential seeds identified by the IC model and our model with intrinsic activation. These results are shown in Figure \[fig:hist\] for 50 Monte Carlo runs and for top 30 influential nodes. Note that while a small number of runs show nearly no overlap, more than 25% of the runs show 20% or more overlap. This is due to the fact that both the IC model and our model with intrinsic activation favor nodes with large out-degrees. However, the IC model with intrinsic activation also requires that such nodes have a high enough $\alpha$ value to be influential along the lines of the discussions in sec. \[sec:local\_influ\]
![Distribution of the percentage overlap between the influencers identified by the IC model and the IC model with intrinsic activation in a Monte Carlo run.[]{data-label="fig:hist"}](figs/hist.png){width="10cm"}
Continuing our discussions that began in Section \[sec:local\_influ\] regarding maximizing the *engagement*, we consider four different cases of assigning $\alpha$ values to the nodes. In the first three cases, the random $\alpha$ values are drawn from three different intervals in a uniform manner. In the first case, all the $\alpha$ values are drawn according to the distribution $U[0,0.2]$. Meanwhile in the second case, they were drawn from $U[0.4,0.6]$ and finally in the third case, from the distribution $U[0.8,1.0]$.
The mean number of influenced activations over three 30 run Monte Carlo analyses are plotted in Figure \[fig:three\_alphas\]. Note that each of the sub-problems corresponding to one realization of the $\alpha$ values for all the nodes, involved one run of Algorithm \[algo:fj-ic\] with 1000 random samples ($n$). For the fourth case, the $\alpha$ values for the nodes are set deterministically in proportion to the node out-degree values. Clearly, it can be seen that the cases where all of the $\alpha$ values are either all small or all large fall short of the number of influenced activations for the case corresponding to the middle range of $\alpha$ values. The fourth case where the $\alpha$ values are proportional to the out-degree, far outperforms the rest. This observation is in line with the discussions presented in Section \[sec:local\_influ\].
![The mean activation curves for three different ranges of $\alpha$ assignments and the fourth with $\alpha$ values proportional to the node out-degree.[]{data-label="fig:three_alphas"}](figs/three_alphas_new.png){width="10cm"}
A Centrality Metric Incorporating Intrinsic Activation
======================================================
In this final section, we examine the influencer mining on networks with intrinsic and influenced nodal activations from a slightly different perspective. By collecting the various probabilities together and recognizing the recursive nature of influence spread on a social network, we arrive at a generalized PageRank-type spectral influence measure that was first presented in [@sathanur2013physense]. As demonstrated in [@sathanur2013physense], when considering activity on an OSN, this approach is a better measure of influence spread than a purely topological metric such as PageRank.
For a given node $i$, from Figure \[fig:intro\], the total probability of activation $ p_{A}^T(i)$ can be written as
$$p_{A}^T(i) = \alpha(i) +\left(1-\prod_{j,(j,i) \in \mathcal{E}} \left(1-\beta(i)w_{ij}p_{A}^T(j)\right)\right).
\label{eqn:influVertex1}$$
where $p_{A}^T(i)$ denotes the total probability of activation for node $i$ (intrinsic and influenced). The parameter $\alpha(i)$ denotes probability of node $i$ getting activated intrinsically. The quantity $\beta(i)w_{ij}$ denotes the probability of node $j$ activating node $i$ through influence as before.
Equation \[eqn:influVertex1\] summarizes the total activation probability for any given node in terms of the activation probabilities of the neighbors and whether the respective connecting edges are *live* or not. For the IC model each activated node has a single shot probability of activating its neighbor and the activation along each edge is independent of the other edges. The second term in the large parentheses represents the probability of some neighboring node activating node $i$ through influence. When we write out Equation \[eqn:influVertex1\] for all the nodes, we will be dealing with a large system of coupled non-linear equations, whose solution can be computationally expensive to obtain. By retaining the leading-order terms, we get a linearized version of Equation \[eqn:influVertex1\]. The goal of this approximation is to get the equation in a linear form so that we can use mature linear algebraic methods to quickly compute the set of influential nodes. This is valid to a large extent because, given the weighted-cascade version of the IC model that we are employing, the $w_{ij}$ values will be small and we can neglect the higher-order terms to linearize Equation \[eqn:influVertex1\] as follows.
$$p_{A}^T(i) = \alpha(i) +\beta(i)\sum_{j,(j,i) \in \mathcal{E}} w_{ij}p_{A}^T(j).
\label{eqn:influVertex3}$$
We set $\beta(i) = \left(1-\alpha(i)\right)$ as explained in Section \[sec:formulation\] and extend Equation \[eqn:influVertex3\] to the entire network with $N$ nodes to obtain a matrix-vector equation as follows: $$\boldsymbol{p_{A}^T}= \boldsymbol{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\vec{1}}+\left(\left(\boldsymbol{I}-\boldsymbol{\alpha}\right)\boldsymbol{W}\right)\boldsymbol{p_{A}^T}.
\label{eqn:cmp_full_net1}$$
In Equation \[eqn:cmp\_full\_net1\], $ \boldsymbol{p_{A}^T}$ is a vector of size $N\times 1$, denoting respectively the total probability of activation for all the nodes on the network. $\boldsymbol{I}$ denotes the identity matrix of size $N\times N$. $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ denotes the diagonal matrix with entries corresponding to the intrinsic activation probability for all the nodes on the network; $\boldsymbol{W}$ denotes the sparse, stochastic weight matrix with entries given by the weights $w_{ij}$ discussed earlier; and, $\boldsymbol{\vec{1}}$ is the all-ones vector of size $N \times 1$.
We can then express the total activation probabilities as $$\boldsymbol{p_{A}^T}= \boldsymbol{\vec{1}}^T\boldsymbol{G}; G = \left(\boldsymbol{I} - \left(\boldsymbol{I}-\boldsymbol{\alpha})\boldsymbol{W}\right)\right)^{-1}\boldsymbol{\alpha},
\label{eqn:cmp_full_net2}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\vec{1}}^T$ provides for the column-sum of $\boldsymbol{G}$. We also note that because the matrix $\boldsymbol{W}$ is a row stochastic matrix, the matrix $\boldsymbol{G}$ is also row stochastic.
Consider the quantity $C_A(i)$, specific to node $i$ as defined below. $$C_A(i) = \left(\sum_{j=1,i \ne j}^{N}G_{ji}\right).
\label{eqn:centrality}$$
$C_A(i)$ corresponds to the sum of the entries in column $i$ of $\boldsymbol{G}$ with the exception of the corresponding diagonal term and represents the expected number of hosts activated by node $i$ getting intrinsically activated and is a measure of influence. In our experiments with the PBlogs and the LFR-1000 graphs, discussed in Section \[sec:larger\_graphs\], the $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{W}$ entries were randomized with entries drawn from the uniform distribution over $[0,1]$, and $\boldsymbol{W}$ was converted to a row-stochastic matrix. We then compare the sets of top-$k$ influencers identified by both the methods on two larger graphs in our dataset. The comparison is carried out with respect to two measures: 1) Jaccard similarity and 2) Rank Biased Overlap (RBO). RBO considers ordering with higher weights given to matches that happen at the top [@webber2010similarity]. These results are presented in Table \[table:comparison\] where we see good agreement between the sets of influential nodes obtained by both methods.
The behavior of the Jaccard index is not necessarily monotone as a larger number of influencers are considered. As we move away from the top influencing nodes (increasing $k$), we encounter many nodes that are of a similar influence. Since the centrality-based method is an approximation, the relative positions can change a lot and it is easily possible that going from k=30 to k=50, we may not get a proportional increase in the overlap between the two sets. Hence it can result in non-monotone behavior. The RBO based comparison can also exhibit a similar non-monotone behavior. However, this measure is known to be stable because of the weighting by the rank. The same is observed in our experimental results as well.
Thus, the proposed centrality metric, which includes the intrinsic activation mechanism, represents a computationally more viable alternative to the full-scale influence maximization framework. It retains the essence of the model and the influential nodes can be mined by solving a linear system involving a sparse matrix.
Correlation type Input $k=10$ $k=20$ $k=30$ $k=50$
------------------ --------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Jaccard PBlogs 0.538 0.818 0.875 0.818
RBO PBlogs 0.817 0.846 0.851 0.868
Jaccard LFR1000 0.818 0.905 0.765 0.818
RBO LFR1000 0.979 0.963 0.947 0.937
: Correlations, two ways, between the proposed approaches for the two inputs PBlogs and LFR1000 for different sizes of seed sets (10, 20, 30, and 50). Closer the metric to one the better. []{data-label="table:comparison"}
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we introduce the notion of nodes in a complex network getting activated by two mechanisms: intrinsically and through influence as commonly observed in online social networks. Using a modified version of the influence maximization algorithm and working with a suitable influence spread objective function, we show how it is possible to identify influential users whose intrinsic content spreads maximally through influence. We also sketch a short proof on the submodularity of the modified influence function, allowing for approximation guarantees on the algorithm. We utilized several synthetic and real-world datasets to examine various aspects of the proposed activation model. We also explain why some assignments of the intrinsic activation probability ($\alpha$ values) to the various nodes can result in much higher activations than other assignments, which is also demonstrated on a Twitter graph. We finally derive a novel centrality metric from the activation model that can provide for a computationally faster and accurate method to identify influential users on a social network where activations can be intrinsic or influenced.
Building on this work, we are exploring multiple facets of this problem in our ongoing research including the exploration of how a social network can be successful in the long run by balancing the two modes of activation discussed here. To achieve this objective, we are considering development of variants of other interaction models with intrinsic activation as well extending the notion of intrinsic activation to more fine-grained user behavior. We are also extending these methods to other complex systems, such as for attack modeling in cyber networks.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This research was supported in part by the High Performance Data Analytics Program (HPDA) and in part by the Control of Complex Systems Initiative (CCSI) at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). HPDA is a collaboration led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) with partners Mississippi State University, University of Washington, and Georgia Institute of Technology. CCSI is a Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program at the PNNL. PNNL is operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Salient object detection, which aims to identify and locate the most salient pixels or regions in images, has been attracting more and more interest due to its various real-world applications. However, this vision task is quite challenging, especially under complex image scenes. Inspired by the intrinsic reflection of natural images, in this paper we propose a novel feature learning framework for large-scale salient object detection. Specifically, we design a symmetrical fully convolutional network (SFCN) to learn complementary saliency features under the guidance of lossless feature reflection. The location information, together with contextual and semantic information, of salient objects are jointly utilized to supervise the proposed network for more accurate saliency predictions. In addition, to overcome the blurry boundary problem, we propose a new structural loss function to learn clear object boundaries and spatially consistent saliency. The coarse prediction results are effectively refined by these structural information for performance improvements. Extensive experiments on seven saliency detection datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves consistently superior performance and outperforms the very recent state-of-the-art methods.'
author:
- |
Pingping Zhang$^{1,3}$, Wei Liu$^{2,3}$, Huchuan Lu$^1$, Chunhua Shen$^3$\
$^1$ Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, P.R. China\
$^2$ Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, P.R. China\
$^3$ University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia\
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai18.bib'
title: Salient Object Detection by Lossless Feature Reflection
---
Introduction
============
As a fundamental yet challenging task in computer vision, salient object detection (SOD) aims to identify and locate distinctive objects or regions which attract human attention in natural images. In general, SOD is regarded as a prerequisite step to narrow down subsequent object-related vision tasks. For example, it can be used in image retrieval, sematic segmentation, visual tracking and person re-identification, etc. In the past two decades, a large number of SOD methods have been proposed. Most of them have been well summarized in [@borji2015salient]. According to that work, conventional SOD methods focus on extracting discriminative local and global handcrafted features from pixels or regions to represent their visual properties. With several heuristic priors, these methods predict salient scores according to the extracted features for saliency detection. Although great success has been made, there still exist many important problems which need to be solved. For example, the low-level handcrafted features suffer from limited representation capability, and are difficult to capture the semantic and structural information of objects in images, which is very important for more accurate SOD. What’s more, to further extract powerful and robust visual features manually is a tough mission for performance improvement, especially in complex image scenes, such as cluttered backgrounds and low-contrast imaging patterns. With the recent prevalence of deep architectures, many remarkable progresses have been achieved in a wide range of computer vision tasks, *e.g.*, image classification [@simonyan2014very], object detection [@girshick2014rich], and semantic segmentation [@long2015fully]. Thus, many researchers start to make their efforts to utilize deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for SOD and have achieved favourable performance, since CNNs have strong ability to automatically extract high-level feature representations, successfully avoiding the drawbacks of handcrafted features. However, most of state-of-the-art SOD methods still require large-scale pre-trained CNNs, which usually employ the strided convolution and pooling operations. These downsampling methods increase the receptive field of CNNs, helping to extract high-level semantic features, nevertheless they inevitably drop the location information and fine details of objects, leading to unclear boundary predictions. Furthermore, the lack of structural supervision also makes SOD an extremely challenging problem in complex image scenes.
In order to utilize the semantic and structural information derived from deep pre-trained CNNs, we propose to solve both tasks of complementary feature extraction and saliency region classification with an unified framework which is learned in the end-to-end manner. Specifically, we design a symmetrical fully convolutional network (SFCN) architecture which consists of two sibling branches and one fusing branch, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:framework\]. The two sibling branches take reciprocal image pairs as inputs and share weights for learning complementary visual features under the guidance of lossless feature reflection. The fusing branch integrates the multi-level complementary features in a hierarchical manner for SOD. More importantly, to effectively train our network, we propose a novel loss function which incorporates structural information and supervises the three branches during the training process. In this manner, our proposed model sufficiently captures the boundaries and spatial contexts of salient objects, hence significantly boosts the performance of SOD.
In summary, **our contributions** are three folds:
- We present a novel network architecture, *i.e.*, SFCN, which is symmetrically designed to learn complementary visual features and predict accurate saliency maps under the guidance of lossless feature reflection.
- We propose a new structural loss function to learn clear object boundaries and spatially consistent saliency. This loss function is able to utilize the location, contextual and semantic information of salient objects to supervise the proposed SFCN for performance improvements.
- Extensive experiments on seven large-scale saliency benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves superior performance and outperforms the very recent state-of-the-art methods by a large margin.
![The semantic overview of our proposed SFCN.[]{data-label="fig:framework"}](figs/framework_v4.pdf){width="1.04\linewidth" height="5cm"}
Related Work
============
[**Salient Object Detection.**]{} Recent years, deep learning based methods have achieved solid performance improvements in SOD. For example, [@wang2015deep] integrate both local pixel estimation and global proposal search for SOD by training two deep neural networks. [@zhao2015saliency] propose a multi-context deep CNN framework to benefit from the local context and global context of salient objects. [@li2015visual] employ multiple deep CNNs to extract multi-scale features for saliency prediction. Then they propose a deep contrast network to combine a pixel-level stream and segment-wise stream for saliency estimation [@li2016deep]. Inspired by the great success of fully convolutional networks (FCNs) [@long2015fully], [@wang2016saliency] develop a recurrent FCN to incorporate saliency priors for more accurate saliency map inference. [@liu2016dhsnet] also design a deep hierarchical network to learn a coarse global estimation and then refine the saliency map hierarchically and progressively. Then, [@hou2017deeply] introduce dense short connections to the skip-layers within the holistically-nested edge detection (HED) architecture [@xie2015holistically] to get rich multi-scale features for SOD. [@zhang2017amulet] propose a bidirectional learning framework to aggregate multi-level convolutional features for SOD. And they also develop a novel dropout to learn the deep uncertain convolutional features to enhance the robustness and accuracy of saliency detection [@zhang2017learning]. [@wang2017stagewise] provide a stage-wise refinement framework to gradually get accurate saliency detection results. Despite these approaches employ powerful CNNs and make remarkable success in SOD, there still exist some obvious problems. For example, the strategies of multiple-stage training reduce the efficiency. And the explicit pixel-wise loss functions used by these methods for model training cannot well reflect the structural information of salient objects. Hence, there is still a large space for performance improvements. [**Image Intrinsic Reflection.**]{} Image intrinsic reflection is a classical topic in computer vision field. It aims to separate a color image into two intrinsic reflection images: an image of just the highlights, and the original image with the highlights removed. It can be used to segment and analyze surfaces with image color variations. Most of existing methods are based on the Retinex model [@land1971lightness], which captures image information for Mondrian images: images of a planar canvas that is covered by samll patches of constant reflectance and illuminated by multiple light sources. Recent years, researchers have augmented the basic Retinex model with non-local texture cues [@zhao2012closed] and sparsity priors [@shen2011intrinsic]. Sophisticated techniques that recover reflectance and shading along with a shape estimate have also been proposed [@barron2012color]. Inspired by these works, we construct a reciprocal image pair based on the input image (see Section 3.1). However, there are three obvious differences between our method and previous intrinsic reflection methods: 1) the objective is different. The aim of previous methods is explaining an input RGB image by estimating albedo and shading fields. Our aim is to learn complementary visual features for SOD. 2) the resulting image pair is different. Image intrinsic reflection methods usually factory an input image into a reflectance image and a shading image, while our method builds a reciprocal image pair for each image as the input of deep networks. 3) the source of reflection is different. The source of previous intrinsic reflection methods is the albedo of depicted surfaces, while our reflection is originated from deep features in CNNs. Therefore, our reflection is feature-level not image-level.
The Proposed Method
===================
Fig. \[fig:framework\] illustrates the semantic overview of our method. We first convert an input RGB image into a reciprocal image pair, including the origin image (O-Input) and the reflection image (R-Input), by utilizing the ImageNet mean [@deng2009imagenet] and a pixel-wise negation operator. Then the image pair is fed into the sibling branches of our proposed SFCN, extracting multi-level deep features. Afterwards, the fusing branch hierarchically integrates the complementary features into the same resolution of input images. Finally, the saliency map is predicted by exploiting integrated features and the structural loss. In the following subsections, we elaborate the proposed SFCN architecture and the weighted structural loss.
Symmetrical FCN
---------------
The proposed SFCN is an end-to-end fully convolutional network. It consists of three main branches with a paired reciprocal image input to achieve lossless feature reflection learning. [**Reciprocal Image Input.**]{} To capture complementary image information, we first convert the given RGB image $X\in R^{W\times H\times 3}$ to a reciprocal image pair by the following reflection function, $$\begin{aligned}
Rec(X,k) &= (X-M,k(M-X))),\\
&= (X-M,-k(X-M))\\
&= (X_O, X^{k}_R).
\label{equ:equ1}\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is a hyperparameter to control the reflection scale and $M\in R^{W\times H\times 3}$ is the mean of an image or image dataset. From above equations, one can see that the converted image pair, *i.e.*, $X_O$ and $X^{k}_R$, is reciprocal with a reflection plane. In detail, the reflection scheme is a pixel-wise negation operator, allowing the given images to be reflected in both positive and negative directions while maintaining the same content of images. In the proposed reflection, we use the multiplicative operator to measure the reflection scale, but it is not the only feasible method. For example, this reflection can be combined with other non-linear operators, such as quadratic form, to add more diversity. To reduce the computation burden, we use $k=1$ and the well-known mean of the ImageNet dataset. [**Sibling Branches with AdaBN.**]{} Based on the reciprocal image pair, we propose two sibling branches to extract complementary reflection features. More specifically, we build each sibling branch, following the VGG-16 model [@simonyan2014very]. Each sibling branch has 13 convolutional layers (kernel size = $3\times 3$, stride size = 1) and 4 max pooling layers (pooling size = $2\times 2$, stride = 2). To achieve the lossless reflection features, the two sibling branches are designed to share weights in convolutional layers, but with adaptive batch normalization (AdaBN). In other words, we keep the weights of corresponding convolutional layers of the two sibling branches the same, while use different learnable BN between the convolution and ReLU operators [@zhang2017amulet]. The main reason of this design is that after the reflection transform, the reciprocal images have different image domains. Domain related knowledge heavily affects the statistics of BN layers. In order to learn domain invariant features, it’s beneficial for each domain to keep its own BN statistics in each layers. [**Hierarchical Feature Fusion.**]{} After extracting multi-level reflection features, we adhere an additional fusing branch to integrate them for the saliency prediction. In order to preserve the spatial structure and enhance the contextual information, we integrate the multi-level reflection features in a hierarchical manner. Formally, the fusing function is defined by $$\label{equ:equ2}
f_{l}(X)=
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&h([g_{l}(X_O), f_{l+1}(X), g^{*}_{l}(X^{k}_R)]),l<L\\
&h([g_{l}(X_O), g^{*}_{l}(X^{k}_R)]), l = L
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $h$ denotes the integration operator, which is a $1\times 1$ convolutional layer followed by a deconvolutional layer to ensure the same resolution. $[\cdot]$ is the concatenation operator in channel-wise. $g_{l}$ and $g^{*}_{l}$ are the reflection features of the $l$-th convolutional layer in the two sibling branches, respectively. In the end, we add a convolutional layer with two filters for the saliency map prediction. The numbers in Fig. \[fig:framework\] illustrate the detailed filter setting in each convolutional layer.
Weighted Structural Loss
------------------------
Given the SOD training dataset $ S=\{(X_n,Y_n)\}^{N}_{n=1}$ with $N$ training pairs, where $X_n =
\{x^n_i,i = 1,...,T\}$ and $Y_n = \{y^n_i,i = 1,...,T\}$ are the input image and the binary ground-truth image with $T$ pixels, respectively. $y^n_i = 1$ denotes the foreground pixel and $y^n_i = 0$ denotes the background pixel. For notional simplicity, we subsequently drop the subscript $n$ and consider each image independently. In most of existing SOD methods, the loss function used to train the network is the standard pixel-wise binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss: $$\label{equ:equ5}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{bce}= -\sum_{i\in Y_{+}} \text{log~Pr}(y_{i}=1|X;\theta)\\-\sum_{i\in Y_{-}} \text{log~Pr}(y_{i}=0|X;\theta).
\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is the parameter of the network. Pr$(y_i =1|X;\theta)\in [0,1]$ is the confidence score of the network prediction that measures how likely the pixel belong to the foreground. However, for a typical natural image, the class distribution of salient/non-salient pixels is heavily imbalanced: most of the pixels in the ground truth are non-salient. To automatically balance the loss between positive/negative classes, we introduce a class-balancing weight $\beta$ on a per-pixel term basis, following [@xie2015holistically]. Specifically, we define the following weighted cross-entropy loss function, $$\label{equ:equ4}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{wbce}= - \beta \sum_{i\in Y_{+}} \text{log~Pr}(y_{i}=1|X;\theta)\\
-(1-\beta)\sum_{i\in Y_{-}} \text{log~Pr}(y_{i}=0|X;\theta).
\end{aligned}$$ The loss weight $\beta = |Y_{+}|/|Y|$, and $|Y_{+}|$ and $|Y_{-}|$ denote the foreground and background pixel number, respectively. For saliency detection, it is also crucial to preserve the overall spatial structure and semantic content. Thus, rather than only encouraging the pixels of the output prediction to match with the ground-truth using the above pixel-wise loss, we also minimize the differences between their multi-level features by a deep convolutional network [@johnson2016perceptual]. The main intuition behind this operator is that minimizing the difference between multi-level features, which encode low-level fine details and high-level coarse semantics, helps to retain the spatial structure and semantic content of predictions. Formally, let $\phi_{l}$ denotes the output of the $l$-th convolutional layer in a CNN, our semantic content (SC) loss is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{sc} = \sum_{l=1}^{L}\lambda_{l}||\phi_{l}(Y;w)-\phi_{l}(\hat{Y};w)||_2,
\label{equ:equ1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{Y}$ is the overall prediction, $w$ is the parameter of a pre-trained CNN and $\lambda_{l}$ is the trade-off parameter, controlling the influence of the loss in the $l$-th layer. In our case, we use the light CNN-9 model [@wu2015lightened] to calculate the above loss between the ground-truth and the prediction. To overcome the blurry boundary problem [@li2016deepsaliency], we also introduce the smooth $L_1$ loss which encourages to keep the details of boundaries of salient objects. Specifically, the smooth $L_1$ loss function is defined as $$\label{equ:equ2}
\mathcal{L}_{s1}=
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{2}||D||^2_2,&||D||_1<\epsilon\\
&\epsilon||D||_1-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^2, &otherwise
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $D=Y-\hat{Y}$ and $\epsilon$ is a predefined threshold. Following the practice in [@xiao2018interactive], we set $\epsilon=0.5$. This training loss also helps to minimize pixel-level differences between the overall prediction and the ground-truth. By taking all above loss functions together, we define our final loss function as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = \text{arg min}~\mathcal{L}_{wbce}+\mu \mathcal{L}_{sc}+\gamma \mathcal{L}_{s1},
\label{equ:equ1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ and $\gamma$ are hyperparameters to balance the specific terms. All the above losses are continuously differentiable, so we can use the standard stochastic gradient descent (SGD) method to obtain the optimal parameters. In addition, we use $\lambda_{l}=1$, $\mu=0.01$ and $\gamma =20$ to optimize the final loss function for our experiments without further tuning.
Experimental Results
====================
Datasets and Evaluation Metrics
-------------------------------
To train our model, we adopt the **MSRA10K** [@borji2015salient] dataset, which has 10,000 training images with high quality pixel-wise saliency annotations. Most of images in this dataset have a single salient object. To combat overfitting, we augment this dataset by random cropping and mirror reflection, producing 120,000 training images totally. For the performance evaluation, we adopt seven public saliency detection datasets as follows: **DUT-OMRON** [@yang2013saliency] dataset has 5,168 high quality natural images. Each image in this dataset has one or more objects with relatively complex image background. **DUTS-TE** dataset is the test set of currently largest saliency detection benchmark (DUTS) [@wang2017learning]. It contains 5,019 images with high quality pixel-wise annotations. **ECSSD** [@shi2016hierarchical] dataset contains 1,000 natural images, in which many semantically meaningful and complex structures are included. **HKU-IS-TE** [@li2015visual] dataset has 1,447 images with pixel-wise annotations. Images of this dataset are well chosen to include multiple disconnected objects or objects touching the image boundary. **PASCAL-S** [@li2014secrets] dataset is generated from the PASCAL VOC [@Everingham2010ThePV] dataset and contains 850 natural images with segmentation-based masks. **SED** [@borj2015salient] dataset has two non-overlapped subsets, *i.e.*, SED1 and SED2. SED1 has 100 images each containing only one salient object, while SED2 has 100 images each containing two salient objects. **SOD** [@jiang2013salient] dataset has 300 images, in which many images contain multiple objects either with low contrast or touching the image boundary. To evaluate the performance of varied SOD algorithms, we adopt four metrics, including the widely used precision-recall (PR) curves, F-measure, mean absolute error (MAE) [@borji2015salient] and recently proposed S-measure [@fan2017structure]. The PR curve of a specific dataset exhibits the mean precision and recall of saliency maps at different thresholds. The F-measure is a weighted mean of average precision and average recall, calculated by $$F_{\eta} =\frac{(1+\eta^2)\times Precision\times Recall}{\eta^2\times Precision \times Recall}.
\label{equ:equ11}$$ We set $\eta^2$ to be 0.3 to weigh precision more than recall as suggested in [@borji2015salient]. For fair comparison on non-salient regions, we also calculate the mean absolute error (MAE) by $$MAE = \frac{1}{W\times H}\sum_{x=1}^{W}\sum_{y=1}^{H}|S(x,y)-G(x,y)|,
\label{equ:equ12}$$ where $W$ and $H$ are the width and height of the input image. $S(x,y)$ and $G(x,y)$ are the pixel values of the saliency map and the binary ground truth at $(x,y)$, respectively.
To evaluate the spatial structure similarities of saliency maps, we also calculate the S-measure, defined as $$S_{\lambda} = \lambda*S_{o}+(1-\lambda)*S_{r},
\label{equ:equ13}$$ where $\lambda \in [0,1]$ is the balance parameter. $S_{o}$ and $S_{r}$ are the object-aware and region-aware structural similarity, respectively. We set $\lambda=0.5$ as suggested in [@fan2017structure].
Implementation Details
----------------------
We implement our proposed model based on the Caffe toolbox [@jia2014caffe] with the MATLAB 2016 platform. We train and test our method in a quad-core PC machine with an NVIDIA Titan 1070 GPU (with 8G memory) and an i5-6600 CPU. We perform training with the augmented training images from the MSRA10K dataset. Following [@zhang2017amulet; @zhang2017learning], we do not use validation set and train the model until its training loss converges. The input image is uniformly resized into $384\times384\times3$ pixels and subtracted the ImageNet mean [@deng2009imagenet]. The weights of sibling branches are initialized from the VGG-16 model. For the fusing branch, we initialize the weights by the “msra” method. During the training, we use standard SGD method with batch size 12, momentum 0.9 and weight decay 0.0005. We set the base learning rate to 1e-8 and decrease the learning rate by 10% when training loss reaches a flat. The training process converges after 150k iterations. When testing, our proposed SOD algorithm runs at about **12 fps**. The source code is publicly available at .
Comparison with the State-of-the-arts
-------------------------------------
To fully evaluate the detection performance, we compare our proposed method with other 14 state-of-the-art ones, including 10 deep learning based algorithms (**Amulet** [@zhang2017amulet], **DCL** [@li2016deep], **DHS** [@liu2016dhsnet], **DS** [@li2016deepsaliency], **ELD** [@lee2016deep], **LEGS** [@wang2015deep], **MCDL** [@zhao2015saliency], **MDF** [@li2015visual], **RFCN** [@wang2016saliency], **UCF** [@zhang2017learning]) and 4 conventional algorithms (**BL** [@tong2015salient], **BSCA** [@qin2015saliency], **DRFI** [@jiang2013salient], **DSR** [@li2013saliency]). For fair comparison, we use either the implementations with recommended parameter settings or the saliency maps provided by the authors.
=0.4pt
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
=0.4pt
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
[**Quantitative Evaluation.**]{} As illustrated in Tab. \[table:fauc1\], Tab. \[table:fauc2\] and Fig. \[fig:PR-curve\], our method outperforms other competing ones across all datasets in terms of near all evaluation metrics. From these results, we have other notable observations: (1) deep learning based methods consistently outperform traditional methods with a large margin, which further proves the superiority of deep features for SOD. (2) our method achieves higher S-measure than other methods, especially on complex structure datasets, *e.g.*, the DUT-OMRON, SED and SOD datasets. We attribute this result to our structural loss. (3) without segmentation pre-training, our method only fine-tuned from the image classification model still achieves better results than the DCL and RFCN, especially on the HKU-IS and SED datasets. (4) compared to the DHS and Amulet, our method is inferior on the DUTS-TE and PASCAL-S datasets. However, our method ranks in the second place and is still very comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"} {width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"} {width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"} {width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"}
[(a) **DUT-OMRON**]{} [(b) **DUTS-TE**]{} [(c) **ECSSD**]{} [(d) **HKU-IS-TE**]{}
{width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"} {width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"} {width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"} {width="0.24\linewidth" height="3.17cm"}
[(e) **PASCAL-S**]{} [(f) **SED1**]{} [(g) **SED2**]{} [(h) **SOD**]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
{width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"}
{width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"}
{width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"}
{width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"} {width="0.09\linewidth" height="1.35cm"}
[(a)]{} [(b)]{} [(c)]{} [(d)]{} [(e)]{} [(f)]{} [(g)]{} [(h)]{} [(i)]{} [(j)]{} [(k)]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Models \(a) -hf+$\mathcal{L}_{bce}$ \(b) +$\mathcal{L}_{bce}$ \(c) +$\mathcal{L}_{wbce}$ \(d) +$\mathcal{L}_{wbce}$+$\mathcal{L}_{sc}$ \(e) +$\mathcal{L}_{wbce}$+$\mathcal{L}_{s1}$ The overall
------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- -------------
$F_\eta$ 0.824 0.848 0.865
$MAE$ 0.102 0.083 0.072
$S_\lambda$ 0.833 0.859 0.864
[**Qualitative Evaluation.**]{} Fig. \[fig:map\_comparison\] provides several visual examples in various challenging cases, where our method outperforms other compared methods. For example, the images in the first two rows are of very low contrast, where most of the compared methods fail to capture the salient objects, while our method successfully highlights them with sharper edges preserved. The images in the 3-4 rows are challenging with complex structures or salient objects near the image boundary, and most of the compared methods can not predict the whole objects, while our method captures the whole salient regions with preserved structures.
Ablation Analysis
-----------------
We also evaluate the main components in our model. Tab.\[table:aggregation\] shows the experimental results with different model settings. All models are trained on the augmented MSRA10K dataset and share the same hyper-parameters described in subsection 4.2. Due to the limitation of space, we only show the results on the ECSSD dataset. Other datasets have the similar performance trend. From the results, we can see that the SFCN only using the channel concatenation operator without hierarchical fusion (model (a)) has achieved comparable performance to most deep learning methods. This confirms the effectiveness of reflection features. With the hierarchical fusion, the resulting SFCN (model (b)) improves the performance by a large margin. The main reason is that the fusion method introduces more contextual information from high layers to low layers, which helps to locate the salient objects. In addition, it’s no wonder that training with the $\mathcal{L}_{wbce}$ loss achieves better results than $\mathcal{L}_{bce}$. With other two losses $\mathcal{L}_{sc}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{s1}$, the model achieves better performance in terms of MAE and S-measure. These results demonstrate that individual components in our model complement each other. When taking them together, the overall model, *i.e.*, $SFCN+L_{wbce}+ L_{se} + L_{s1}$, achieves best results in all evaluation metrics.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we propose a novel end-to-end feature learning framework for SOD. Our method uses a symmetrical FCN to learn complementary visual features under the guidance of lossless feature reflection. For training, we also propose a new weighted structural loss that integrates the location, semantic and contextual information of salient objects to boost the detection performance. Extensive experiments on seven large-scale saliency datasets demonstrate that the proposed method achieves significant improvement over the baseline and performs better than other state-of-the-art methods. [. This work is in part supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC), No. 61472060, No. 61502070 and No. 61528101. PP. Zhang and Wei Liu are currently visiting the University of Adelaide, supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) program. This work is done during the visiting and supervised by Prof. Chunhua Shen. ]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A group $G$ is said to have property $R_{\infty}$ if for every automorphism $\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(G)$, the cardinality of the set of $\varphi$-twisted conjugacy classes is infinite. Many classes of groups are known to have such property. However, very few examples are known for which $R_{\infty}$ is [*geometric*]{}, i.e., if $G$ has property $R_{\infty}$ then any group quasi-isometric to $G$ also has property $R_{\infty}$. In this paper, we give examples of groups and conditions under which $R_{\infty}$ is preserved under commensurability. The main tool is to employ the Bieri-Neumann-Strebel invariants and other related invariants.'
address:
- 'Chennai Mathematical Institute SIPCOT IT Park, Siruseri, Kelambakkam, 603103, India'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Bates College, Lewiston, ME 04240, U.S.A.'
author:
- Parameswaran Sankaran
- Peter Wong
title: Twisted conjugacy and commensurability invariance
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Given a group endomorphism $\varphi:\pi \to \pi$, consider the (left) action of $\pi$ on $\pi$ via $\sigma \cdot \alpha \mapsto \sigma \alpha \varphi(\sigma)^{-1}$. The set of orbits of this action, denoted by $\mathcal R(\varphi)$, is the set of $\varphi$-twisted conjugacy classes or the set of [*Reidemeister classes*]{}. The cardinality of $\mathcal R(\varphi)$ is called the [*Reidemeister number*]{} $R(\varphi)$ of $\varphi$. The study of Reidemeister classes arises naturally in the classical Nielsen-Reidemeister fixed point theory (for e.g. [@J]). More precisely, for any selfmap $f:M\to M$ of a compact connected manifold $M$ with $\dim M\ge 3$, the minimal number of fixed points among all maps homotopic to $f$ is equal to the Nielsen number $N(f)$ which is bounded above by the Reidemeister number $R(f)=R(\varphi)$ where $\varphi$ is the induced homomorphism by $f$ on $\pi_1(M)$. While $N(f)$ is an important homotopy invariant, its computation is notoriously difficult. When $M$ is a Jiang-type space, then either $N(f)=0$ or $N(f)=R(f)$. While $N(f)$ is always finite, $R(f)$ need not be. Thus, when $R(f)=\infty$ we have $N(f)=0$ which implies that $f$ is deformable to be fixed point free. As a consequence of the $R_{\infty}$ property, it is shown in [@GW2] that for any $n\ge 5$, there exists a compact $n$-dimensional nilmanifold on which [*every*]{} self homeomorphism is isotopic to a fixed point free homeomorphism.
In [@LL], it is shown that if $\varphi$ is an automorphism of a finitely generated non-elementary word hyperbolic group then $R(\varphi)=\infty$. Since then many classes of groups have been shown to possess property $R_{\infty}$. However, most of the methods employed in these works have been ad hoc and specific to the classes of groups in question. On the other hand, $\Sigma$-theory, i.e., the Bieri-Neumann-Strebel invariant [@BNS], has been used in [@GK] to prove property $R_{\infty}$ under certain conditions on $\Sigma^1$. Subsequent work in [@GS; @GSS; @KW1; @KW2; @SgW] further explore the use of $\Sigma$-theory and related invariants in connection with property $R_{\infty}$. From the point of view of geometric group theory, it is natural to ask whether property $R_{\infty}$ is geometric, i.e., invariant up to quasi-isometry. In general, $R_{\infty}$ is not even invariant under commensurability and hence not invariant under quasi-isometry. The simplest example is that of $\mathbb Z$ as an index $2$ subgroup of the infinite dihedral group $D_{\infty}$ (see e.g. [@GW2]) where the former does not have $R_{\infty}$ while the latter does.
Since being non-elementary and word hyperbolic is geometric, the work of [@LL] implies that $R_{\infty}$ is invariant under quasi-isometry for the family of finitely generated non-elementary word hyperbolic groups (see also [@fel] in which a sketch of proof was given for non-elementary relative hyperbolic groups). Another family is that of the amenable or solvable Baumslag-Solitor groups $BS(1,n)$ for $n>1$. These groups have been completely classified in [@FM] up to quasi-isometry. For higher $BS(m,n)$ where $m\ge 2$ and $n>m$, it turns out that they are all quasi-isometric to each other as shown in [@Wh]. These Baumslag-Solitor groups (the fundamental group of the torus, $BS(1,1)$, is excluded here) have been shown in [@FeG] to have property $R_{\infty}$. More generally, the family of generalized Baumslag-Solitor (GBS) groups [@L] and any groups quasi-isometric to them also have property $R_{\infty}$ [@TW2]. Moreover, $R_{\infty}$ is also invariant under quasi-isometry for a certain solvable generalization of the $BS(1,n)$ [@TW1].
As another class of examples, let $\Lambda$ be an irreducible lattice in a connected semisimplie non-compact real Lie group $G$ with finite centre. It is known that any finitely generated group $\Gamma$ quasi-isometric to $\Lambda$ has the $R_\infty$-property [@ms].
Despite the success in [@LL; @TW1; @TW2; @ms], there have been no new examples of groups for which property $R_{\infty}$ is geometric. One difficulty is the determination of the group of quasi-isometries in general. As a first step, we ask
For what class of groups is $R_{\infty}$ a commensurability property? Equivalently, if $G$ has property $R_{\infty}$ and $\Gamma$ is commensurable to $G$, (i.e., there exist subgroups $H < G, \bar H < \Gamma$ so that $H\cong \bar H, [G:H]<\infty, [\Gamma:\bar H]<\infty$) when does $\Gamma$ also have property $R_{\infty}$?
The objective of this paper is to begin a systematic approach to studying ${R_{\infty}}$. We give conditions under which, when employing $\Sigma$ - theory and related invariants, property $R_{\infty}$ is invariant under commensurability. In doing so, we introduce a stronger notion of ${R_{\infty}}$, namely ${R^{\chi}_{\infty}}$ in section 2. When the complement $(\Sigma^1)^c$ or the $\Omega^n$ invariants are finite polytopes lying inside an open hemisphere, we can find a point $[\chi]\in S(G)$ that is fixed by all automorphisms of $G$. If $[\chi]$ is [*rigid*]{} then $G$ has property ${R^{\chi}_{\infty}}$ (Theorem \[SO-R\]) and hence ${R_{\infty}}$. In section 3, we give a simple condition on the first Betti number $b_1$ under which commensurability invariance is proved. In section 4, we investigate situations when the $\Sigma$ - invariants of $G$ are preserved under automorphisms of a finite index subgroup $H$. In section 5, we construct new families of groups that are direct products and free products with property ${R_{\infty}}$.
Background on BNS invariants, $\Omega^n$ invariants and $R_{\infty}$
====================================================================
Sigma invariants
----------------
Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. The set ${\rm Hom}(G,\mathbb R)$ of homomorphisms from $G$ to the additive group $\mathbb R$ is a real vector space with dimension equal to $m$, the ${\mathbb Z}$-rank of the abelianization $G^{ab}$ of $G$. Denote by $\partial_{\infty}{\rm Hom}(G,\mathbb R)$ the boundary at infinity of $\mathbb R^m$ (ie. the set of geodesic rays in $\mathbb R^m$ initiating from the origin). This is isomorphic to the [*character sphere of $G$*]{} defined as the set of equivalence classes $S(G) := \{ [\chi] | \chi \in {\rm Hom}(G,\mathbb{R}) - \{ 0 \} \}$ where $\chi_1 \sim \chi_2$ if and only if $\chi_1 = r\chi_2$ for some $r > 0$. Let $\Gamma$ denote the Cayley graph of $G$ with respect to a fixed generating set $S$. Given $[\chi] \in S(G)$, define $\Gamma_\chi$ to be the subgraph of $\Gamma$ generated by the vertices $\{ g \in G \vert \chi(g) \geq 0 \}$. We say $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(G)$ if $\Gamma_{\chi}$ is path connected. For $n>1$, there are higher order $\Sigma$ - invariants $\Sigma^n$ introduced in [@BR].
The following are some well-known and useful facts. The notation $\Sigma^1(G)^c$ represents the complement of $\Sigma^1(G)$ in $S(G)$.
\[Factor\] Suppose $\phi:G \to H$ is an epimorphism, and $\chi \in {\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb{R})$. If $[\chi \circ \phi] \in \Sigma^1(G)$, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(H)$.
\[Lemma:Connected-Dominating\] If $g$ is a central element in $G$ and $\chi(g) \neq 0$, then $[\chi] \in \Sigma^1(G)$.
\[Sigma-Product\] For finitely generated groups $G$ and $H$, $\Sigma^1(G \times H)^c = (\Sigma^1(G)^c \circledast \emptyset) \cup (\emptyset \circledast \Sigma^1(H)^c)$ where $\circledast$ denotes the spherical join on the character sphere $S(G\times H)$.
Consider a group extension given by the following short exact sequence $$1\to H\to G\to K \to 1$$ where $H$ and $G$ are finitely generated and $K$ is finite, the following expression relates the $\Sigma$ - invariants of $G$ with those of $H$ ([@KW2 Cor. 3.2]).
\[sigma-finite\] For $n\ge 1$, $$\Sigma^n(G)=\Sigma^n(H)\cap \partial_{\infty}{\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)$$ where $\nu: K\to G$ is any left transversal such that $\nu(1_K)=1_G$, and ${\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)=\{\phi \in {\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)\mid \phi(\nu(q)^{-1}h\nu(q))=\phi(h) \text{~for all $h\in H, q\in K$}\}$ is a subspace of ${\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)$ .
Omega invariants
----------------
Another related invariant is the omega invariants $\Omega^n$ first introduced in [@K1]. A result of [@K1] gives the following characterization of the $\Omega^n$ which can be used as an alternate definition.
\[omega\] Let $e \in \partial_{\infty}\mathbb R^m$. Then $e \in \Omega^n(G)$ if and only if $e' \in \Sigma^n(G)$ for every $e'$ in an open $\frac{\pi}{2}$-neighborhood of $e$.
Since $\Sigma^n(G)$ is an open subset of $S(G)$, the above theorem implies $\Omega^n(G)$ is always a closed subset.
Given $\Sigma^n(G)$, we can completely determine $\Omega^n(G)$: for each $e \in \partial_{\infty}\mathbb R^m$, $e \in \Omega^n(G)$ if and only if the open $\frac{\pi}{2}$-neighborhood of $e$ is in $\Sigma^n(G)$. However, it is not the case that $\Omega^n(G)$ completely determines $\Sigma^n(G)$; examples of such groups are given in [@K2 § 1.3]. For computation, there is the following product formula proved in [@K2].
\[omega-product\] $\Omega^n(H \times K) = \Omega^n(H) \circledast \Omega^n(K)$.
Here, $\circledast$ denotes the spherical join.
Property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$
----------------------------
Recall from [@GK], the role that $\Sigma$-theory plays is that the $\Sigma$-invariant can be used to obtain a rational point on the character sphere that is fixed by all automorphisms. It fact, the underlying principle is the existence of a character $\chi:G\to \mathbb R$ such that $\chi\circ \varphi=\chi$ for ALL $\varphi\in {\rm Aut}(G)$. In this case, the image ${\rm Im}(\chi)$ is a finitely generated abelian subgroup of $\mathbb R$ and is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z^r$ for some positive intger $r$. The equality $\chi\circ \varphi=\chi$ implies that $\varphi$ induces the identity on ${\rm Im}(\chi)$ which implies that $R(\varphi)=\infty$ since ${\rm Ker}(\chi)$ is characteristic.
\[rigid\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated group and $\chi: G\to \mathbb R$ be a non-trivial character. The character $\chi$ is said to be [*rigid*]{} if for any $r\in \mathbb R$ and for any non-trivial subgroup $H$ of ${\rm Im}(\chi)$ such that $r\cdot H=H$ then $r=\pm 1$. We say the character class $[\chi]$ is [*rigid*]{} if for any $s>0$, the character $s\cdot \chi$ is rigid.
Thus, if for all $\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(G)$, $[\chi \circ \varphi]=\varphi^*([\chi])=[\chi]$ and $[\chi]$ is rigid then $\chi \circ \varphi=\chi$ for all $\varphi\in {\rm Aut}(G)$. Evidently, if $[\chi]$ is rational (i.e., $\chi(G)\cong \mathbb Z$) then $[\chi]$ is rigid.
Recall from [@GSS §6E] that a character $\chi$ as well as the class $[\chi]$ are called transcendental if ${\mathrm{Im}}(\chi)\subset \mathbb R$ has the property that if $a, b\in {\rm Im}\chi$ are non-zero, then $a/b$ is either rational or transcendental. It follows that if $[\chi]$ is transcendental then it is also rigid. It is easily seen that if $\chi:G\to \mathbb R$ has image $\mathbb Z+2^{1/3} \mathbb Z$, then $[\chi]$ is rigid; evidently it is not transcendental.
In Definition \[rigid\], the rigidity of a class $[\chi]$ asserts that if for any $r$ and any $s$, we have $r\cdot {\mathrm{Im}}(s\chi)={\mathrm{Im}}(s\chi)$ then $r=\pm 1$. Note that if ${\rm Im}(\chi)$ is generated by $2$ and $2\sqrt{2}$, then $\chi$ is rigid. Although $r\cdot {\mathrm{Im}}(\chi)={\mathrm{Im}}(\chi)$ implies that $r=\pm 1$, we have $(1+\sqrt{2}){\mathrm{Im}}((1/2)\chi)={\mathrm{Im}}((1/2)\chi)$. Thus, $\chi$ is rigid but $[\chi]$ is not.
Suppose a finitely generated group $G$ has a character sphere $S(G)$ of dimension $n=\dim S(G)$. Then for any automorphism $\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(G)$, the induced homeomorphism $\varphi^*: S(G)\to S(G)$ has topological degree $\pm 1$. The Lefschetz number $L(\varphi^*)=1+(-1)^n\cdot \deg \varphi^*$. Thus, if $n$ is even and $\deg \varphi^*=1$ then the Lefschetz Fixed Point Theorem asserts that $\varphi^*([\chi])=[\chi]$. However, there is no guarantee that $[\chi]$ is rigid. Similarly, if $\Sigma^1(G)^c$ or $\Omega^n(G)$ is topologically a disk, then the Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem asserts every $\varphi^*$ has a fixed point but again such a fixed point need not be rigid. In fact, there exists a group $G$ [@GSS] where $S(G)$ has a point $[\chi]$ that is fixed by $\varphi^*$ for all $\varphi\in {\rm Aut}(G)$ but $[\chi]$ is [*not*]{} rigid.
The existence of such a globally [*fixed*]{} character [*that is witnessed by $\Sigma$-theory*]{} leads us to the following stronger notion of property $R_{\infty}$.
\[witness\] A finitely generated group $G$ is said to have property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ if there exists a non-trivial character $\chi: G \to \mathbb R$ such that $\chi \circ \varphi=\chi$ for all $\varphi\in {\rm Aut}(G)$. Note that if $G$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$, it necessarily must have property $R_{\infty}$.
\[witness-ex\] Take $G=F_r\times BS(1,2)\times BS(1,2)$ where $F_r$ is the free group of rank $r\ge 2$. It is easy to see that the complement $[\Sigma^1(G)]^c$ is an infinite set but $\Omega^1(G)=\{-\infty\}\circledast \{-\infty\}$ is a closed arc with rational endpoints (using Theorem \[omega-product\]). It follows that either each of the endpoints is fixed, in which case, one of these endpoints yields a character that is fixed by all automorphisms, or $[\chi]$, which corresponds to a point on the arc obtained from taking the [*average*]{} of the characters $\chi, \chi \circ \varphi$ associated to the two endpoints, is fixed by $\varphi^*$ for all $\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(G)$. Here $\varphi^*$ is the homeomorphism of $S(G)$ induced by $\varphi$. Since the endpoints are rational, it follows that $[\chi]$ is also rational and hence rigid. Again, we conclude that $\chi$ is fixed by all automorphisms. Hence, $G$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
On the contrary, there are non-examples.
\[non-witness-ex\] By analyzing the automorphisms of the fundamental group of the Klein Bottle $K$ as in [@GW2 Lemma 2.1, Theorem 2.2], it is straightforward to see that there is no $[\chi]\in S(\pi_1(K))$ that is fixed by all automorphisms. Thus, $\pi_1(K)$ has property $R_{\infty}$ but not $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
Conditions on $b_1$ {#Betti_1}
===================
Consider a group extension $$\label{f-ext}
1\to H\to G\to K\to 1$$ where $H$ and $G$ are finitely generated and $K$ is finite. Let $\nu :K\to G$ be a left transversal with $\nu(1_K)=1_G$.
The following simple relation between property $R_{\infty}$ for $G$ and that for $H$ is straightforward (see e.g. [@GW1]).
\[Rinfty\_for\_finite\] Given the extension \[f-ext\], if $H$ is characteristic and has property $R_{\infty}$ then $G$ has property $R_{\infty}$.
\[SO\] Let ${\mathcal S\Omega}$ denote the class of all finitely generated groups which satisfy the following two conditions:
1. either $\Sigma^1(G)^c$ or $\Omega^n(G)$ lies inside an open hemisphere of the character sphere $S(G)$ for some $n\in \mathbb N$;\
2. either the connected components of $\Sigma^1(G)^c$ or of $\Omega^n(G)$ for some $n\in \mathbb N$ are finite polytopes with rigid vertices.
By Theorem \[omega\], if $\Omega^n(G)$ is not path connected then it is either empty or it consists of two antipodal points.
\[average\] Let $G$ be any group such that $G^{ab}$ has finite rank. Suppose $\chi: G\to \mathbb R$ is a rigid character and $\phi:G\to G$ is an automorphism such that the $\phi^*$-orbit of $[\chi]$ is finite. Let $\chi_j=\chi\circ \phi^j, 0\le j<r$ where $r>0$ is the least positive integer so that $[\chi_r]=[\chi]$. Suppose that the $[\chi_j]$ are in an open hemisphere of $S(G)$. Let $\eta=\sum_{0\le j<r} \chi_j.$ Then $\eta$ is rigid.
We note that ${\rm Im}(\eta)\subset {\rm Im}(\chi)$. So it suffices to show that $\eta$ is non-zero. But this follows from our hypothesis that the $[\chi_j]$ are in an open hemisphere.
\[SO-R\] If $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ then $G$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
Since $\Sigma^1(G)^c$ and $\Omega^n(G)$ are invariant under automorphisms of $G$, if one of them is a finite polytope then the vertices will be permuted by the homeomorphism induced on the character sphere by the automorphism. Since these vertices are rigid, by Lemma \[average\], we can find a rigid character that is fixed by all automorphisms of $G$. Hence $G$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
Denote by $b_1(\Gamma)$ the first Betti number of a group $\Gamma$.
\[betti\] Given the extension , if $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$ and $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ then $H\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ and hence has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
Since $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$, we conclude that the character sphere of $G$ coincides with the character sphere of $H$, that is, $S(G)=S(H)$. By [@KW2 Prop. 2.1, 2.3], $\partial_{\infty}{{\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)}=\partial_{\infty}{\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)$. It follows from Prop. \[sigma-finite\] that $G$ and $H$ have the same $\Sigma$ invariants. Since $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ it follows that $H\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ and the last assertion follows from Theorem \[SO-R\].
It should be emphasized that if $G$ (and hence $H$ under the assumption $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$) has empty or symmetric (e.g. $\Sigma^1(\pi_1(M))=-\Sigma^1(\pi_1(M)$ where $M$ is a closed orientable $3$-manifold [@BNS]) $\Sigma$ - invariants then we simply cannot deduce any information regarding property $R_{\infty}$. For example, consider the classical lamplighter groups $L_n=\mathbb Z_n\wr \mathbb Z$. It is known [@GW1] that $L_n$ has property $R_{\infty}$ iff $\gcd (n,6)>1$. However, $\Sigma^1(L_n)=\emptyset$ for any $n\in \mathbb N$. Another such example is the fundamental group $\Gamma$ of a non-prime $3$-manifold where $\Gamma$ has property $R_{\infty}$ [@GSW2] but $\Sigma^1(\Gamma)=\emptyset$. Furthermore, if $M$ is a closed orientable $3$-manifold with $\mathbb H^2\times \mathbb R$ geometry then $\pi_1(M)$ has property $R_{\infty}$ [@GSW1] while the fundamental group of the $3$-torus does not. Here, both fundamental groups have non-empty symmetric $\Sigma^1$.
The main result of this section is the following.
\[comm1\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. Suppose every finite index subgroup $H$ has the property that $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$. If $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ then every group $\hat G$ commensurable to $G$ also has property $R_{\infty}$.
Let $\hat G$ be commensurable to $G$ so that there exist $H\le G, \hat H\le \hat G$ such that $[G:H]<\infty, [\hat G:\hat H]<\infty$ and $\hat H\cong H$. Let $C_H$ be the core of $H$ in $G$ so that $C_H\le H$ and $C_H\unlhd G$. Since $H$ is of finite index in $G$ so is $C_H$. By Lemma \[betti\], we conclude that $C_H\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$. Now $b_1(C_H)=b_1(H)=b_1(G)$. Furthermore, $H$ has the same $\Sigma$ - invariants as $G$ so we conclude that $H\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$. Since $\hat H \cong H$, $\hat H\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$. Now $\Gamma_{\hat H}:=\bigcap_{\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(\hat G)} \varphi(C_{\hat H})$ also has finite index in $\hat G$ and is characteristic in $\hat G$. Note that $\Gamma_{\hat H}$ is isomorphic to a subgroup $\bar H\le H$ of finite index in $H$. It follows from the assumption that $b_1(\bar H)=b_1(G)$, the subgroup $\bar H\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$. Now $\Gamma_{\hat H}$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$. Applying Lemma \[Rinfty\_for\_finite\], we conclude that $\hat G$ has property $R_{\infty}$.
Lemma \[Rinfty\_for\_finite\] does not necessarily imply $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ for the extension unless it has the same $\Sigma$ - invariants as the kernel. Thus, in the proof of Theorem \[comm1\], if we know for instance that $b_1(\Gamma_{\hat H})=b_1(\hat G)$ then we can conclude that $\hat G$ also has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
\[BS\] Recall that property $R_{\infty}$ is a quasi-isometric invariant for the class of solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups (and their solvable generalizations)[@TW1]. It is known (see e.g., [@K2]) that $\Sigma^1(BS(1,n))=\{-\infty\}$ contains exactly one rational point and $b_1(BS(1,n))=1$. Furthermore, if $H$ is a finite index subgroup of $BS(1,n)$ then $H$ itself is a $BS(1,n^m))$ (see e.g. [@Bo]) so that $b_1(H)=1$. Thus Theorem \[comm1\] gives a different proof of the fact that $R_{\infty}$ is invariant under commensurability for the class of solvable Baumslag-Solitor groups.
\[gamma-n\] For any $n\ge 2$, write $n=p_1^{y_1}...p_r^{y_r}$ as its prime decomposition. Define a solvable generalization of the solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups by $$\Gamma_n=\langle a,t_1,...,t_r \mid t_it_j=t_jt_i, t_iat_i^{-1}=a^{p_i^{y_i}}, i=1,...,r.\rangle.$$ Evidently, when $r=1$, $\Gamma_n=BS(1,n)$. In [@SgW], it has been shown that $\Sigma^1(\Gamma_n)^c$ is a finite set of rational points all lying inside an open hemisphere so that $\Gamma_n\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$. Moreover, a presentation is also found for any finite index subgroup $H$ of $\Gamma_n$. Using this presentation, one can show that $b_1(H)=b_1(\Gamma_n)=r$. Thus Theorem \[comm1\] gives a different proof of the fact that $R_{\infty}$ is invariant under commensurability for this class of generalized solvable Baumslag-Solitor groups.
Next, we exhibit more examples for which $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$. Note that in general, $b_1(G)\le b_1(H)$.
\[semi-simple\] Let $G$ be a connected semi-simple Lie group having real rank at least $2$ and $\Gamma$ be an irreducible lattice in $G$. For every finite index subgroup $H$ in $\Gamma$, $b_1(H)=b_1(\Gamma)=0$. However, in this case, $S(H)=\emptyset=S(\Gamma)$ and hence both $H$ and $\Gamma$ have empty $\Sigma$ - invariants.
\[PL\] Certain subgroups of ${\rm PL}_{o}([0,1])$ (oriented PL-homeomorphism group of $[0,1]$) possess such property [@GSS section 6].
\[inner\] Suppose $G=H\rtimes_{\theta}K$ where $\theta:K\to {\rm Aut}(H)$ is the action. If $\theta(K)\subset {\rm Inn}(H)$ then $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$. From Stallings’ $5$-term exact sequence, we have the following exact sequence $$H_2(K) \to H/[G,H] \to H_1(G) \to H_1(K)\to 0.$$ Since $K$ is finite, both $H_2(K)$ and $H_1(K)$ are finite. It follows that $${\rm rk}_{\mathbb Z}\left(H/[G,H]\right)={\rm rk}_{\mathbb Z}(H_1(G))=b_1(G).$$ Since $[H,H]\le [G,H]$, it suffices to show that $[H,H]=[G,H]$ under our assumptions. For any $g\in G$, $g$ can be uniquely written as $g=\hat h \bar k$ where $\bar k$ is the image of $k\in K$ under the section given by the splitting. For any $h\in H$, $$\begin{aligned}
ghg^{-1}h^{-1}&=\hat h\bar kh{\bar k}^{-1}{\hat h}^{-1}h^{-1} \\
&=\hat h \theta(k)(h){\hat h}^{-1}h^{-1} \\
&=\hat h \eta h\eta^{-1}{\hat h}^{-1}h^{-1} \qquad \text{for some $\eta\in H$ since $\theta(k)\in {\rm Inn}(H)$}\\
&=(\hat h\eta)h(\hat h\eta)^{-1}h^{-1} \in [H,H]
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $[G,H]=[H,H]$ and hence we have $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$.
\[simple\_subgp\] Let $G$ be an infinite group. Suppose the commutator subgroup $[G,G]$ contains a simple group $K$ with $[[G,G]:K]<\infty$. Then for any finite index subgroup $H$ of $G$, $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$.
To see this, first note that for every finite index subgroup $H$, its core $core_G(H)=C_H\le H$ is normal and has finite index in $G$. Now, $K\cap C_H$ has finite index in $K$ so $K\cap C_H$ is non-trivial. Since $K$ is simple and $core_K(K\cap C_H)\le K\cap C_H \le K$, it follows that $K\cap C_H=K$ so $K\le H$. Again, $K$ being simple means that $K=[K,K]$. Since $K=[K,K]\le [H,H] \le [G,G]$ and $K$ has finite index in $[G,G]$, we conclude that $[H,H]$ has finite index in $[G,G]$. It follows from Stallings’ $5$-term exact sequence that $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$. Note that the argument above shows that [*every*]{} finite index subgroup of $G$ contains the simple group $K$.
The hypotheses of Lemma \[simple\_subgp\] are satisifed by a large class of groups. In particular, for $n\ge 2$, the Houghton groups $H_n$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[simple\_subgp\] with $K=A_{\infty}$. Furthermore, let $S$ be a self-similar group and $G=V(S)$ be the associated Nekrashevych group. Then $[V(S), V(S)]$ is simple (see for instance [@N]). In fact, under certain conditions, $[G,G]$ can be of finite index in $G$ ([@SWZ Theorem 3.3]). Thus, by Lemma \[simple\_subgp\], these aforementioned groups $G$ have the property that $b_1(H)=b_1(G)$ for all finite index subgroup $H$ in $G$.
The R. Thompson’s group $F$ is known to have property $R_{\infty}$. A different proof, using $\Sigma$-theory, has been given in [@GK]. In fact, one can conclude that $F\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ so $F$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$. Now, the next result follows from Lemma \[simple\_subgp\], the fact that $[F,F]$ is simple and Theorem \[comm1\] that any group commensurable to $F$ also has property $R_{\infty}$.
\[Thompson\_F\] Consider the R. Thompson’s group $F$. Then any group commensurable to $F$ also has property $R_{\infty}$.
Example [@KW2 5.5] follows immediately from Theorem \[Thompson\_F\]. The generalized Thompson’s groups $F_{0,n}$ have property $R_{\infty}$ and every group commensurable to one such also has property $R_{\infty}$. This result, including Theorem \[Thompson\_F\], has been proven in [@GSS] using different methods.
Another large class of interesting groups for which finite index subgroups have the same first Betti numbers is the class of lamplighter groups of the form $G\wr \mathbb Z$ where $G$ is a finite group. Since lamplighter groups have empty $\Sigma^1$, these groups exhibit different behavior as we illustrate in the next example.
\[strange-lamplighter\] Let $p\ge 5$ be an odd prime. It follows from [@GW1] that $G=\mathbb Z_p\wr \mathbb Z$ does not have property $R_{\infty}$. Moreover, any finite index subgroup $\hat G$ of $G$ does NOT have property $R_{\infty}$. Since every subgroup of finite index in $G$ is of the form $(\mathbb Z_p)^k\wr \mathbb Z$ for some $k\in \mathbb N$, it follows from the main theorem of [@GW1] that such subgroup does not have property $R_{\infty}$.
Invariance under ${\rm Aut}(H)$
===============================
Consider the Artin braid group $B_3$ (on the disk) and its pure braid group $P_3$ on $3$ strands. The group $P_3$ is a normal subgroup of index $6$ in $B_3$. Moreover, $P_3\cong F_2\times \mathbb Z$ where $F_2$ is the free group on $2$ generators and $\mathbb Z$ is generated by the central element $\Delta$ which is the full-twist of the $3$ strands. It follows that $b_1(P_3)=3$ and $b_1(B_3)=1$. By Prop. \[sigma-finite\], $\Sigma^1(B_3)=\Sigma^1(P_3)\cap \partial_{\infty} {\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)$. Since $[B_3,B_3]$ is finitely generated, $\Sigma^1(B_3)=\{\pm \infty\}$. Furthermore, the computation in [@KW2] shows that $\Omega^1(P_3)=\{\pm \infty\}$ and these two rational points come from the center $\mathbb Z=\langle \Delta \rangle$. A straightforward calculation indicates that $\Sigma^1(P_3)\cap \partial_{\infty} {\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)=\Omega^1(P_3)$. Now, $P_3$ has property $R_{\infty}$ (see e.g. [@FGW]). Observe that $\Sigma^1(B_3)$ is invariant under all automorphisms of $P_3$ because $\Sigma^1(B_3)=\Omega^1(P_3)$. This leads us to investigate when $\Sigma^n(G)$ is invariant under ${\rm Aut}(H)$.
Based on Prop. \[sigma-finite\], one should seek conditions under which $\partial_{\infty}{\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)$ is invariant under automorphisms of $H$. Recall that for any left transversal $\nu:K\to G$ such that $\nu(1_K)=1_G$, $${\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)=\{\phi\in {\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)\mid \phi(\nu(q)^{-1}h\nu(q))=\phi(h), \forall h\in H, \forall q\in K\}.$$ For every $q\in K$, define $\alpha_q\in {\rm Aut}(H)$ by $\alpha_q(h)=\nu(q)^{-1}h\nu(q)$. It follows that ${\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)=\{\phi\in {\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)\mid \phi \circ \alpha_q=\phi, \forall q\in K\}$. Denote by $\overline{\alpha_q}\in {\rm Out}(H)$ the image of $\alpha_q$ in ${\rm Out}(H)$.
\[central-out\] Given a short exact sequence $$1\to H\to G\to K\to 1$$ and a left transversal $\nu:K\to G$ with $\nu(1_K)=1_G$, if for every $q\in K$, $\overline{\alpha_q}\in Z({\rm Out}(H))$, the center of ${\rm Out}(H)$ then for any $\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(H)$, we have $\varphi(\Sigma^n(G))=\Sigma^n(G)$. Furthermore, if $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ and if $\varphi^*(S(G))=S(G)$ for some $\varphi \in {\rm Aut}(H)$ then $R(\varphi)={\infty}$.
Given any $\varphi\in {\rm Aut}(H)$, there is an induced isomorphism $\hat \varphi$ on ${\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)$ given by $\hat \varphi(\phi)=\phi\circ \varphi$ for any $\phi\in {\rm Hom}(H,\mathbb R)$. Suppose $\phi \in {\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)$. For $\hat \varphi(\phi)\in {\rm Fix} (\hat \nu)$, we must have $\hat \varphi(\phi) \circ \alpha_q=\hat \varphi(\phi)$ for every $q\in K$. It follows that $$\phi\circ \varphi \circ \alpha_q=\phi\circ \varphi=\phi \circ \alpha_q\circ \varphi$$ must hold for all $q\in K$. This equality holds if the automorphisms $\varphi \circ \alpha_q$ and $\alpha_q\circ \varphi$ differ by an inner automorphism. This holds under the assumption that $\overline{\alpha_q}$ lies in the center $Z({\rm Out}(H))$ for every $q\in K$. Now the invariance of $\Sigma^n(G)$ under ${\rm Aut}(H)$ follows from Prop. \[sigma-finite\]. Since $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ there exists a rigid character $\chi$ that is fixed by all automorphisms of $G$. Since this character is obtained from the $\Sigma$ - invariants of $G$ which are invariant under ${\rm Aut}(H)$ and the subsphere $S(G)\subset S(H)$ is invariant under $\varphi$, we conclude that $\chi$ is also fixed by $\varphi^*$. It follows that $R(\varphi)={\infty}$.
Although $B_3$ and $P_3$ both have property $R_{\infty}$, neither of them belongs to ${\mathcal S\Omega}$.
More groups with $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ or $R_{\infty}$
====================================================
The notion of $R_\infty$ makes sense for [*all*]{} infinite groups. In this section we consider groups which are not necessarily finitely generated, but whose abelianization, modulo torsion, is finitely generated. The notions of rigidity of characters and character classes as well as that of $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ are valid for such groups. We extend the class of groups ${\mathcal S\Omega}$ to allow for groups $G$ which are not necessarily finitely generated so long as $\textrm{Hom}(G,\mathbb R)$ is finite dimensional, that is, $G^{\textrm{ab} }$ modulo torsion is finitely generated. We note that the results of sections 2 and 3 still remain valid with the extended notions of ${\mathcal S\Omega}$ and $R^\chi_\infty$. We now construct new groups (not necessarily finitely generated) that are direct products or free products that possess either property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ or $R_{\infty}$.
\(i) [**Divisible groups.**]{} Recall that a group $G$ is divisible if given any element $g\in G$ and an integer $n>1$, there exists an $h\in G$ such that $g=h^n$. Examples of divisible abelian groups are $\mathbb Q^m\times (\mathbb Q/Z)^n, m,n\in \mathbb N$. It is known that there exist $2^{\aleph_0}$-many pairwise non-isomorphic groups which are generated by two elements and divisible. (See [@lyndon-schupp].) These groups do not have any proper finite index subgroups. This family is closed under finite direct products. We shall denote this class of group by $\mathcal D$.
\(ii) [**Torsion groups.**]{} All torsion groups have vanishing $b_1$. This follows easily from the basic fact that homology commutes with direct limit. This family of groups is huge and includes many interesting groups such as Grigorchuk groups, the group of finitary permutations of $\mathbb N$, etc. Elementary (abelian) examples include $A(\mathcal P):=\oplus_{p\in \mathcal P} Z_p$, as $\mathcal P$ varies in the set of all (infinite) subsets of primes. Denote this class of groups by $\mathcal T$.
\(iii) [**Acyclic groups.**]{} A group is said to be acyclic if its homology with trivial $\mathbb Z$ coefficients vanishes. This class includes the Higman four-group [@dyer-vasquez] and binate towers [@berrick]. It is known that any finitely generated group admits an embedding into a finitely generated acyclic group [@baumslag-heller-dyer]. This class of groups, denoted $\mathcal A$, is closed under finite direct products and finite free products.
\(iv) [**Higher rank lattices.**]{} Let $ G$ be a connected semisimple (real) linear Lie group which has no compact factors. Suppose that the real rank of $G$ is at least $2$. (The real rank of a linear Lie group is the dimension of the largest diagonalizable subgroup isomorphic to $\mathbb R_{>0}^\times$.) Let $L\subset G$ be an irreducible lattice in $G$. Then it is a deep result of Margulis that any normal subgroup of $L$ is either finite or has finite index in $L$. Since $L$ itself is not virtually abelian, it follows that $b_1(L)=0$ and that the same is true of any finite index subgroup of $L$. (This is not true in the case of rank-$1$-lattices.) Again, if $L_i\subset G_i, 1\le i\le n,$ are irreducible higher rank lattices, then the product $L:=\prod_{1\le i\le n} L_i $ also has trivial abelianization. Any finite index subgroup $\Lambda$ of $L$ admits a finite index subgroup $\Gamma$ which is a product $\prod \Gamma_i$ where $\Gamma_i\subset L_i$ is a sublattice, (i.e., finite index subgroup of $L_i$). It follows that $b_1(\Gamma)=0$ and hence $b_1(\Lambda)=0$. Let us denote this class of groups by $\mathcal L$.
We now construct new examples of groups with property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
\[newgroups\] We keep the above notation. Let $\mathcal C$ denote $\mathcal D\cup \mathcal T\cup
\mathcal A\cup \mathcal L$ and $G$ be a group belonging to ${\mathcal S\Omega}$. Let $H$ be in $ \mathcal C$. Suppose that every homomorphism $H\to G$ is trivial, then: (i) $G\times H \in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ and $G*H$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$,\
(ii) Let $K$ be a finite index subgroup of $G$ such that $b_1(K)=b_1(G)$. Then $K\times H \in {\mathcal S\Omega}$ and $K*H$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
\(i) Since any homomorphism $H\to G$ is trivial, the subgroup $H=H\times 1\subset G\times H$ is characteristic in $G\times H$. Therefore any automorphism $\phi:G\times H \to G\times H $ induces an automorphism $\bar \phi:G\to G$. Denote by $\eta:G\times H \to G$ the natural projection. Let $\chi:G\to \mathbb R$ be an ${\rm Aut}(G)$-invariant nontrivial character of $G$. Then $\theta:=\chi\circ \eta:G\times H\to \mathbb R$ is an ${\rm Aut}(G\times H)$-invariant character.
Since $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$, $\Sigma^1(G)$ is non-empty and is a proper subset of the sphere $S(G)$. Thus $G\ne \mathbb Z$. Furthermore, $G$ is freely indecomposable for free products have empty $\Sigma$ - invariants. If $H\in \mathcal D \cup \mathcal T \cup \mathcal L$, then it is easy to see that $H$ is freely indecomposable. If $H\in \mathcal A$ is acyclic then $H$ cannot have $\mathbb Z$ as a factor in its free product decomposition. Thus, we conclude that $G*H$ is a finite free product where none of the factors can be $\mathbb Z$. It follows from [@Co] that the kernel of the canonical map $G*H\to G\times H$ is a characteristic subgroup, namely, $[G,H]\subset G*H$ generated by the commutators $[g,h],g\in G, h\in H$. The $R_\infty$-property of $G*H$ follows from that of $G\times H$. Moreover, with $\theta$ as above, the composition $G*H\to G\times H\stackrel{\theta}{\to} \mathbb R$ is a character that is invariant under any automorphism of $G*H$. So $G*H$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$.
\(ii) By Lemma \[betti\], $K$ belongs to ${\mathcal S\Omega}$. Since any homomorphism $H\to G$ is trivial, the same is true if $G$ is replaced by $K$. Thus the hypotheses of the statement of the theorem are valid when $G$ is replaced by $K$. Therefore (ii) follows from (i).
There are groups with property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ but with empty $\Sigma$ - invariants. For example, the group $BS(2,3)$ has property $R_{\infty}$. A close inspection of the proof in [@FeG] shows that $BS(2,3)$ has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ while it has empty $\Sigma^1$ so that $BS(2,3) \notin {\mathcal S\Omega}$.
In general the requirement that any homomorphism $H\to G$ is trivial is hard to verify. However, in certain contexts this is easily verified or known. Examples of such situations are: (a) $H$ is a torsion group and $G$ is torsion free. (b) $H$ admits no finite dimensional linear representation and $G$ is linear. For example we may take $G$ to be an irreducible lattice in a semisimple linear Lie group and $H$ to be a binate group ([@berrick-1994 Theorem 3.1],[@berrick-1995]). (c) If $G$ is a group such that any nontrivial element in $G$ has at most finitely many roots in $G$ and $H$ is divisible. For example, take $G$ to be a non-elementary hyperbolic group or is a subgroup of $GL(n,\mathbb Z)$ for some $n$. Note that if $G$ is the fundamental group of a closed orientable hyperbolic $3$-manifold then by [@BNS], $\Sigma^1(G)$ is symmetric so $G\notin {\mathcal S\Omega}$. In view of this, (i) of Proposition \[newgroups\] can be generalized as follows using the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[newgroups\].
\[newgroups2\] Let $\mathcal C$ denote $\mathcal D\cup \mathcal T\cup
\mathcal A\cup \mathcal L$. Let $G$ be a group with property $R_{\infty}$ and $H$ be in $ \mathcal C$. Suppose that every homomorphism $H\to G$ is trivial then:\
(i) $G\times H$ has property $R_{\infty}$,\
(ii) if $G$ is freely indecomposable or is a finite free product in which none of the factors is isomorphic to $\mathbb Z$ then $G*H$ has property $R_{\infty}$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
In this paper, we study a stronger form of $R_{\infty}$, namely $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$. We introduce the family ${\mathcal S\Omega}$ in which every group in this family has property $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$. Under a simple condition on $b_1$, we prove commensurability invariance in Theorem \[comm1\]. Although the notion of $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$ is inspired by the use of $\Sigma$-theory and related invariants, there are groups with such property but $\Sigma^1$ is empty. In the last section, we construct certain free products $G*H$ with property $R_{\infty}$. In particular, when $H\in \mathcal D$ is divisble, $H$ does not contain any proper subgroup of finite index. Yet, if $G$ has property $R_{\infty}$ (or $G\in {\mathcal S\Omega}$) and every $H\to G$ is trivial then $G*H$ has property $R_{\infty}$ (or $R^{\chi}_{\infty}$). On the other hand, it has been shown in [@GSW2] that $G*H$ has property $R_{\infty}$ provided both $G$ and $H$ contain proper finite index subgroups. We ask the following
Let $G=G_1*...*G_k$ be a finite free product of freely indecomposable (not necessarily finitely generated) groups $G_i$. Does $G$ necessarily have property $R_{\infty}$?
[99]{}
G. Baumslag, E. Dyer, and A. Heller, The topology of discrete groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 16 (1980), no. 1, 1–47.
A. J. Berrick, Universal groups, binate groups and acyclicity. Group theory (Singapore, 1987), 253—266, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1989.
A. J. Berrick, Groups with no nontrivial linear representations. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**50**]{} (1994), no. 1, 1–11.
A. J. Berrick, Corrigenda: "Groups with no nontrivial linear representations” \[Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 50 (1994), no. 1, 1–11\]. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**52**]{} (1995), no. 2, 345–346.
R. Bieri, W. Neumann, and R. Strebel, A Geometric Invariant of Discrete Groups, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**90**]{} (1987), no. 3, 451–477.
R. Bieri and B. Renz, Valuations on Free Resolutions and Higher Geometric Invariants of Groups, [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{} [**63**]{} (1988), 464–497.
O. Bogopolski, Abstract commensurators of solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups, [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**40**]{} (2012), 2494–2502.
D. Collins, The automorphism group of a free product of finite groups, [*Arch. Math.*]{} [**50**]{} (1988), 385–390.
W, Dyer and A. T. Vasquez, Some small aspherical spaces. Collection of articles dedicated to the memory of Hanna Neumann, III. J. Austral. Math. Soc. [**16**]{} (1973), 332–352.
B. Farb and L. Mosher (appendix by D. Cooper), A rigidity theorem for the solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups, [*Inventiones Math*]{} [**131**]{} (1998), 419–451.
A. L. Fel’shtyn, New directions in Nielsen-Reidemeister theory Topology Appl. [**157**]{} (2010), no. 10-11, 1724–1735.
A. L. Fel’shtyn and D. Gonçalves, Reidemeister numbers of any automorphism of Baumslag-Solitar groups is infinite, in: Geometry and Dynamics of Groups and Spaces, Progress in Mathematics, v.265 (2008), 286–306.
A. L. Fel’shtyn, D. Gonçalves and P. Wong, Twisted conjugacy classes for polyfree groups, [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**42**]{} (2014), no. 1, 130–138.
D. Gonçalves and D. Kochloukova, Sigma theory and twisted conjugacy classes, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**247**]{} (2010), 335–352.
D. Gonçalves and P. Sankaran, Sigma theory and twisted conjugacy, II: Houghton groups and pure symmetric automorphism groups, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**280**]{} (2016), 349–369.
D. Gonçalves, P. Sankaran and R. Strebel, Groups of PL-homeomorphisms admitting non-trivial invariant characters, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{}, [**287**]{} (2017) 101–158.
D. Gonçalves, P. Sankaran and P. Wong,Twisted conjugacy in fundamental groups of geometric $3$-manifolds, preprint 2020.
D. Gonçalves, P. Sankaran and P. Wong, Twisted conjugacy in free products, preprint 2020.
D. Gonçalves and P. Wong, Twisted conjugacy classes in wreath products, [*Internat. J. Alg. Comput.*]{} [**16**]{} (2006), 875–886.
D. Gonçalves and P. Wong, Twisted conjugacy classes in nilpotent groups, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{} [**633**]{} (2009), 11–27.
B. Jiang, “Lectures on Nielsen Fixed Point Theory," Contemp. Math. v.14, Amer. Math. Soc., 1983
N. Koban, Controlled topology invariants of translation actions, [*Topol. Appl.*]{} [**152**]{} (2006), 1975–1993.
N. Koban, The geometric invariants $\Omega^n$ of a product of groups, [*Geom. Dedic.*]{} [**124**]{} (2007), 133–141.
N. Koban, J. McCammond and J. Meier, The BNS-invariant for the pure braid groups, [*Groups Geom. Dyn.*]{} [**9**]{} (2015), 665–682.
N. Koban and P. Wong, A relationship between twisted conjugacy classes and the geometric invariants $\Omega^n$, [*Geom. Dedic.*]{} [**151**]{} (2011), 233–243.
N. Koban and P. Wong, The geometric invariants of certain group extensions with applications to twisted conjugacy, [*Topology and its Applications*]{} [**193**]{} (2015), 192–205.
G. Levitt, On the automorphism group of generalized Baumslag-Solitar groups, [*Geometry and Topology*]{} [**11**]{} (2007), 473–515.
G. Levitt and M. Lustig, Most automorphisms of a hyperbolic group have simple dynamics, [*Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup.*]{} [**33**]{} (2000), 507–517. Lyndon, Roger C.; Schupp, Paul E. [*Combinatorial group theory.*]{} Reprint of the 1977 edition. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
T. Mubeena and P. Sankaran, Twisted conjugacy and quasi-isometric rigidity of irreducible lattices in semisimple Lie groups. Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. [**50**]{} (2019), no. 2, 403–412.
Y. Nekrashevych, Finitely presented groups associated with expanding maps. In [*Geometric and Cohomological Group Theory*]{}, London Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2017. arXiv:1312.5654.
W. Sgobbi and P. Wong, Finite index subgroups of generalized solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups, geometric invarianats and property $R_{\infty}$, preprint, 2020.
R. Skipper, S. Witzel, and M. Zaremsky, Simple groups separated by finiteness properties, arXiv:1712.05361v2, 2017.
J. Taback and P. Wong, Twisted conjugacy and quasi-isometry invariance for generalized solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups, [*Journal London Mathematical Society (2)*]{} [**75**]{} (2007), 705–717.
J. Taback and P. Wong, A note on twisted conjugacy and generalized Baumslag-Solitar groups, arXiv:math.GR/0606284, Preprint, 2006.
K. Whyte, The large scale geometry of the higher Baumslag-Solitar groups. [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [*11*]{} (2001), 1327–1343.
[^1]: This work was initiated during the second author’s visit to the Institute of Mathematical Sciences - Chennai, India, July 31 - August 17, 2016 and carried out in subsequent vists during August 23 - September 1, 2018 (at IMSc) and December 14 - 20, 2019 (at Chennai Mathematical Institute). The second author would like to thank the IMSc and the CMI for their hospitality and support throughout his visits.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For a group $G$, we study the question of which cohomology functors commute with all small filtered colimit systems of coefficient modules. We say that the functor $H^n(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is [*finitary*]{} when this is so and we consider the [*finitary set*]{} for $G$, that is, the set of natural numbers for which this holds. It is shown that for the class of groups ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ there is a dichotomy: the finitary set of such a group is either finite or cofinite. We investigate which sets of natural numbers $n$ can arise as finitary sets for suitably chosen $G$ and what restrictions are imposed by the presence of certain kinds of normal or near-normal subgroups. Although the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ is large, containing soluble and linear groups, being closed under extensions, subgroups, amalgamated free products, HNN-extension, there are known to be many not in ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ such as Richard Thompson’s group $F$. Our theory does not extend beyond the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ at present and so it is an open problem whether the main conclusions of this paper hold for arbitrary groups. There is a survey of recent developments and open questions.'
address: 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ'
author:
- 'P. H. Kropholler'
bibliography:
- 'Continuity.bib'
---
Organizational Statement {#organizational-statement .unnumbered}
========================
This paper lays the foundation stones for a series of papers by the author’s former student Martin Hamilton: [@hamilton2011; @hamilton2008; @hamilton2009]. As sometimes happens, this literature has not been published in the order in which it was intended to be read and for this reason I am taking the opportunity of this conference proceedings to include a survey of Hamilton’s papers and a discussion of possible future directions. This survey follows and expands upon the spirit of the talk I gave at the meeting. The present work also lays the foundations for Hamilton’s results in [@hamilton2011]. The papers [@hamilton2008] and [@hamilton2009] build on the results of the present work and [@hamilton2011].
Introduction
============
Groups of types ${\operatorname{FP}}$, ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ or ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$ have been widely explored. The properties are most often described in terms of projective resolutions. A group $G$ has type ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$ if and only if there is a projective resolution $\cdots\to P_j\to P_{j-1}\to\dots\to P_1\to P_0{\twoheadrightarrow}{{\mathbb Z}}$ of the trivial module ${{\mathbb Z}}$ over the integral group ring ${{\mathbb Z}}G$ such that $P_j$ is finitely generated for $j\le n$. Type ${\operatorname{FP}}_1$ is equivalent to finite generation of the group, and for finitely presented groups, type ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$ is equivalent to the existence of an Eilenberg–Mac Lane space with finite $n$-skeleton. These properties can also be formulated in terms of cohomology functors by using the notion of a [*finitary functor*]{}. A functor is said to be [*finitary*]{} if it preserves filtered colimits (see §6.5 of [@leinster]; also §3.18 of [@adamekrosicky]). For a group $G$ and a natural number $n$ we can consider whether or not the $n$th cohomology functor is finitary. For our purposes it is also useful to consider additive functors $F$ between abelian categories with the property that $$\lim_\to F(M_\lambda)=0$$ whenever $(M_\lambda)$ is a filtered colimit system satisfying $\displaystyle\lim_\to M_\lambda=0$: we shall say that $F$ is [*$0$-finitary*]{} when this condition holds. Here is a classical result of Brown [@Brown1975] phrased in this language. The details and similar results of Bieri and Eckmann can be found in ([@bieri-qmw] Theorem 1.3) and ([@Brown-book] VIII Theorem 4.8).
It would seem very natural to use the terminology *continuous* to mean finitary and *continuous at zero* to mean $0$-finitary. We have not done so because the terminology now standard in category theory reserves the use of the term continuous for functors which commute with limits while finitary refers to functors which commute with colimits.
\[classical\] For a group $G$ and $n\ge0$, the following are equivalent:
1. $G$ is of type ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$;
2. $H^i(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is finitary for all $i<n$;
3. $H^i(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is $0$-finitary for all $i\le n$;
We write $\mathcal F(G)$ (resp. ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$) for the set of positive natural numbers $n$ for which $H^n(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is finitary (resp. $0$-finitary).
Main Theorems
=============
Our basic result concerns groups in the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ as described in [@kropholler1993] and [@krmi]. We write ${{\mathbb N}}^+$ for the set of natural numbers $n\ge1$.
\[basic1\] Let $G$ be an ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-group for which ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ is infinite. Then
1. ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ is cofinite in ${{\mathbb N}}^+$;
2. there is a bound on the orders of the finite subgroups of $G$;
3. there is a finite dimensional model for the classifying space $\underbar EG$ for proper group actions.
We refer the reader to [@krmi] for a brief explanation of the classifying space $\underbar EG$, and to Lück’s survey article [@Lueck-survey] for a comprehensive account. Our theorem shows that for any ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-group $G$ the set ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ is either finite or cofinite in the set ${{\mathbb N}}^+$ of positive natural numbers. It is unknown whether there exists a group $G$ outwith the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ for which ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ is a moiety (i.e. neither finite nor cofinite). Notice that groups of finite cohomological dimension all belong to ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ and have a cofinite invariant because almost all their cohomology functors vanish. On the other hand the theorem shows that $\mathcal F_0(G)$ is finite for all torsion-free ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ groups of infinite cohomological dimension. Both conditions (ii) and (iii) above are highly restrictive. However, the theorem does not give a characterization for cofiniteness of ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ for groups with torsion: this turns out to be a delicate question even for abelian-by-finite groups and is studied by Hamilton in the companion article [@hamilton2011]. Before turning to the proof of Theorem \[basic1\] we show that ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ can behave in any way subject to the constraints it entails.
\[basic2\] Given any finite or cofinite subset $S\subseteq{{\mathbb N}}^+$ there exists a group $G$ such that
1. ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G) = S$;
2. $G$ has a finite dimensional model for the classifying space $\underline EG$.
Note that all groups with finite dimensional models for $\underline E$ belong to ${{{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}_1}{\mathfrak F}}\subset{{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$. There is an abundance of examples of groups satisfying various homological finiteness conditions and we can select examples easily to establish Theorem \[basic2\].
\[basic3\]
1. For each $n$ there is a group $J_n$ such that ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(J_n)={{\mathbb N}}^+{\smallsetminus}\{n\}$.
2. For each $n$ there is a group $H_n$ of type ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$ such that ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(H_n)$ is finite.
Moreover, the groups here can be chosen to have finite dimensional models for their classifying spaces for proper actions.
For $J_n$ we can take Bieri’s example $A_{n-1}$ of a group which is of type ${\operatorname{FP}}_{n-1}$ but not of type ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$ ([@bieri-qmw] Proposition 2.14). This group has cohomological dimension $n$ and hence it has the desired properties. Many more examples like this can be obtained using the powerful results of Bestvina and Brady [@bestvinabrady1997]
For the groups $H_n$ we may choose Houghton’s examples [@houghton] of groups which were shown to be of type ${\operatorname{FP}}_{n}$ but not type ${\operatorname{FP}}_{n+1}$ by Brown [@Brown1987]. The group $H_n$ is defined to be the group of those permutations $\sigma$ of $\{0,1,2,\dots,n\}\times{{\mathbb N}}$ for which there exists $m_0,\dots,m_n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ (depending on $\sigma$) such that $\sigma(i,m)=(i,m+m_i)$ for all but finitely many ordered pairs $(i,m)$. The vector $(m_0,\dots,m_n)$ is uniquely determined by $\sigma$ and necessarily satisfies $m_0+\dots+m_n=0$. Thus there is a group homomorphism $H_n\to{{\mathbb Z}}^{n+1}$ given by $\sigma\mapsto(m_0,\dots,m_n),$ and $H_n$ is a group extension $$T{\rightarrowtail}H_n{\twoheadrightarrow}{{\mathbb Z}}^n$$ where $T$ is the group of all finitary permutations of the countably infinite set $\{0,1,2,\dots,n\}\times{{\mathbb N}}$. We will describe an explicit construction for a finite dimensional $\underline EH_n$. Let $T_0<T_1<T_2<\dots<T_i<\cdots$ be a chain of finite subgroups of the locally finite group $T$, indexed by $i\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and having $\bigcup T_i=T$. Let $\Gamma$ be the graph whose edge and vertex sets are the cosets of the $T_i$: $$V:=\bigsqcup T_i\backslash T=:E$$ and in which the terminal and initial vertices of an edge $e=T_ig$ are $\tau e=T_{i+1}g$ and $\iota e=T_ig$. Then $\Gamma$ is a $T$-tree and its realization as a one dimensional $CW$-complex is a one dimensional model $X$ for $\underline ET$. Now take any $H_n$-simplicial complex abstractly homeomorphic to ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ on which $T$ acts trivially and on which the induced action of $H_n/T$ is free. Then we can thicken the space $X$ by replacing each vertex by a copy of $T$ appropriately twisted by the action of $H_n$ and replacing each higher dimensional simplex of $X$ by the join of the trees placed at its vertices. This creates a finite dimension model for $\underbar EH_n$. As well as establishing (iii), this also shows that $H_n$ belongs to ${{{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}_1}{\mathfrak F}}$ and hence Theorem \[basic1\] applies. Since $T$ is an infinite locally finite group we see that the conclusion Theorem 2.1(ii) fails and it follows that ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(H_n)$ is finite as required.
\[basic4\] Suppose that $G$ is the fundamental group of a finite graph of groups in which the edge groups are of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$. Then ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)=\bigcap{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G_v)$, the intersection of the finitary sets of vertex stabilizers $G_v$ as $v$ runs through a set of orbit representatives of vertices.
The Mayer–Vietoris sequence for $G$ is a long exact sequence of the form $$\dots\to\prod H^{n-1}(G_e,\ \ )\to H^n(G,\ \ )\to \prod H^n(G_v,\ \ )\to
\prod H^n(G_e,\ \ )\to\dots$$ Here, $e$ and $v$ run through sets of orbit representatives of edges and vertices, and since $G$ comes from a [*finite*]{} graph of groups, the product here are finite. Since the edge groups $G_e$ are ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$, we find that restriction induces an isomorphism $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G,M_\lambda)\to\prod{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G_v,M_\lambda)$$ whenever $(M_\lambda)$ is a vanishing filtered colimit system of ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules. Thus if $n\notin{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ then any system $(M_\lambda)$ witnessing this must also bear witness to a infinitary functor $H^n(G_v,\ \ )$ for some $v$, and we see that $${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)\supseteq\bigcap{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G_v).$$ On the other hand, if $n\notin\bigcap{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G_v)$ then there is a $v$ and a vanishing filtered colimit system $(U_\lambda)$ of ${{\mathbb Z}}G_v$-modules such that $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G_v,U_\lambda)\ne0.$$ Set $M_\lambda:=U_\lambda\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G_v}{{\mathbb Z}}G$. Since, [*qua ${{\mathbb Z}}G_v$-module,*]{} $U_\lambda$ is a natural direct summand of $M_\lambda$ we also have $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G_v,M_\lambda)\ne0$$ and therefore from the isomorphism $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G,M_\lambda)\ne0$$ and $n\notin{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$. Thus ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)\subseteq\bigcap{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G_v)$ and the result is proved.
The simplest way to apply this is to a free product of finitely many groups. We deduce that the collection of subsets which can arise as ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ for some $G$ is closed under finite intersections.
Suppose that $S$ is a cofinite subset of ${{\mathbb N}}^+$. Then we take $G$ to be the free product of the finitely many groups $J_n$, as described in Lemma \[basic3\], for which $n\notin S$. Lemmas \[basic3\] and \[basic4\] show that ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)=S$.
On the other hand, if $S$ is finite, then choose an $n\in {{\mathbb N}}^+$ greater than any element of $S$ and let $G$ be the free product of the group $H_n$ and the groups $J_m$ for $m\in S$. Then again, Lemmas \[basic3\] and \[basic4\] show that ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)=S$.
That the groups constructed this way have finite dimensional models for their classifying spaces follows from the easy result below.
Let $G$ be a finite free product $K_1*\dots*K_n$ where each $K_i$ has a finite dimensional $\underline EK_i$. Then $G$ also has a finite dimensional $\underline EG$.
Choose a $G$-tree $T$ whose vertex set $V$ is the disjoint union of the $G$-sets $$K_i\backslash G:=\{K_ig:\ g\in G\}$$ and so that $G$ acts freely on the edge set $E$.
In order to prove Theorem \[basic1\] we shall make use of complete cohomology: we shall use Mislin’s definition in terms of satellite functors. Let $M$ be a ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-module. We write $FM$ for the free module on the underlying set of non-zero elements of $M$. The inclusion $$M{\smallsetminus}\{0\}\to M$$ induces a natural surjection $$FM\to M$$ whose kernel is written $\Omega M$. Both $F$ and $\Omega$ are functorial: for a map $\theta:M\to N$, the induced map $F\theta:FM\to FN$ carries elements $m\in M{\smallsetminus}\ker\theta$ to their images $\theta m\in N$ and carries elements of $\ker\theta{\smallsetminus}\{0\}$ to $0$. The functor $F$ is left adjoint to the forgetful functor from ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules to pointed sets which forgets everything save the set and zero. The advantage of working with $F$ rather than simply using the free module on the underlying set of $M$ is that it is $0$-finitary. Our functor $\Omega$ inherits this property: it is also $0$-finitary. We shall make use of these observations in proving Theorem \[basic1\]. As in [@mislin1994] the $j$th complete cohomology of $G$ is given by the colimit: $$\widehat H^j(G,M):={{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over n}\ }}H^{j+n}(G,\Omega^nM).$$
\[mislin1994\] If there is an $m$ such that $H^j(G,F)=0$ for all free modules $F$ and all $j\ge m$ then the natural map $$H^j(G,{{\phantom M}})\to\widehat H^j(G,{{\phantom M}})$$ is an isomorphism for all $j\ge m+1$.
The connecting maps $H^{j+n}(G,\Omega^nM)\to H^{j+n+1}(G,\Omega^{n+1}M)$ in the colimit system defining complete cohomology are all isomorphisms because they fit into the cohomology exact sequence with $H^{j+n}(G,F\Omega^nM)$ and $H^{j+n+1}(G,F\Omega^{n}M)$ to the left and the right, and these both vanish for $j\ge m+1$.
\[main\] Let $G$ be an ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-group for which the complete cohomology functors $\widehat H^j(G,\ \ )$ are $0$-finitary for all $j$. Then
1. The set $B$ of bounded ${{\mathbb Z}}$-valued functions on $G$ has finite projective dimension.
2. If $M$ is a ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-module whose restriction to every finite subgroup is projective then $M$ has finite projective dimension: in fact $${\operatorname{proj.\,dim}}M\le{\operatorname{proj.\,dim}}B.$$
3. For all $n>{\operatorname{proj.\,dim}}B$, $H^n(G,\ \ )$ vanishes on free modules.
4. For all $n>{\operatorname{proj.\,dim}}B$, the natural map $H^n(G,\ \ )\to\widehat H^n(G,\ \ )$ is an isomorphism.
5. $n\in{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ for all $n>{\operatorname{proj.\,dim}}B$.
6. $G$ has rational cohomological dimension $\le{\operatorname{proj.\,dim}}B+1$.
7. There is a bound on the orders of the finite subgroups of $G$.
8. There is a finite dimensional model for $\underline EG$.
Since $\widehat H^j(G,\ \ )$ is finitary and $G$ belongs to the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ we have the following algebraic result about the cohomology of $G$:
$\widehat H^j(G, B)=0$ for all $j$.
For ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-groups of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ this follows from ([@cokr2], Proposition 9.2) by taking the ring $R$ to be ${{\mathbb Z}}G$ and taking the module $M$ to be the trivial ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-module ${{\mathbb Z}}$. However we need to strengthen this result in two ways. Firstly we wish to replace the assumption that $G$ is of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ by the weaker condition that the functors $\widehat H^j(G,\ \ )$ are $0$-finitary for all $j$. This presents no difficulty because the proofs in [@cokr2] depend solely on calculations of complete cohomology rather than ordinary cohomology. The second problem is also easy to address but we need to take care. Groups of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ are finitely generated and so ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-groups of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ necessarily belong to ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$. However the weaker condition that the complete cohomology is finitary does not imply finite generation: for example, all groups of finite cohomological dimension have vanishing complete cohomology and there exists such groups of arbitrary cardinality. A priori we do not know that $G$ belongs to ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ and we must reprove the result that $$\widehat H^*(G,B)=0$$ from scratch. The key, which has been established [@brianmatthews] by Matthews, is as follows:
\[new\] Let $G$ be an group for which all the functors $\widehat H^j(G,{{\phantom M}})$ are $0$-finitary. Let $M$ be a ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-module whose restriction to every finite subgroup of $G$ is projective. Then $$\widehat H^j(G,M\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}H}{{\mathbb Z}}G)=0$$ for all $j$ and all ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-subgroups $H$ of $G$.
If $H$ is an ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-group then this can be proved by induction on the ordinal height of $H$ in the ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-hierarchy. The proof proceeds in exactly the same way as the proof of the Vanishing Theorem ([@cokr2], §8).
In general, suppose that $H$ is an ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-group. Let $(H_\lambda)$ be the family of finitely generated subgroups of $H$. Then we may view $H$ as the filtered colimit $\displaystyle H=\lim_\to H_\lambda$.
Now suppose that $G$ is as in the statement of Theorem \[main\]. Lemma \[new\] shows that $$\widehat H^0(G, B)=0.$$ and using the ring structure on $B$ it follows that $$\widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^0_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}(B,B)=0.$$ This implies that $B$ has finite projective dimension: it is a general fact that a module $M$ has finite projective dimension if and only if $\widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^0_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}(M,M)=0$. Like the coinduced module, the module $B$ contains a copy of the trivial module ${{\mathbb Z}}$ in the form of the constant functions. Thus Theorem \[main\] (i) is established.
Let $M$ be a module satisfying the hypotheses of (ii). By (i) we know that $M\otimes B$ has finite projective dimension and the proof that $M$ is projective requires two steps. First we show that $M$ is projective over ${{\mathbb Z}}H$ for all ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-subgroups $H$ of $G$. The argument here is essentially the same as that used to prove Theorem B of [@cokr2], using transfinite induction on the least ordinal $\alpha$ such that $H$ belongs to ${\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}_\alpha{\mathfrak F}$. In the inductive step one considers an action of $H$ on a contractible finite dimensional complex $X$ so that all isotropy groups belong to ${\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}_\beta{\mathfrak F}$ with $\beta<\alpha$. If $C_*{\twoheadrightarrow}{{\mathbb Z}}$ denotes the augmented (reduced) cellular chain complex of $X$ then the inductive hypothesis shows that $M\otimes C_*{\twoheadrightarrow}M$ is a projective resolution of $M$ of finite length and hence $M$ has finite projective dimension. Let $\overline B$ denote that quotient $B/{{\mathbb Z}}$ of $B$ by the constant functions. Then $M\otimes\underbrace{\overline B\otimes\dots\otimes\overline B}_k$ also has finite projective resolution for any $k\ge0$. Since $M$ arises as a $k$th kernel in a projective resolution of $M\otimes\underbrace{\overline B\otimes\dots\otimes\overline B}_k$ it follows that $M$ itself is projective of ${{\mathbb Z}}H$.
The ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-subgroups of $G$ account for all countable subgroups. The next step is to establish by induction on the cardinality $\kappa$ that $M$ is projective on restriction to all subgroups of $G$ of cardinality $\kappa$. This argument can be found in the work [@benson1997] of Benson. In this way (ii) is established.
Part (iii) follows from the inequality $${\operatorname{silp}}({{\mathbb Z}}G)\le\kappa({{\mathbb Z}}G)$$ as stated in Theorem C of [@cokr1]. Note that although ([@cokr1], Theorem C) is stated for ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$-groups, the given proof shows that the above inequality holds for arbitrary groups.
Lemma \[mislin1994\] yields (iv).
We are assuming that the complete cohomology is $0$-finitary in all dimensions. Now we also know that the ordinary cohomology coincides with the complete cohomology in high dimensions. Hence (v) is established.
The trivial module ${{\mathbb Q}}$ is an instance of a module whose restriction to every finite subgroup has finite projective dimension, (projective dimension one in fact). Therefore the dimensional finiteness conditions imply (vi). This means in particular that $$\widehat H^0(G,{{\mathbb Q}})=0.$$ Since the complete cohomology is $0$-finitary we can deduce that $\widehat H^0(G,{{\mathbb Z}})$ is torsion. Being a ring with a one, it therefore has finite exponent, say m, and a simple argument with classical Tate cohomology shows that the orders of the finite subgroups of $G$ must divide $m$ and thus (vii) is established. The argument for proving (viii) can be found in [@krmi]. Although the Theorem as stated there does not directly apply to our situation, a reading of the proof will reveal that the all the essentials to make the construction work are already contained in the conclusions (i)–(vii).
We first show that the complete cohomology of $G$ is $0$-finitary in all dimensions. Recall that the $j$th complete cohomology of $G$ is the colimit: $$\widehat H^j(G,M):={{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over n}\ }}H^{j+n}(G,\Omega^nM).$$ The maps $H^{j+n}(G,\Omega^nM)\to H^{j+n+1}(G,\Omega^{n+1}M)$ in this system are the connecting maps in the long exact sequence of cohomology which comes from the short exact sequence $$\Omega^{n+1}M{\rightarrowtail}F\Omega^n M{\twoheadrightarrow}\Omega^nM.$$ Let $S=\{s\in{{\mathbb N}}:\ s+j\in{\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)\}$. Since $S$ is infinite, it is cofinal in ${{\mathbb N}}$. Hence $$\widehat H^j(G,M):={{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over{s\in S}}\ }}H^{j+s}(G,\Omega^sM).$$ Now, for any vanishing filtered colimit system $(M_\lambda)$ of ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules we have $$\begin{aligned}
{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}\widehat H^j(G,M_\lambda)&=&{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over{s\in S}}\ }}H^{j+s}(G,\Omega^sM_\lambda)\\
&=&{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over{s\in S}}\ }}{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{j+s}(G,\Omega^sM_\lambda)\\
&=&{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over{s\in S}}\ }}H^{j+s}(G,{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}\Omega^sM_\lambda)\\
&=&0.\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[basic1\] now follows from Theorem \[main\].
General behaviour of finitary cohomology functors
=================================================
In this section we show how the finitary properties of one cohomology functor can influence neighbouring functors. Our arguments are based on an unpublished observation of Robert Snider. The first gives a further insight into the nature of the finite-cofinite dichotomy for the set $\mathcal F_0(G)$. It is a property held by many groups $G$ including all ${{{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}_1}{\mathfrak F}}$-groups that $H^n(G,{{\phantom M}})$ vanishes on free modules for all sufficiently large $n$. When this is so, there is a very simple proof that the finitary set is either finite or cofinite: it is a corollary of the following.
Let $n$ be a positive integer. Suppose that $G$ is a group such that
1. $H^{n-1}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ vanishes on all projective ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules, and
2. $H^n(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is $0$-finitary.
Then $H^{n-1}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is $0$-finitary.
Let $F$ and $\Omega$ denote the free module and loop functors described in the proof of Theorem \[basic1\]. Let $(M_\lambda)$ be a vanishing filtered colimit system of ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules. From the short exact sequence $$\Omega M_\lambda\to FM_\lambda\to M_\lambda$$ we obtain the long exact sequence $$\dots\to H^{n-1}(G,FM_\lambda)\to H^{n-1}(G,M_\lambda)\to H^n(G,\Omega M_\lambda)\to\dots$$ Here the left hand group vanishes by hypothesis (i) and the right hand system vanishes on passage to colimit by hypothesis (ii). Hence $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{n-1}(G,M_\lambda)=0$$ as required.
Thus, if $G$ is a group for which the set $$\{n:\ H^n(G,F)\textrm{ is non-zero for some free module }F\}$$ is bounded while the finitary set ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$ is unbounded, then the finitary set is cofinite.
We have seen that any finite or cofinite set can be realized as the $0$-finitary set of some group. It is interesting to note that the existence of certain normal or near normal subgroups will impose some restrictions. The next lemma provides a way of seeing this.
\[flat extension1\] Let $G$ be a group and suppose that there is an overring $R\supset {{\mathbb Z}}G$ such that $R$ is flat over ${{\mathbb Z}}G$ and ${{\mathbb Z}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R=0$. Let $n$ be a positive integer. If both $H^{n-1}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ and $H^{n+1}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ are $0$-finitary then $H^{n}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is also $0$-finitary.
Let $F$ and $\Omega$ denote the free module and loop functors described in the proof of Theorem \[basic1\]. Let $(M_\lambda)$ be a vanishing filtered colimit system of ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules. Then we have a short exact of vanishing filtered colimit systems: $$\Omega M_\lambda\to FM_\lambda\to M_\lambda.$$ Applying the long exact sequence of cohomology and taking colimits we obtain the exact sequence $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G,FM_\lambda)\to{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G,M_\lambda)\to{{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{n+1}(G,\Omega M_\lambda).$$ Here we wish to prove that the central group is zero and we know that the right hand term is zero because $H^{n+1}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is $0$-finitary. Therefore it suffices to prove that the left hand group is zero. Since the $FM_\lambda$ are free we have the short exact sequence $$FM_\lambda\to FM_\lambda\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R\to (FM_\lambda\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R)/FM_\lambda$$ of vanishing filtered colimit systems and hence we obtain an exact sequence [$${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{n-1}(G,(FM_\lambda\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R)/FM_\lambda)
\to {{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G,FM_\lambda)\to {{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G,FM_\lambda\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R).$$]{} We need to prove that the central group here is zero and we know that the left hand group vanishes because $H^{n-1}(G,{{\phantom M}})$ is $0$-finitary. Therefore it suffices to prove that the right hand group is zero. In fact it vanishes even before taking colimits: let $F$ be any free ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-module and let $P_*{\twoheadrightarrow}{{\mathbb Z}}$ be a projective resolution of ${{\mathbb Z}}$ over ${{\mathbb Z}}G$. Then ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}(P_*,F\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R){\cong}{\operatorname{Hom}}_R(P_*\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R,F\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R)$ is split exact because $R$ is flat over ${{\mathbb Z}}G$ and ${{\mathbb Z}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R=0$. Thus $H^*(G,F\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R)=0$.
For example, if $G$ is a group with a non-trivial torsion-free abelian normal subgroup $A$ then the lemma can be applied by taking $R$ to be the localization ${{\mathbb Z}}G({{\mathbb Z}}A{\smallsetminus}\{0\})^{-1}$ and shows that for such groups there cannot be isolated members in the complement of the finitary set ${\operatorname{\mathcal F_0}}(G)$. The condition that $A$ is normal can be weakened and yet it can still be possible to draw similar conclusions. We conclude this paper with two further results showing how this can happen.
Two subgroups $H$ and $K$ of a group $G$ are said to be commensurable if and only if $H\cap K$ has finite index in both $H$ and $K$. We write $Comm_G(H)$ for the set $\{g\in G:\ H\textrm{ and }H^g\textrm{ are commensurable}\}$. This is a subgroup of $G$ containing the normalizer of $H$.
Let $G$ be a group with a subgroup $H$ such that $Comm_G(H)=G$ and ${{\mathbb Z}}H$ is a prime Goldie ring. Then the set $\Lambda$ of non-zero divisors in ${{\mathbb Z}}H$ is a right Ore set in ${{\mathbb Z}}G$. Moreover, if $H$ is non-trivial, then the localization $R:={{\mathbb Z}}G\Lambda^{-1}$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[flat extension1\].
Before starting, recall that in a prime Goldie ring, the set of non-zero divisors is a right Ore set and the resulting Ore localization is a simple Artinian ring. We first prove that $\Lambda$ is a right Ore set in ${{\mathbb Z}}G$. If $H$ is normal in $G$ then this is an easy and well known consequence of $\Lambda$ being a right Ore set in ${{\mathbb Z}}H$. Now consider the general case. Let $r$ be an element of ${{\mathbb Z}}G$ and let $\lambda$ be an element of $\Lambda$. We need to find $\mu\in\Lambda$ and $s\in{{\mathbb Z}}G$ such that $r\mu=\lambda s$. Choose any way $$r=g_1r_1+\dots+g_mr_m$$ of expressing $r$ as a finite sum in which each $r_i$ belongs to ${{\mathbb Z}}H$ and $g_i\in G$. Since all the subgroups $g_iHg_i^{-1}$ are commensurable with $H$ we can choose a normal subgroup $K$ of finite index in $H$ such that $$K\subseteq\bigcap_{i=1}^mg_iHg_i^{-1}.$$ The group algebra ${{\mathbb Z}}K$ inherits the property of being a prime Goldie ring and the set of non-zero divisors in ${{\mathbb Z}}K$ is $$\Lambda_0:=\Lambda\cap{{\mathbb Z}}K.$$ By our initial remarks on the case of a normal subgroup, $\Lambda_0$ is a right Ore set in ${{\mathbb Z}}H$. Moreover, ${{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda_0^{-1}$ is finitely generated over the Artinian ring ${{\mathbb Z}}K\Lambda_0^{-1}$. It follows [*a fortiori*]{} that ${{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda_0^{-1}$ is Artinian as a ring and since every non-zero divisor in an Artinian ring is a unit, we conclude that $${{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda_0^{-1}={{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}.$$ Hence, there exists a $t$ in ${{\mathbb Z}}H$ such that $\nu:=\lambda t\in\Lambda_0$: to see this, simply choose an expression $t\nu^{-1}$ for $\lambda^{-1}\in{{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}$ in the spirit of the localization ${{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda_0^{-1}$. For each $i$, we have $g_i^{-1}Kg_i\subseteq H$ and hence $g_i^{-1}\nu g_i\in{{\mathbb Z}}H$. It is straightforward to check that each $g_i\nu g_i^{-1}$ is a non-zero divisor in ${{\mathbb Z}}H$. Applying the Ore condition to the pair $r_i,g_i^{-1}\nu g_i$ we find $s_i\in{{\mathbb Z}}H$ and $\mu_i\in\Lambda$ such that $$r_i\mu_i=g_i^{-1}\nu g_is_i.$$ It is routine that a finite list of elements in an Ore localization can be placed over a common denominator and it is therefore possible to make these choices so that the $\mu_i$ are all equal: we do this and write $\mu$ for the common element. Thus $$r_i\mu=g_i^{-1}\nu g_is_i,$$ and $$r\mu=\sum_ig_ir_i\mu=\sum_ig_ig_i^{-1}\nu g_is_i=\nu\left(\sum_ig_is_i\right)
=\lambda t\left(\sum_ig_is_i\right).$$ This establishes the Ore condition as required with $s=t\left(\sum_ig_is_i\right)$.
Finally, assume $H$ is non-trivial and let $\mathfrak h$ denote the augmentation ideal in ${{\mathbb Z}}H$. Then $\mathfrak h$ is non-zero and $\mathfrak h.{{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}$ is a non-zero two-sided ideal in the simple Artinian ring ${{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}$. Hence $\mathfrak h.{{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}=
{{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}$ and ${{\mathbb Z}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb Z}}H}{{\mathbb Z}}H\Lambda^{-1}=0$. It follows that ${{\mathbb Z}}\times_{{{\mathbb Z}}G}R=0$ so $R$ does indeed satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma \[flat extension1\].
The condition $Comm_G(H)=G$ has been studied by the author in cohomological contexts, see [@kropholler-BS] and [@kropholler2006]. The second paper [@kropholler2006] addresses a more general situation in which $H$ is replaced by a set $\mathcal S$ of subgroups which is closed under conjugation and finite intersections: it is then shown one can define a cohomological functor $H^*(G/\mathcal S,{{\phantom M}})$ on ${{\mathbb Z}}G$-modules and that spectral sequence arguments can be used to carry out certain calculations. Here we show, for the reader familiar with [@kropholler2006] how these arguments may be used to investigate when the new functors $H^*(G/\mathcal S,{{\phantom M}})$ are finitary.
Let $\mathcal S$ and $G$ be as above.
1. The functor $H^0(G/\mathcal S,{\phantom M})$ is $0$-finitary.
2. If $G$ is finitely generated then the functor $H^1(G/\mathcal S,{\phantom M})$ is $0$-finitary.
3. More generally if $n$ is an integer such that $G$ has type ${\operatorname{FP}}_n$ and all members of $\mathcal S$ have type ${\operatorname{FP}}_{n-1}$ then the functors $H^i(G/\mathcal S,{\phantom M})$ are $0$-finitary for all $i\le n$.
We prove part (iii) by induction on $n$. The case $n=0$ is easy: this is part (i) of the statement and the finitary property is inherited from ordinary cohomology. The case $n=1$ is part (ii) of the statement and there is no need to treat this separately. Fix $n\ge1$ and assume inductively that the result is established for numbers $<n$. In particular we may assume that $H^i(G/\mathcal S,{\phantom M})$ is $0$-finitary when $i<n$.
Let $(M_\lambda)$ be a vanishing filtered colimit system in the category ${\operatorname{{\operatorname{Mod}}{\operatorname{-}}}}{{\mathbb Z}}G/\mathcal S$. Taking colimits of the spectral sequences of [@kropholler2006] we obtain the spectral sequence $$E_2^{p,q}={{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^p(G/\mathcal S,H^q(\mathcal S,M_\lambda))\implies {{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{p+q}(G,M_\lambda).$$ Now consider the cases when $p+q\le n$, $p\ge0$, $q\ge0$. When $p$ is less than $n$, the inductive and originally stated finitary assumptions imply that $E_2^{p,q}=0$ and so we have a block of zeroes on the $E_2$-page of the spectral sequence in the range $0\le p\le n-1$ and $0\le q\le n$. Therefore only the term $E_2^{n,0}=E_\infty^{n,0}$ and the cohomology ${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{n}(G,M_\lambda)$ is isomorphic to $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G/\mathcal S,H^0(\mathcal S,M_\lambda)).$$ But ${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^{n}(G,M_\lambda)$ is zero by assumption and so $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G/\mathcal S,H^0(\mathcal S,M_\lambda))=0.$$ The $M_\lambda$ were chosen in the subcategory so this simplifies to $${{\displaystyle\lim_{\buildrel\longrightarrow\over\lambda}\ }}H^n(G/\mathcal S,M_\lambda)=0.$$ This vanishing applies to any choice of system $(M_\lambda)$ and thus $H^n(G/\mathcal S,{\phantom M})$ is $0$-finitary as required.
Hamilton’s Results
==================
When is group cohomology finitary?
----------------------------------
Hamilton [@hamilton2011] uses the results of this paper to characterize the locally (polycyclic-by-finite) groups cohomology almost everywhere finitary: these are shown to be precisely the locally (polycyclic-by-finite) groups with finite virtual cohomological dimension and in which the normalizer of every non-trivial finite subgroup is of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$. In particular this class of groups is subgroup closed. Note that the class of locally (polycyclic-by-finite) groups includes the class of abelian-by-finite groups and already, within the class of abelian-by-finite groups there are many interesting examples. The abelian group ${{\mathbb Q}}^{+}\times C_{2}$ (a direct product of the additive group of rational numbers by the cyclic group of order $2$ has almost all its cohomology functors infinitary. By contrast, the non-abelian extension of ${{\mathbb Q}}^{+}$ by $C_{2}$ is almost everywhere finitary even though it is infinitely generated. Hamilton finds that in general, the locally polycyclic-by-finite groups which have almost all cohomology functors finitary form a subgroup closed class.
In view of our Theorem 2.1, Hamilton naturally focusses on groups with finite virtual cohomological dimension. He shows, for example, that if $G$ is a group with finite vcd and then $G$ has cohomology almost everywhere finitary over the field ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$ of $p$ elements if and only if $G$ has finitely many conjugacy classes of elementary abelian $p$-subgroups and the centralizer of each non-trivial elementary abelian $p$-subgroup is of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$.
Clearly, a natural question is whether one can generalize Hamilton’s results from locally(polycyclic-by-finite) groups to other classes of soluble groups. One of the main reasons why this appears hard is that there is no clear classification of which soluble groups have type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ over a given finite field. There are satisfactory theories of soluble groups of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ and over ${{\mathbb Z}}$ but these have yet to be generalized to the case of finite fields. Hamilton’s proofs make use of the deep results [@henn] of Henn and in particular this leads to an answer to a question raised by Leary and Nucinkis [@learnnucinkis], namely he shows that if $G$ is a group of type VFP over ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$, and $P$ is a $p$-subgroup of $G$, then the centralizer $C_{G}(P)$ of $P$ is also of type VFP over ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$.
The most relevant questions raised by this research are as follows:
Let $G$ be a soluble group and let $p$ be a prime. What are the homological and cohomological dimensions of $G$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$? Is there a simple criterion for $G$ to have type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ over ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$.
One may expect soluble groups to behave similarly over ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}$ as they do over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ with the obvious elementary caveat that one has to take care of $p$-torsion. However, there is no detailed account in the literature: Bieri’s notes confine analysis to the characteristic zero case subsequent authors have studied this case alone in depth.
Finally, in this paper, Hamilton proves a more general result for groups that admit a finite dimensional classifying space for proper actions. He concludes that if $G$ is such a group and if there are just finitely many conjugacy classes of non-trivial finite subgroups for each of which the corresponding centralizers have cohomology almost everywhere finitary, then $G$ itself has cohomology almost everywhere finitary.
Hamilton uses results [@leary] of Leary to show that the converse of this result fails. Leary has constructed groups of type ${\operatorname{FP}_\infty}$ which are of type VFP but which have infinitely many conjugacy classes of finite subgroups.
Eilenberg–Mac Lane Spaces
-------------------------
In a second paper [@hamilton2009], Hamilton studies the question of whether the property *almost everywhere finitary* impacts on the Eilenberg–Mac Lane space of a group. Hamilton’s main result ([@hamilton2009], Theorem A) includes the statement that a group $G$ in the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$ has cohomology almost everywhere finitary if and only if $G\times{{\mathbb Z}}$ (the direct product of $G$ with an infinite cyclic group) admits an Eilenberg–Mac Lane space with finitely many $n$-cells for all sufficiently large $n$. There are two natural questions arising from this research.
Does Hamilton’s ([@hamilton2009], Theorem A) hold for arbitrary groups, outwith the class ${{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf L}}{\operatorname{\scriptstyle\bf H}}{\mathfrak F}}$?
Can Hamilton’s ([@hamilton2009], Theorem A) be proved with out the stabilization device of replacing $G$ by $G\times{{\mathbb Z}}$.
It is natural so speculate that both of these questions have a positive answer but they remain open.
Group actions on spheres
------------------------
In a third paper [@hamilton2008], Hamilton builds on [@hamilton2011] by showing that in a locally(polycyclic-by-finite) group with cohomology almost everywhere finitary, every finite subgroup admits a free action on some sphere. This perhaps surprising fact is proved purely algebraically by showing that the same algebraic restrictions apply to the finite subgroups in Hamilton’s context as apply in the theory of group actions on spheres, namely that subgroups of order a product of two (not necessarily distinct) primes must be cyclic. So the natural questions that arise are:
Is there a geometric explanation for the connection between Hamilton’s ([@hamilton2008], Theorem 1.3) which explains the link with group actions on spheres? Are there similar results for a larger class of groups, for example, soluble groups of finite rank.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study an obstacle problem for Monge-Ampère type functionals, whose Euler-Lagrange equations are a class of fourth order equations, including the affine maximal surface equations and Abreu’s equation.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Princeton University\
Fine Hall, Washington Road\
Princeton, NJ 08544-1000, USA.
- |
School of Mathematical Sciences and Beijing International Center for Mathematical Research\
Peking University\
Beijing 100871, China.
author:
- Jiakun Liu
- Bin Zhou
title: 'An obstacle problem for a class of Monge-Ampère type functionals'
---
[^1] [^2]
=16.4pt
Introduction {#s1}
============
Free boundary and obstacle problems for partial differential equations have been studied extensively in the past decades. For Monge-Ampère equations, obstacle problems were studied in [@CW; @Lee; @Sa] among others, and a related free boundary problem was studied in [@CM]. In this paper we consider an obstacle problem for the functional $$\label{e101}
J_\alpha(u)=\begin{cases}
\int_\Omega \left[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u\right]^{\alpha}
-\alpha\int_\Omega fu, &\ \alpha>0 \
\text{and}\ \alpha\neq 1, \\[5pt]
\int_\Omega \log{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u -\int_\Omega fu, &\ \alpha=0,
\end{cases}$$ where $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $f\in L^\infty(\Omega)$. For simplicity, we denote the nonlinear part of the functional by $A_\alpha(u)$, see . We would like to study the maximization problem $$\label{e102}
J_\alpha(u)=\sup\left\{J_\alpha(v)\,:\,v\in\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]\right\},$$ where $\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]$ is the class of functions $$\label{e103}
\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]=\left\{u\in C(\overline\Omega)\,:\,u \mbox{ convex }, u|_{\partial\Omega}=\varphi, Du(\Omega)\subset D\varphi(\overline\Omega), u\geq\psi \mbox{ in }\Omega\right\},$$ $\varphi$ is a smooth, uniformly convex function defined on a neighborhood of $\overline\Omega$, $\psi$ is an obstacle function, and $Du(\Omega)$ represents the image of the subgradients of $u$ at all points $x\in\Omega$.
The Euler-Lagrange equations of are a class of fourth order equations, that is, $$\label{e104}
U^{ij}w_{ij}=f,$$ where $(U^{ij})$ is the cofactor matrix of the Hessian $D^2u$, and $$\label{e105}
w=\left[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u\right]^{-(1-\alpha)},\ \ \alpha\geq 0.$$ When $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, equation is the affine mean curvature equation and the functional is the affine area functional. When $\alpha=0$, equation is Abreu’s equation arising from the study of Calabi’s extremal metrics on toric Kähler manifolds [@D1; @D2; @D3; @D4].
Due to their importance in geometry, variational problems of have attracted much interest in recent years. In the case of $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, the variational problem without obstacle is the graph case of affine Plateau problem [@TW08; @TW10], raised by Calabi and Chern. The case of $\alpha=0$ has been treated in [@Z1]. The obstacle problem of affine maximal surfaces was first introduced in [@STW]. In this paper, we obtain:
\[t101\] Suppose $n=2$, $0\leq\alpha\leq \frac{1}{n+2}$, and $f\in L^\infty(\Omega)$. Let $\varphi$ be a smooth, uniformly convex function in $\Omega$. If $\psi$ is a convex function in $\Omega$ satisfying $\psi<\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega$, then there exists a unique maximizer of which is strictly convex and $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $\Omega$. Furthermore, if $\psi$ is uniformly convex $\Omega$, then the maximizer of is $C^{1,1}$ in $\Omega$.
We remark that in higher dimensions, the problem is more complicated since Lemma \[l401\] does not hold. Furthermore, in the case of $\alpha=0$, the interior estimate in Lemma \[l203\] remains open when $n>2$. We will consider the higher dimensional cases and more general forms of the Monge-Ampère type functionals with $f=f(x,u,Du)$ is our forthcoming work.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we recall some preliminary results that will be used in subsequent sections. In addition, we show that how the functionals and equations change under a rotation in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and obtain the a priori determinant estimates under the rotation transform, where the functionals have more general forms . In Section 3 we show that the maximizer of $J_\alpha$ can be approximated by a sequence of smooth maximizers of appropriate penalized functionals. In Section 4 we prove that the maximizer is strictly convex by an observation in [@TW05; @TW10]. The proof of Theorem \[t101\] is contained in Section 5, where the $C^{1,\alpha}$ and $C^{1,1}$ regularities are obtained, respectively.
Preliminaries
=============
Monge-Ampère measure
--------------------
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $u$ be a convex function in $\Omega$. The [*normal mapping*]{} of $u$, $N_u$, is a set-valued mapping defined as follows. For any point $x\in\Omega$, $N_u(x)$ is the set of slopes of supporting hyperplanes of $u$ at $x$, that is, $$\label{e201}
N_u(x)=\{p\in\mathbb{R}^n\,:\,u(y)\geq u(x)+p\cdot(y-x),\quad\forall y\in\Omega\}.$$ For any Borel set $E\subset\Omega$, $N_u(E)=\bigcup_{x\in E}N_u(x)$. If $u$ is $C^1$, the normal mapping $N_u$ is exactly the gradient mapping $Du$.
From the normal mapping we define the [*Monge-Ampère measure*]{} $\mu[u]$ by $$\label{e202}
\mu[u](E)=|N_u(E)|$$ for any Borel set $E\subset\Omega$, where the right hand side is the Lebesgue measure of $N_u(E)$. If $u$ is $C^2$ smooth, we have $\mu[u]=({\mbox{det}}\,D^2u)dx$. In the non-smooth case, the Monge-Ampère measure $\mu[u]$ is a Radon measure, and is weakly continuous with respect to the convergence of convex functions, namely if a sequence of convex functions $\{u_i\}$ converges to a convex function $u$ in $L^\infty_{loc}$, then for any closed $E\subset\Omega$, $$\label{e203}
\lim_{i\to\infty}\sup\mu[u_i](E)\leq\mu[u](E).$$
Existence and uniqueness of maximizer
-------------------------------------
Note that the functional $J_\alpha$ in is well defined on the set of $C^2$-smooth, convex functions. To study the maximization problem, we extend the functional $J_\alpha$ to the set $\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]$ in , which is closed under the locally uniform convergence of convex functions. It is clear that the linear part in $J_\alpha$ is naturally defined. It suffices to extend the nonlinear part $A_\alpha$ to $\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]$. If $u$ is a convex function, $u$ is almost everywhere twice-differentiable, i.e., the Hessian matrix $(D^2u)$ exists almost everywhere. Denote the extended Hessian matrix by $\partial^2u(x)=D^2u(x)$ when $u$ is twice differentiable at $x\in\Omega$ and $\partial^2u(x)=0$ otherwise. As a Radon measure, $\mu[u]$ can be decomposed into a regular part and a singular part as follows, $$\mu[u]=\mu_r[u]+\mu_s[u].$$ It was proved in [@TW05] that the regular part $\mu_r[u]$ can be given explicitely by $\mu_r[u]={\mbox{det}}\, \partial^2u\, dx$ and hence ${\mbox{det}}\, \partial^2u$ is a locally integrable function. Therefore for any $u\in{ S[\varphi,\psi]}$, we can define $$\label{e204}
A_\alpha(u)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\int_\Omega \left[{\mbox{det}}\,\partial^2u\right]^{\alpha}, & \alpha>0, \\[5pt]
\int_\Omega \log{\mbox{det}}\,\partial^2u, & \alpha=0.
\end{array}\right.$$
\[l201\] Suppose $0\leq\alpha\leq \frac{1}{n+2}$. $J_\alpha$ is upper semi-continuous, bounded and concave in $\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]$. It follows that there exists a unique maximizer $u_0$ of .
The proof for the cases $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$ and $\alpha=0$ can be found in [@TW05; @Z2], respectively. One can check that the proof also holds for $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{n+2}$.
Estimates for classical solutions
---------------------------------
We include the following a priori estimates in [@TW00; @TW05], which will be needed in subsequent sections, see also [@D2; @Z1] for the case of $\alpha=0$. Consider the equation $$\begin{aligned}
U^{ij}w_{ij}\!\!&=&\!\!f\quad\mbox{in }\Omega,\label{e205} \\
w\!\!&=&\!\![{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u]^{\alpha-1},\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $(U^{ij})$ is the cofactor matrix of the Hessian matrix $D^2u$, and $\alpha\in[0,1)$ is a constant.
\[l202\] Let $u\in C^4(\Omega)\cap C^{0,1}(\overline\Omega)$ be a convex solution of with $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$. Then for any $y\in\Omega$, we have the a priori estimate $$\label{e206}
{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u(y)\leq C,$$ where $C$ depends only on $n$, $\alpha$, ${\mbox{dist}}(y,\partial\Omega)$, $\sup_\Omega(-u)$, $\sup_\Omega|Du|$, and $\sup_\Omega f$.
In Lemma \[l202\], the constant $C$ is independent of $\inf_\Omega f$. Hence it is independent of $f$ if $f\leq0$. By Lemma \[l302\], the maximizer $u_0$ of $J_\alpha$ can be locally approximated by smooth solutions of , and thus Lemma \[l202\] still holds for non-smooth maximizers. When $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, the estimate was previously proved in [@TW05].
If $n=2$, the assumption $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$ in Lemma \[l202\] can be removed [@TW05].
To prove that ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u$ has a positive lower bound, we consider the Legendre transform $u^*$ of $u$, which is a convex function defined in the domain $\Omega^*=N_u(\Omega)$, given by $$\label{e207}
u^*(y)=\sup\{x\cdot y-u(x)\,:\,x\in\Omega\}.$$ If $u$ is strictly convex near $\partial\Omega$, $u$ can be recovered from $u^*$ by the same transform. If $u$ is $C^2$ smooth at $x$, $y=Du(x)$ and ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u(x)\neq0$, then the Hessian matrix $D^2u(x)$ is the inverse of the Hessian matrix $D^2u^*(y)$, and $$\label{e208}
{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u(x)=[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u^*(y)]^{-1}.$$ In particular, if $u$ is a maximizer of the functional $J_\alpha$, $u^*$ is a maximizer of the dual functional $$\label{e209}
J^*_\alpha(u)=
\begin{cases}
\ \int_{\Omega^*}[{\mbox{det}}D^2u^*]^{1-\alpha}\, dy
-\alpha\int_{\Omega^*}f(Du^*)(yDu^*-u^*){\mbox{det}}\,D^2u^*\,dy, \ \ \alpha>0 \
\text{and}\ \alpha\neq 1,&\\[5pt]
\ -\int_{\Omega^*}{\mbox{det}}D^2u^*\log{\mbox{det}}D^2u^*\,dy
-\int_{\Omega^*}f(Du^*)(yDu^*-u^*){\mbox{det}}\,D^2u^*\,dy,\ \ \alpha =0.&
\end{cases}$$ Therefore, if $u^*$ is smooth, it satisfies the equation $$\label{e210}
U^{*ij}w^*_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
-\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}f(Du^*){\mbox{det}}D^2u^*, &\ \alpha>0 \
\text{and}\ \alpha\neq 1,\\[5pt]
-f(Du^*){\mbox{det}}D^2u^*, &\ \alpha=0,
\end{cases}$$ where $U^{*ij}$ is the cofactor matrix of $D^2u^*$ and $$\label{e211}
w^*=
\begin{cases}
\ [{\mbox{det}}D^2u^*]^{-\alpha}, & \alpha>0 \
\text{and}\ \alpha\neq 1,\\[5pt]
\ -\log{\mbox{det}}D^2u^*,& \alpha =0.
\end{cases}$$
By a similar argument to that of Lemma \[l202\], we have the following result [@TW00; @TW05; @Z1].
\[l203\] Let $u^*$ be a smooth convex solution of in $\Omega^*$ in dimension 2, $u^*=0$ on $\partial\Omega^*$. Then for any $y\in\Omega^*$, we have the a priori estimate $$\label{e212}
{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u^*(y)\leq C,$$ where $C$ depends only on $\alpha, {\mbox{dist}}(y,\partial\Omega^*), \sup_{\Omega^*}|u^*|, \sup_{\Omega^*}|Du^*|$, and $\inf f$.
By and , we have ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u\geq C$ has a positive lower bound. Note that the estimate depends on $\inf f$, but is independent of $\sup f$.
By Lemmas \[l202\], \[l203\] and the Caffarelli-Gutiérrez theory [@CG], we have the following Hölder and Sobolev space estimates.
\[t201\] Let $u\in C^4(\Omega)$ be a locally uniformly convex solution of .
- Assume $f\in L^\infty(\Omega)$. Then we have the estimate $$\label{e213}
\|u\|_{W^{4,p}(\Omega')}\leq C,$$ for any $p>1$ and $\Omega'\Subset\Omega$, where the constant $C$ depends on $n,p,\sup_\Omega|f|, {\mbox{dist}}(\Omega',\partial\Omega)$, and the modulus of convexity of $u$.
- Assume $f\in C^\alpha(\Omega)$ for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Then $$\label{e214}
\|u\|_{C^{4,\alpha}(\Omega')}\leq C,$$ where $C$ depends on $n,\alpha,\|f\|_{C^\alpha(\Omega)}, {\mbox{dist}}(\Omega',\partial\Omega)$, and the modulus of convexity of $u$.
Therefore, to prove the regularity of the maximizer $u_0$ in Lemma \[l201\], it suffices to prove, in view of Lemmas \[l202\], \[l203\] and Theorem \[t201\], that (a) the maximizer $u_0$ can be approximated by smooth solutions to equation and (b) it is strictly convex. We will prove (a) and (b) in Sections 3 and 4, respectively.
Rotations in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$
-------------------------------
In order to establish the estimate of the modulus of convexity, we need to treat convex functions as graphs in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and rotate the graphs in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. When $\alpha=1/(n+2)$, the affine maximal surface equation is invariant under uni-modular transformations in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. But this is not true for other $\alpha$. It has been proved in [@Z1] that for $\alpha=0$, under the rotations in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, equation changes in a proper way such that the determinant estimate in Lemma \[l202\] still holds.
For our purpose, we consider a more general functional $$\label{e215}
J_\alpha(u)=A_\alpha(u)-\int_\Omega F(x,u)dx,$$ where $A_\alpha$ is in , $F(x, t)$ is a function on $\Omega\times \mathbb R$. Let $u$ be a locally critical point of the functional $J_\alpha$, thus it satisfies with the inhomogeneous term $f=F_t:=\frac{\partial F}{\partial t}$.
Consider the rotation $Z=TX$, given by $z_1=-x_{n+1}, z_{n+1}=x_1$, $z_i=x_i$ for $2\leq i\leq n$. Assume the graph of $u$, $\mathcal{G}_u=\{(x,u(x))\,:\,x\in\Omega\}$, can be represented by a convex function $z_{n+1}=v(z_1,\cdots,z_n)$ in $z$-coordinates over a domain $\hat\Omega$. Following the computation in [@Z2], $v$ is a locally critical point of $$\label{e216}
\hat J_\alpha(v)=\hat A_\alpha(v)-\int_{\hat\Omega}F(v,z_2,\cdots,z_n,-z_1),$$ where $$\hat A_\alpha(v)=
\begin{cases}
\int_{\hat \Omega}[{\mbox{det}}D^2v]^\alpha|v_1|^{1-(n+2)\alpha}\,dz, & \alpha>0,\\[5pt]
\int_{\hat \Omega} [\log{\mbox{det}}D^2v
-\frac{n+2}{2}\log(v_1^2)] (v_1^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\,dz, &\ \alpha=0.
\end{cases}$$ When $\alpha>0$, by computing the Euler equation, we can obtain the corresponding equation for $v$, that is, $$\label{e217}
\begin{split}
\alpha v_1^{1-\alpha(n+2)}V^{ij}(d^{\alpha-1})_{ij}&+(1-\alpha)\alpha(n+2)(1-\alpha(n+2))v_1^{-\alpha(n+2)-1}v_{11}d^\alpha \\
&+(1-\alpha(n+2))(2\alpha-2)v_1^{-\alpha(n+2)}(d^\alpha)_1= F_t,
\end{split}$$ or equivalently, denoting $\lambda = 1-\alpha(n+2)$, $$\label{e218}
V^{ij}(d^{\alpha-1})_{ij}=g+\mathcal{F}_t,$$ where $(V^{ij})$ is the cofactor matrix of $(v_{ij})$, $d={\mbox{det}}\,D^2v$ and $$\begin{aligned}
g\!\!&=&\!\!2\lambda(1-\alpha)d^\alpha v^{ij}v_{ij1}\frac{1}{v_1}-(1-\alpha)(n+2)\lambda d^\alpha\frac{v_{11}}{v_1^2}, \\
\mathcal{F}_t\!\!&=&\!\!\alpha^{-1} \frac{F_t}{v_1^\lambda}, \quad F_t = \frac{\partial F}{\partial t}(v,z_2,\cdots,z_n,-z_1).
\end{aligned}$$ When $\alpha=0$, by a similar computation we obtain with $\mathcal{F}_t={F_t}/{v_1}$.
A priori estimates
------------------
In this subsection, we obtain the a priori determinant estimates under the rotation transform $Z=TX$. Let $v$ be a smooth solution of satisfying $$\label{e219}
v\geq0,\ \ v\geq z_1,\ \ v_1\geq0,$$ and $v(0)$ is as small as we want such that for the positive constant $s$ and $h$ in $(0,1/2)$, $\hat\Omega_{s,h}$ is a nonempty open set, where $$\label{e220}
\hat\Omega_{s,h}=\{z\,:\,v(z)<sz_1+h\}.$$ Set $\hat v:=v-sz_1-h$, then $\hat\Omega_{s,h}=\{z\,:\,\hat v(z)<0\}$ and $\hat v$ satisfies $$\label{e221}
\hat V^{ij}(\hat d^{\alpha-1})_{ij}=\hat g+\mathcal{\hat F}_t,$$ where $(\hat V^{ij})$ is the cofactor matrix of $(\hat v_{ij})$, $\hat d={\mbox{det}}\,D^2\hat v$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat g\!\!&=&\!\!2\lambda(1-\alpha)\hat d^\alpha \frac{\hat v^{ij}\hat v_{ij1}}{\hat v_1+s}-(1-\alpha)(n+2)\lambda \hat d^\alpha\frac{\hat v_{11}}{(\hat v_1+s)^2}, \\
\mathcal{\hat F}_t\!\!&=&\!\!\alpha^{-1} \frac{\hat F_t}{(\hat v_1+s)^\lambda}, \quad \hat F_t = \frac{\partial F}{\partial t}(\hat v+sz_1+h,z_2,\cdots,z_n,-z_1).
\end{aligned}$$
\[l204\] Assume $0\leq\alpha\leq\frac{1}{n+2}$. Let $\hat v$ be a smooth solution of in $\hat\Omega_{s,h}$ and $\hat v=0$ on $\partial\hat\Omega_{s,h}$. Then for any $z\in\hat\Omega_{s,h}$, we have the a priori estimate $$\label{e222}
{\mbox{det}}\,D^2\hat v\leq C,$$ where $C$ depends only $n,\alpha,{\mbox{dist}}(z,\partial\hat\Omega_{s,h}),\sup_{\hat\Omega_{s,h}}|\hat v|, \sup_{\hat\Omega_{s,h}}|D\hat v|$ and $\sup{\hat F}_t$.
When $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, the estimate easily follows from the affine invariant property. Note that in this case, $\lambda=0$ and $\hat g$ in vanishes. The case of $\alpha=0$ was contained in [@Z1]. Here we give a proof for the remaining case $0<\alpha< \frac{1}{n+2}$ as follows. Let $$\label{e223}
\eta=\log w-\beta\log(-\hat v)-A|D\hat v|^2,$$ where $w=\hat d^{\alpha-1}$, and $\beta, A$ are positive constants to be determined later. Since $\eta\to+\infty$ on $\partial\hat\Omega_{s,h}$, it attains a minimum at some point $z_0\in\hat\Omega_{s,h}$. At $z_0$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
0\!\!&=&\!\!\eta_i=\frac{w_i}{w}-\frac{\eta\hat v_i}{\hat v}-2A\hat v_k\hat v_{ki}, \label{e224}\\
0\!\!&\leq&\!\![\eta_{ij}]=\left[\frac{w_{ij}}{w}-\frac{w_iw_j}{w^2}-\frac{\beta\hat v_{ij}}{\hat v}+\frac{\beta\hat v_i\hat v_j}{\hat v^2}-2A\hat v_{ki}\hat v_{kj}-2A\hat v_k\hat v_{kij}\right] \label{e225}
\end{aligned}$$ as a matrix. Since $w=[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2\hat v]^{\alpha-1}$, we have $$\label{e226}
\hat v^{ij}\hat v_{kij}=(\log{\mbox{det}}\,D^2\hat v)_k=\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\frac{w_k}{w},$$ where $(\hat v^{ij})=\hat d^{-1}(V^{ij})$ is the inverse of $D^2\hat v$. We may assume that $\hat d>1$, otherwise the proof is done. Hence, $$\label{e227}
\frac{\hat v^{ij}w_{ij}}{w} = \frac{\hat g+\mathcal{\hat F}_t}{\hat d^\alpha} \leq -2\lambda\frac{w_1}{w}(\hat v_1+s)^{-1}-(1-\alpha)(n+2)\lambda\frac{\hat v_{11}}{(\hat v_1+s)^2}+\frac{\sup\hat F_t}{\alpha(\hat v_1+s)^\lambda}.$$ Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e228}
0 \!\!&\leq&\!\! \hat v^{ij}\eta_{ij} \nonumber\\
&\leq&\!\! \frac{\sup\hat F_t}{\alpha(\hat v_1+s)^\lambda}+\frac{\lambda(\alpha-1)(n+2)\hat v_{11}}{(\hat v_1+s)^2}-4A\lambda\sum_{k=1}^n\frac{\hat v_{1k}\hat v_k}{\hat v_1+s}-2\lambda\beta\frac{\hat v_1}{(\hat v_1+s)\hat v} \nonumber\\
&& -\frac{\beta n}{\hat v}-\left(2A\bigtriangleup\hat v-\frac{4A^2\alpha}{1-\alpha}\hat v_{ij}\hat v_i\hat v_j\right)-\left(4A\beta-\frac{2A\beta}{1-\alpha}\right)\frac{|D\hat v|^2}{\hat v}-(\beta^2-\beta)\frac{\hat v^{ij}\hat v_i\hat v_j}{\hat v^2} \\
&\leq&\!\! \frac{\sup\hat F_t}{\alpha(\hat v_1+s)^\lambda}-2\lambda\beta\frac{\hat v_1}{(\hat v_1+s)\hat v}-\frac{\beta n}{\hat v}-\frac{A}{2}\bigtriangleup\hat v-\left(4A\beta-\frac{2A\beta}{1-\alpha}\right)\frac{|D\hat v|^2}{\hat v}, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ with the choice of $\beta>1$ and $A$ small enough such that $$\label{e229}
\frac{A}{2}\bigtriangleup\hat v \geq \frac{4A^2\alpha}{1-\alpha}\hat v_{ij}\hat v_i\hat v_j+CA^2\hat v_{11},$$ where $C$ is a constant depending only on $n, \alpha$ and $|D\hat v|$. Observing that $$\label{e230}
\frac{\hat v_1}{(\hat v_1+s)\hat v}=\frac{1}{\hat v}-\frac{s}{(\hat v_1+s)\hat v},$$ by choosing $\beta$ large enough such that $$\label{e231}
(-\hat v)(\hat v_1+s)^{1-\lambda}\sup\hat F_t \leq 2s\alpha\lambda\beta,$$ we have $$\label{e232}
-\frac{\beta(n+2\lambda)}{\hat v}-\frac{A}{2}\bigtriangleup\hat v-\left(4A\beta-\frac{2A\beta}{1-\alpha}\right)\frac{|D\hat v|^2}{\hat v}\geq0,$$ which implies $$\label{e233}
(-\hat v)\bigtriangleup\hat v\leq C.$$ It follows that $\eta(z)\geq\eta(z_0)\geq-C$ and so holds.
Approximations
==============
Let $u_0$ be the maximizer of . In this section, we prove that $u_0$ can be approximated by a sequence of smooth solutions to equation . The approximation enables us to apply the a priori estimates in Section 2. For Monge-Ampère equations, or general second order equations, one can obtain the approximation from a perturbation of the equation. However, the perturbation does not work for fourth order equations because of the lack of maximum principle. We will construct the approximation using a penalty method to the functionals. We also need to deal with the difficulty coming from the obstacle.
Obstacle approximation
----------------------
Let $u_0$ be the maximizer of $J_\alpha$ in $\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]$. We construct a sequence of penalized functionals whose maximizers do not contact the obstacle and approximate $u_0$. Let $\mathcal{S}[\varphi, u_0]$ be the set of convex functions with $u_0$ as the obstacle, namely, $$\label{e301}
\mathcal{S}[\varphi,u_0]=\left\{v\in C(\overline\Omega)\,:\,v \mbox{ convex }, v|_{\partial\Omega}=\varphi, Dv(\Omega)\subset D\varphi(\overline\Omega), v\geq u_0\mbox{ in }\Omega\right\},$$ where $\varphi$ is a smooth, uniformly convex function defined on a neighborhood of $\overline\Omega$.
\[l301\] Suppose $0\leq \alpha\leq\frac{1}{n+2}$. There exists a sequence of functions $\{u_i\}$ in $\mathcal{S}[\varphi, u_0]$ such that each $u_i$ is the maximizer of the functional $$J^i_{\alpha}(v)=J_\alpha(v)-\int_\Omega G_i(x,v), \ v\in \mathcal{S}[\varphi, u_0]$$ and $u_i\to u_0$ as $i\to \infty$, where $G_i(x,t)$ is a smooth, convex function monotone decreasing in $t$ . Furthermore, there is no obstacle for $u_i$ in $\Omega$, i.e., $u_i(x)>u_0(x)$, $x\in \Omega$.
First, we consider a penalized problem. The idea is inspired by [@STW]. Define $$\label{e302}
J_{\alpha, g}(v)=J_\alpha(v)-\int_\Omega G(x,v),$$ where $G(x,t)$ is a smooth, convex function monotone decreasing in $t$ such that $$\label{e303}
G(x,t)\geq a(x)(t-u_0(x))^{-n}\quad\mbox{for }t>u_0(x), \ x \in \Omega.$$ Here $a$ is a positive function in $\Omega$, with $a(x)\to 0$ fast enough as $x\to\partial\Omega$ such that the set $\{v\in \mathcal{S}[\varphi, u_0]\,:\,J_{\alpha, g}(v)>-\infty\}\neq\emptyset$. It is clear that $J_{\alpha,g}$ is still concave, upper semi-continuous and bounded from above. Hence there is a unique maximizer $v_g$ to the problem $$\label{e304}
\sup\{J_{\alpha, g}(v)\,:\,v\in \mathcal{S}[\varphi, u_0]\}.$$
We claim that for any $x\in\Omega$, $$\label{e305}
v_g(x)>u_0(x).$$ Indeed, if there is a point $x_0\in\Omega$ such that $v_g(x_0)=u_0(x_0)$, by convexity the graphs of $v_g$ and $u_0$ are bounded by the cone $\mathcal{K}$ and the hyperplane $\mathcal{P}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ has the vertex at $(x_0,u_0(x_0))$ and passes through $(\partial\Omega,u_0|_{\partial\Omega})$, and $\mathcal{P}$ is the support plane of $u_0$ at $x_0$. Then we have $|v_g(x)-u_0(x)|\leq C|x-x_0|$. Hence by the assumption on $G(x, t)$, $$\label{e306}
\int_{\Omega}G(x,v_g(x))\geq C\int_{\Omega}|x-x_0|^{-n}=\infty.$$ That is, $v_g$ cannot be a maximizer.
Replacing $G$ by $\varepsilon_i G$ for a sequence $\varepsilon_i\to0$, accordingly there exists a sequence of maximizers $v_{\varepsilon_i}$ to . Since $u_0$ is itself a maximizer, we have $v_{\varepsilon_i}\to u_0$ as $\varepsilon_i\to 0$ by the concavity of the functional $J_\alpha$. Hence, the sequence $u_i$ can be chosen from $v_{\varepsilon_i}$.
If $u_i$ is smooth, it satisfies the equation $$\label{e307}
L[u]=f+g_i \quad\mbox{in }\Omega,$$ where $L$ is the operator in , and $g_i=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}G_i(x,t)$ at $t=u_i(x)$. In the later proof of strict convexity, we will need the upper bound estimate for the determinant of $D^2u_0$ which depends on $\sup f$. Since $g_i<0$ in the above approximation, the estimate in Section 2 still applies when turning to the sequence $u_i$.
When studying the strict convexity of enclosed convex hypersurfaces with maximal affine area, one can assume $u_0$ is equal to a linear function $\ell$ on $\partial\Omega$ [@STW], then the above proof can be simplified.
In fact, the approximation in Lemma \[l301\] applies on any subdomain $\Omega'\subset\Omega$. Instead of considering the boundary $\varphi$, one can consider $$\mathcal{S}_{\Omega'}[u_0]=\{v\in C(\overline\Omega')\,:\,v \mbox{ convex}, v|_{\partial\Omega'}=u_0|_{\partial\Omega'}, Dv(\Omega')\subset Du_0(\overline\Omega'), v\geq u_0\},$$ and then obtain a local approximation sequence.
Smooth approximation
--------------------
Let $u$ be the maximizer of . From the obstacle approximation, $u$ is also the maximizer of over the set $$\label{e308}
\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\Omega]=\left\{v\in C(\overline\Omega)\,:\,v \mbox{ convex}, v|_{\partial\Omega}=\varphi|_{\partial\Omega}, Dv(\Omega)\subset D\varphi(\overline\Omega)\right\}.$$ In this subsection, we prove that $u$ can be approximated by smooth solutions of $$\label{e309}
U^{ij}w_{ij}=f(x,u),$$ where $U^{ij}$ is the cofactor of $D^2u$ and $w=[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u]^{\alpha-1}$. This approximation enables us to apply the a priori estimates in Section 2.
\[l302\] Let $u$ be the maximizer of . Suppose $\partial\Omega$ is Lipschitz continuous. Then there exists a sequence of smooth solutions to equation converging locally uniformly to the maximizer $u$.
To prove the approximation, first we recall the existence and regularity of solutions of the following second boundary value problem [@TW05]. Let $B=B_R(0)$ be a ball such that $\Omega\Subset B_{R-1}(0)$ and $\phi$ is a smooth, uniformly convex function in $B$ and $\phi=c^*$ is constant on $\partial B$. Let $$\label{e310}
H(t)=(1-t^2)^{-2n}$$ be a nonnegative smooth function in the interval $(-1,1)$. When $|t|>1$, we can formally define $H(t)=+\infty$. Extend the function $f$ in to $B$ such that $$\label{e311}
f=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
f(x) & x\in\Omega,\\
H'(u-\phi(x)) & x\in B\setminus\Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$
\[l303\] Suppose $\partial\Omega$ is Lipschitz continuous. Then there is a uniformly convex solution $u\in W^{4,p}_{loc}(B)\cap C^{0,1}(\overline B)$ (for all $p<\infty$) with ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u\in C^0(\overline\Omega)$ of the boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e312}
U^{ij}w_{ij}\!\!&=&\!\!f(x,u)\quad\mbox{in }B,\\
u\!\!&=&\!\!\phi \, (=c^*)\quad\mbox{on }\partial B,\nonumber \\
w\!\!&=&\!\!1\quad\mbox{on }\partial B. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
The existence and regularity of solutions of was previously obtained in [@TW05; @TW10] for $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, and [@Z1] for $\alpha=0$. The crucial ingredient is to establish $$\label{e313}
|f(x,u)|\leq C$$ for some constant $C>0$ independent of $u$. Once $f$ is bounded, the regularity and existence of solutions follow easily from [@TW05]. The global $C^{4,\alpha}$ regularity was recently proved in [@TW08]. Following the argument in [@TW05], one can easily check the proof works for all $\alpha\in(0,\frac{1}{n+2})$. Now, we show that the maximizer of $J_\alpha(u)$ can be approximated by smooth solutions to equation .
By assumption $\varphi$ is smooth, uniformly convex in a neighborhood of $\Omega$, so we can extend it to $B=B_R$ such that $\varphi$ is convex in $B$, $\varphi\in C^{0,1}(\overline B)$ and $\varphi$ is constant on $\partial B$. Replacing $\varphi$ by $\varphi+\left(|x|-R+\frac12\right)_+^2$, where $$\left(|x|-R+\frac12\right)_+=\max\left\{|x|-R+\frac12,0\right\},$$ we also assume that $\varphi$ is uniformly convex in $\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\,:\,R-\frac12<|x|<R\}$. Consider the second boundary value problem with $$\label{e314}
f_j(x,u)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
f & \mbox{in }\Omega \\
H'_j(u-\varphi) & \mbox{in }B\setminus\Omega,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $H_j(t)=H(4^jt)$ and $H$ is defined by . By Lemma \[l303\] there is a solution $u_j$ satisfying $$\label{e315}
|u_j-\varphi|\leq 4^{-j},\quad x\in B\setminus\Omega.$$ By the convexity, $u_j$ sub-converges to a convex function $\bar u$ in $B$ as $j\to\infty$. Note that $\bar u=\varphi$ in $B\setminus\Omega$. Hence, $\bar u\in\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\Omega]$ when restricted in $\Omega$. Using a similar argument as in [@TW10] and [@Z1], one can show that $\bar u$ is the maximizer of over the set . By the uniqueness of maximizer, we obtain $\bar u=u$. The main ingredients of the argument in [@TW10] are the upper semicontinuity and the concavity of the functional , which hold for all $\alpha\in[0,\frac{1}{n+2}]$, see Lemma \[l201\].
Strict convexity
================
In this section, we prove the strict convexity of $u_0$ in dimension two. Let $\mathcal{G}_0$ be the graph of $u_0$. If $u_0$ is not strictly convex, then $\mathcal{G}_0$ contains a line segment. Let $\ell(x)$ be a tangent function of $u_0$ at the segment and denote by $$\label{e401}
\mathcal{C}=\{x\in\Omega\,:\,u_0(x)=\ell(x)\}$$ the contact set. The set $\mathcal{C}\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ is bounded and convex.
We say a point $x_0\in\partial U$ is an extreme point of a bounded convex domain $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ if there is a hyperplane $P$ such that $\{x_0\}=P\cap\partial U$, namely the intersection $P\cap\partial U$ is the single point $x_0$. We divide our discussion into the following two cases:
- : $\mathcal{C}$ has an exteme point $x_0$, which is an interior point of $\Omega$;
- : All extreme points of $\mathcal{C}$ lie on $\partial\Omega$.
We will rule out the possibility of both cases, and thus $u_0$ is strictly convex. The basic observation is that a convex function with a bounded Monge-Ampère measure is differentiable at any point on its graph, not lying on a line segment joining two boundary points, [@Caf1]. In dimension two, recall the following
\[l401\] Suppose $u$ is a nonnegative convex function in a domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$. The origin $0\in\Omega$ is an interior point. $u$ satisfies $u>0$ on $\partial\Omega$, $u(0)=0$ and $u(x_1,0)\geq|x_1|$. Then the Monge-Ampère measure $\mu[u]$ cannot be a bounded function.
Strict convexity I
------------------
First we rule out the possibility that $\mathcal{G}_0$ contains a line segment with one endpoint in the interior of $\Omega$.
\[l402\] $\mathcal{C}$ contains no extreme points in the interior of $\Omega$.
The proof is by contradiction arguments as in [@TW00; @Z1]. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\ell(x)=0$, the origin is an extreme point of $\mathcal{C}$ and the segment $\{(x_1,0)\,:\,0\leq x_1\leq 1\}\subset\mathcal{C}$. From the approximation argument, we can choose a sequence of functions $\{u_k\}$ converging to $u_0$ such that $u_k$ is a solution of . Let $\mathcal{G}_k$ be the graph of $u_k$. Then $\mathcal{G}_k$ converges in the Hausdorff distance to $\mathcal{G}_0$.
For $\varepsilon>0$ small enough, let $$\label{e402}
\ell_\varepsilon=-\varepsilon x_1+\varepsilon,\quad\mbox{and } \Omega_\varepsilon=\{u<\ell_\varepsilon\}.$$ Let $T_\varepsilon$ be a coordinates transformation that normalizes the domain $\Omega_\varepsilon$. Define $$\label{e403}
u_\varepsilon(x)=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}u(T_\varepsilon^{-1}(x)),\quad u_{k,\varepsilon}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}u_k(T_\varepsilon^{-1}(x)),\quad x\in\tilde\Omega_\varepsilon,$$ where $\tilde\Omega_\varepsilon=T_\varepsilon(\Omega_\varepsilon)$ is normalized. After this transformation we have the following observations:
\(i) The equation $U^{ij}w_{ij}=f$ with $w=[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u]^{\alpha-1}$, $0\leq\alpha\leq\frac14$, will become $$\label{e404}
\tilde U^{ij}\tilde w_{ij}=\tilde f,$$ where $\tilde U^{ij}$ is the cofactor of $D^2\tilde u$, $$\tilde w=[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2\tilde u]^{\alpha-1},\quad \mbox{and } \tilde f=|T_\varepsilon|^{-2\alpha}\varepsilon^{1-2\alpha}f.$$ In fact, since $T_\varepsilon$ normalizes $\Omega_\varepsilon$, $|T_\varepsilon|^{-1}\leq|\Omega_\varepsilon|\leq C$. Therefore, $\tilde f\to0$ as $\varepsilon\to0$.
\(ii) Denote by $\mathcal{G}_\varepsilon$ and $\mathcal{G}_{k,\varepsilon}$ the graphs of $u_\varepsilon$ and $u_{k,\varepsilon}$, respectively. Taking $k\to\infty$, it is clear that $u_{k,\varepsilon}\to u_\varepsilon$ and $\mathcal{G}_{k,\varepsilon}$ converges in the Hausdorff distance to $\mathcal{G}_\varepsilon$. Then taking $\varepsilon\to0$, we have that the domain $\tilde\Omega_\varepsilon$ sub-converges to a normalized domain $\tilde\Omega$ and $u_\varepsilon$ sub-converges to a convex function $\tilde u$ defined in $\tilde\Omega$. We also have $\mathcal{G}_\varepsilon$ sub-converges in the Hausdorff distance to a convex surface $\mathcal{\tilde G}_0\in\mathbb{R}^3$.
\(iii) By a rotation of coordinates, the convex surface $\mathcal{\tilde G}_0$ satisfies $$\label{e405}
\mathcal{\tilde G}_0\subset\{y_1\geq0\}\cap\{y_3\geq0\}$$ and $\mathcal{\tilde G}_0$ contains two segments $$\label{e406}
\{(0,0,y_3)\,:\,0\leq y_3\leq 3\},\quad \{(y_1,0,0)\,:\,0\leq y_1\leq 1\}.$$
Hence, by (i)–(iii) we can assume that there is a sequence of solutions $\tilde u_k$ of $$\label{e407}
U^{ij}w_{ij}=\varepsilon_k f\quad\mbox{in }\tilde\Omega_k,$$ where $w=[{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u]^{\alpha-1}$, and $\varepsilon_k\to0$ such that the normalized domain $\tilde\Omega_k$ converges to $\tilde\Omega$, $\tilde u_k$ converges to $\tilde u$ and the graph of $\tilde u_k$, denoted by $\mathcal{\tilde G}_k$ converges in the Hausdorff distance to $\mathcal{\tilde G}_0$.
Note that in $y$-coordinates, $\mathcal{\tilde G}_0$ is not a graph of a function near the origin. By adding some linear function to $\tilde u_k$ and $\tilde u$ and making a rotation of coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^3$, i.e., $z_i=R_{ij}y_j$, where $(R_{ij})$ is a $3\times3$ rotation matrix, $\mathcal{\tilde G}_k, \mathcal{\tilde G}_0$ can be represented by $z_3=v_k(z_1,z_2), z_3=v(z_1,z_2)$, respectively [@Z1]. Moreover, $v_k$ is a solution of the equation given in §2.4 near the origin, $v$ satisfies $$\label{e408}
v\geq\frac12|z_1|,\quad\mbox{and}\quad v(z_1,0)=\frac12|z_1|.$$
As we know that $\mathcal{\tilde G}_k$ converges in the Hausdorff distance to $\mathcal{\tilde G}_0$, in the new coordinates, $v_k$ converges locally uniformly to $v$. Let $\mathcal{\tilde C}=\{(z_1,z_2),\:\,v(z_1,z_2)=0\}$, and $$\label{e409}
L=\{(z_1,z_2,0)\,:\,(z_1,z_2)\in\mathcal{\tilde C}\}$$ in $z$-coordinates. $L$ could be a single point (Case I) or a segment on $z_2$-axis (Case II).
*Case I*: In this case, $v$ is strictly convex at $(0,0)$. The strict convexity implies that $Dv$ is bounded on the sub-level set $S_{h,v}(0)$ for small $h>0$. Hence, by locally uniform convergence, $Dv_k$ are uniformly bounded on $S_{h/2,v_k}(0)$. By Lemma \[l204\], we have the determinant estimate $$\label{e410}
{\mbox{det}}\,D^2v_k\leq C$$ near the origin, where the constant $C$ is uniform with respect to $k$. By the weak continuity of Monge-Ampère measure, $\mu[v]\leq C$ near the origin. The contradiction follows by Lemma 4.1.
*Case II*: In this case, $L$ is a segment, we may also assume that $0$ is an end point of $L$, i.e., $$\mathcal{\tilde C}=\{(0, z_2)\,:\,-1\leq z_2\leq 0\}.$$ Define the linear function $$\label{e411}
\ell_\varepsilon(z)=\delta_\varepsilon z_2+\varepsilon$$ and $\omega_\varepsilon=\{z\,:\,v(z)\leq\ell_\varepsilon\}$, where $\delta_\varepsilon, \varepsilon$ are chosen such that $\varepsilon\delta_\varepsilon^{-1}\to0$ as $\varepsilon\to0$. By taking the similar transformations and normalizations as in , with respect to $z_2$ direction, one can reduce Case II to Case I. The proof is then finished.
Strict convexity II
-------------------
Next, we rule out the possibility of case (b) that all extreme points of $\mathcal{C}$ lie on the boundary $\partial\Omega$. Recall the definition of $\mathcal{C}$ in , and define the set $T:=\{x\in\Omega\,:\,u(x)=\psi(x)\}$, where $\psi$ is the obstacle.
\[l403\] Let $u_0\in\mathcal{S}[\varphi,\psi]$ be the maximizer. The obstacle $\psi$ is a convex function in $\Omega$ satisfying $\psi<\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega$. If all extreme points of $\mathcal{C}$ lie on the boundary $\partial\Omega$, then ${\mbox{dist}}(\mathcal{\overline C},\overline{T})>c_0$ for some positive constant $c_0$.
This follows easily from the convexity.
\[l404\] Assume that $\varphi$ is uniformly convex in a neighborhood of $\Omega$. then $\mathcal{G}_0$ contains no line segments with both endpoints on $\partial\mathcal{G}_0$.
By Lemma \[l403\], we can restrict our discussion on a sub-domain $\Omega'\subset\Omega$ satisfying ${\mbox{dist}}(\Omega',T)>c_0$ and $\{\mbox{extreme points of }\mathcal{C}\}\subset\partial\Omega'\cap\partial\Omega$. Let $u_0$ be the maximizer of $J_\alpha$ and $$\label{e412}
\bar S[u_0,\Omega']:=\{v\in C(\overline\Omega')\,:\,v \mbox{ convex }, v_{\partial\Omega'}=u_0, N_v(\Omega')\subset N_{u_0}(\overline\Omega')\}.$$ Note that since ${\mbox{dist}}(\Omega',T)>c_0$, when restricting on $\Omega'$, $u_0$ is naturally a maximizer of $J_\alpha$ over $\bar S[u_0,\Omega']$ without obstacle. Therefore, we can apply a similar local approximation in [@TW10] as follows:
> *Claim:* There exists a sequence of smooth, uniformly convex solutions $u_m\in W^{4,p}(\Omega')$ $(\forall p<\infty)$ of $$\label{e413}
> U^{ij}w_{ij}=f+\beta_m\chi_{D_m}\quad\mbox{in }\Omega'$$ such that $$\label{e414}
> |u_m-u|\to0\quad\mbox{uniformly in }\Omega',$$ where $D_m=\{x\in\Omega'\,:\,{\mbox{dist}}(x,\partial\Omega')<2^{-m}\}$, $\chi$ is the characteristic function, and $\beta_m>0$ is a constant. Furthermore, we can choose $\beta_m$ sufficiently large ($\beta_m\to\infty$ as $m\to\infty$) such that for any compact, proper subset $K\subset N_{u_0}(\Omega')$, $$\label{e415}
> K\subset N_{u_m}(\Omega')$$ provided $m$ is sufficently large, where $N_u$ is the normal mapping introduced in Section 2.
The proof of the claim is contained in [@TW10] for the case $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, see also [@Z1] for the case $\alpha=0$. The idea is similar to the proof of Lemma \[l302\]. But instead of considering the second boundary value problem with inhomogeneous term , we consider a weighted one $$\label{e416}
f_{m,j}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
f+\beta_m\chi_{D_m} & \mbox{in }\Omega' \\
H_j'(u-u_0) & \mbox{in }B_R\setminus\Omega'
\end{array}\right.$$ where $H_j(t)=H(4^jt)$ given by , $B_R$ is a large ball enclosing $\Omega'$. By Lemma \[l303\], there is a solution $u_{m,j}$ satisfying $$\label{e417}
|u_{m,j}-u_0|\leq 4^{-j},\quad x\in B_R\setminus\Omega'.$$ By the convexity, $u_{m,j}$ sub-converges to a convex function $u_m$ as $j\to\infty$ and $u_m=u_0$ in $B_R\setminus\Omega'$. Note that $u_m\in\mathcal{S}[u_0,\Omega']$ when restricted in $\Omega'$, therefore, $u_m$ converges to a convex function $u_\infty$ in $\mathcal{S}[u_0,\Omega']$ as $m\to\infty$. Similarly, one can show that $u_\infty$ is the maximizer of $J_\alpha$ over the set $\mathcal{S}[u_0,\Omega']$. By the uniqueness of maximizer, we have $u_\infty=u_0$ and obtain the claim. See [@TW10; @Z1] for more details.
Now, suppose that $\ell$ is a line segment in $\mathcal{G}_0$ with both end points on $\partial\mathcal{G}_0$. By substracting a linear function, we assume that $u_0\geq0$ and $\ell$ lies in $\{x_3=0\}$. From the definition of $\Omega'$, we also have $\ell\subset\Omega'$ with both end points on $\partial\Omega'\cap\partial\Omega$. By a traslation and a dilation of the coordiantes, we may assume furthermore that $$\label{e418}
\ell=\{(0,x_2,0)\,:\,-1\leq x_2\leq 1\}$$ with the endpoints $(0,\pm1)\in\partial\Omega'\cap\partial\Omega$.
Since $\varphi$ is smooth, uniformly convex in a neighborhood of $\Omega$ and $u_0=\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega$, it follows $$\label{e419}
u_0(x)=\varphi(x)\leq\frac{C}{2}|x_1|^2,\quad x\in\partial\Omega'\cap\partial\Omega.$$ By the convexity of $u_0$, $$\label{e420}
u_0(x)\leq\frac{C}{2}|x_1|^2,\quad x\in\Omega'.$$
Consider the Legendre transform $u_0^*$ of $u_0$ in $\Omega^*=D\varphi(\Omega)$, given by $$\label{e421}
u_0^*(y)=\sup\{x\cdot y-u_0(x),\ \ x\in\Omega\},\quad y\in\Omega^*.$$ Since both endpoints $(0,\pm1)\in\partial\Omega'\cap\partial\Omega$, by the uniform convexity of $\varphi$, $0\notin D\varphi(\partial\Omega)$. Hence $0\in\Omega^*$ is an interior point. By , we have $$\begin{aligned}
u_0^*(0,y_2)\!\!&\geq&\!\!|y_2|, \label{e422} \\
u_0^*(y)\!\!&\geq&\!\!\frac{1}{2C}y_1^2. \label{e423}
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u_0^*$ is not bounded from above near the origin by Lemma \[l401\].
But on the other hand, by the a priori estmiate in Lemma \[l203\], ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u_0^*$ must be bounded. Indeed, consider the Legendre transform $u_m^*$ of $u_m$. By the approximations , , and , $u_m^*$ satisfies the equation $$\label{e424}
U^{*ij}w_{ij}^*=-f_m(Du^*){\mbox{det}}\,D^2u^*\quad\mbox{in }\Omega^*_{\varepsilon_m},$$ where $f_m=f+\beta_m\chi_{D_m}$ and $$\Omega^*_{\varepsilon_m}=\{y\in\Omega^*\,:\,{\mbox{dist}}(y,\partial\Omega^*)>\varepsilon_m\}$$ with $\varepsilon_m\to 0$ as $m\to\infty$. By the growth estimates and , $u_0^*$ is strictly convex at $0$, the set $\{u_0^*<h\}$ is strictly contained in $\Omega^*$ provided $h>0$ is small. Note that $u_m^*$ converges to $u_0^*$. By Lemma \[l203\] we have the estimate $${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u_m^*\leq C_1$$ near the origin in $\Omega^*$. Note also that in Lemma \[l203\], the constant $C_1$ depends on $\inf f$ but not on $\sup f$. In other words, the large constant $\beta_m$ in does not affect the bound $C_1$. Therefore, sending $m\to\infty$, we obtained $${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u_0^*\leq C$$ near the origin. This is in contradiction with the assertion that ${\mbox{det}}\,D^2u_0^*$ is not bounded from above near the origin.
Regularity
==========
We can now give the proof of Theorem \[t101\], which is divided into two parts:
$C^{1,\alpha}$ regularity
-------------------------
Assume that $\psi$ is convex and satisfies $\psi<\varphi$ on $\partial\Omega$. Let $u$ be the maximizer of and $\mathcal{G}_u$ be the graph of $u$ over $\Omega$. From Section 4 we know $\mathcal{G}_u$ is strictly convex. The $C^{1,\alpha}$ estimate for strictly convex solutions of Monge-Ampère equations was obtained by Caffarelli [@Caf91]. Here we adopt a similar argument from [@TWma].
For an arbitrary point on $\mathcal{G}_u$, by choosing appropriate coordinates and a rotation in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, we assume it is the origin and $\mathcal{G}_u\subset\{x_3\geq0\}$, and near the origin $\mathcal{G}_u$ is the graph of a strictly convex function $u$.
\[l501\] There exist positive constants $\alpha,\beta$, and $C$ such that $$\label{e501}
C^{-1}|x|^{1+\beta}\leq u(x)\leq C|x|^{1+\alpha}\quad \mbox{near the origin.}$$
Denote $S_h^0=\{x\in\Omega\,:\,u(x)<h\}$. By the strict convexity, $S_h^0\Subset\Omega$ when $h>0$ is small. We point out that the proof of strict convexity in Section 4 implies that $u$ is $C^1$ smooth. In fact, if $u$ is not $C^1$ at some point, by a rotation of axes we assume $\mathcal{G}_u\subset\{x_3\geq a|x_1|\}$ for some constant $a>0$. Let $L$ be the intersection of $\mathcal{G}_u$ with $\{x_3=0\}$. $L$ could be a single point or a segment on $x_2$-axis. From the proof of Lemma \[l402\], by a contradiction argument, we can rule out the possibility of both cases, which implies that $\mathcal{G}_u$ is $C^1$ smooth. Hence we have $$\label{e502}
{\mbox{dist}}\left(S_{h/2}^0, \partial S_h^0\right)\geq C_1,$$ or equivalently, $$\label{e503}
u(\theta x)\geq\frac12u(x)$$ for any $x\in\partial S_h^0$, where $\theta=1-\frac12C_1$. As $h$ is any small constant, it follows that for any $x$ near the origin, $$\label{e504}
u(x)\geq 2^{-k}u(\theta^{-k}x)$$ provided $\theta^{-k}x\in\Omega$. Hence we obtain the first inequality in with $\beta$ given by $\theta^{1+\beta}=1/2$.
To prove the second inequality, we claim that there exists a constant $\sigma>0$ such that for any small $h>0$ and any $x\in\partial S_h^0$, $$\label{e505}
u(\frac12x)<\frac{1-\sigma}{2}u(x).$$ Define $\alpha$ by $1-\sigma=2^{-\alpha}$. Then for any $x\in\partial\Omega$ and any $t\in(\frac{1}{2^{k+1}},\frac{1}{2^k})$, $$\label{e506}
\begin{split}
u(tx) &\leq 2^{-k}(1-\sigma)^ku(x) \\
&= (2^{-k})^{1+\alpha}u(x) \\
&\leq 2t^{1+\alpha}u(x).
\end{split}$$ Hence $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$.
Inequality follows from as proved in [@TWma]. For the reader’s convenience, we include it here. Consider the convex function $g(t)=u(tx)$, $t\in[-1,1]$. Replacing $g$ by $g/g(1)$, we may assume that $g(1)=1$. Let $\psi(t)=g(t+\frac12)-g'(\frac12)t-g(\frac12)$. Then $\psi(0)=0, \psi\geq0$. If $g(\frac12)>\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2}$, by convexity we have $1+\varepsilon\geq g'(\frac12)\geq 1-\varepsilon$ and $\psi(-\frac12)\leq\varepsilon$. Applying to $\psi$, we have $\psi(-\frac12\theta^{-1})\leq 2\psi(-\frac12)\leq 2\varepsilon$. Hence $g(-\frac12\theta^{-1}+\frac12)<0$ when $\varepsilon<\frac{1-\theta}{5}$, we reach a contradiction as $u\geq0$.
We remark that the estimate was also obtained in [@LTW] for strictly $c$-convex solutions of general Monge-Ampère equations arising in the optimal transportation by a duality argument.
$C^{1,1}$ regularity
--------------------
Assume that $\psi$ is uniformly convex. Denote $T=\{x\in\Omega\,:\,u(x)=\psi(x)\}$ and $F=\Omega-T$. Let $\mathcal{G}_{T},\mathcal{G}_{F}$ be the graph of $u$ over $T,F$, respectively. For any point $p\in\partial\mathcal{G}_F$, we may choose a proper coordinate system such that $p$ is the origin; and by a rotation in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, we may also assume that $\{x_{3}=0\}$ is a tangent plane of $\mathcal{G}_\psi$. Therefore, $\psi(0)=0,D\psi(0)=0$, $u\geq\psi$ and $\psi$ is uniformly convex.
\[l502\] Assume that $\psi$ is uniformly convex. There exist two positive constants $C_1,C_2>0$ such that $$\label{e507}
C_1|x|^2\leq u(x)\leq C_2|x|^2.$$
The first inequality follows from the uniform convexity of $\psi$. That is $$u(x)\geq\psi(x)\geq C_1|x|^2$$ as $\{x_{3}=0\}$ is the tangent plane of $\mathcal{G}_\psi$ at the origin.
For the second inequality, suppose by contradiction that it is not true, then there is a sequence of points $x_k$ with $|x_k|\to0$ such that $u(x_k)\geq 2^k|x_k|^2$. We claim that $$\label{e508}
|N_u(E_{\varepsilon_k})|\geq C2^{k/2}\varepsilon_k^{n/2}$$ where $\varepsilon_k=u(x_k), E_\varepsilon=\{x\in\Omega\,:\,u(x)<\varepsilon\}$. To prove , by a rescaling $$u\to\varepsilon_k^{-1}u,\quad\mbox{and }x\to\varepsilon_k^{-1/2}x,$$ we may assume $\varepsilon=1$. Let $v$ be a convex function defined on the entire $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $v(0)=0, v=u=1$ on $\partial E_1=\partial\{u<1\}$, and $v$ is homogeneous of degree $1$. Then the graph of $v$ is a convex cone with vertex at the origin. By the convexity of $u$ we have $$N_v(E_1)\subset N_u(E_1).$$ By the first inequality , we have $$N_v(E_1)\supset B_{C_1^{1/2}}(0),$$ the ball of radius $C_1^{1/2}$. By the assumption that $1=v(x_k)=u(x_k)>2^k|x_k|^2$, the slope of $v$ at $x_k$ is greater than $2^{k/2}$. Hence there exists a point $\hat p\in N_v(E_1)$ such that $|\hat p|\geq 2^{k/2}$. Finally noting that $N_v(E_1)=N_v(\mathbb{R}^2)$ is a convex set as $v$ is a convex cone, we obtain $$|N_v(E_1)|\geq CC_1^{(n-1)/2}|\hat p|\geq C2^{k/2}.$$ By rescaling back, we then obtain $|N_u(E_{\varepsilon_k})|\geq C2^{k/2}\varepsilon_k^{n/2}$.
On the other hand, by the first inequality in we have $|E_\varepsilon|\leq C\varepsilon^{n/2}$. Hence by the determinant estimate in §2.5 we have $$|N_u(E_{\varepsilon_k})|=\int_{E_{\varepsilon_k}}{\mbox{det}}\,D^2u\leq C\varepsilon_k^{n/2}.$$ When $k$ is sufficiently large, we reach a contradiction.
\[c501\] There is no line segment on $\mathcal{G}_F$ with an endpoint on $\partial\mathcal{G}_F$.
Now we prove the second part of Theorem \[t101\].
\[t501\] Suppose that $\psi$ is uniformly convex. Then $u$ is $C^{1,1}$ smooth in a neighborhood of $\partial F$.
When $\alpha=\frac{1}{n+2}$, the $C^{1,1}$ regularity was obtained in [@STW] for enclosed convex hypersurfaces with maximal affine area, where the affine invariant property plays a crucial role. But for general $0\leq\alpha\leq\frac{1}{n+2}$, we need to rotate the graph $\mathcal{G}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and use the a priori determinant estimates in Section 2. Note that the dimension two is needed in the proof of strict convexity, see Lemmas \[l402\] and \[l404\].
Let $p=(p_1,p_2,p_{3})$ be a point on $\mathcal{G}_F$, close to $\partial\mathcal{G}_F$. Let $\delta={\mbox{dist}}(p,\partial\mathcal{G}_F)$ (Euclidean distance). Choosing a proper coordinate system we suppose the origin is a point on $\partial\mathcal{G}_F$ and $|p|=\delta$. By a rotation transform, suppose furthermore that $\mathcal{G}_\psi\subset\{x_{3}\geq 0\}$, and near the origin $u$ satisfies .
Let $u_\delta(x)=\delta^{-2}u(\delta x)$ and let $p_\delta=\left(\frac{p_1}{\delta},\frac{p_2}{\delta},\frac{p_{3}}{\delta^2}\right)$. Then by , $$\label{e509}
C_1|x|^2\leq u_\delta(x)\leq C_2|x|^2.$$ From Section 4, $u_\delta$ is strictly convex near $p_\delta$. By the a priori estimates in Section 2 and the approximation in Section 3, we then infer that there exist constants $C_1,C_2>0$ such that $$C_1I\leq D^2u_\delta(\bar p)\leq C_2I$$ for any $\bar p$ near $p_\delta$, where $I$ is the unit matrix. The constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ are independent of $\delta$. By our rescaling, $D^2u(p)=D^2u_\delta(p_\delta)$. Hence the second derivatives of $u$ are uniformly bounded near $\partial F$. This complete the proof.
[999]{}
Caffarelli, L., A localization property of viscosity solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation and their strict convexity, *Ann. Math. (2)* 131(1990), 129-134.
Caffarelli, L., Some regularity properties of solutions of Monge Ampère equation, *Comm. Pure and Appl. Math.*, Vol. XLIV(1991), 965-969.
Caffarelli, L., Boundary regularity of maps with convex potentials, *Comm. Pure Appl. Math.* 45(1992), 1141-1151.
Caffarelli, L. and Gutiérrez, C., Properties of solutions of the linearized Monge-Ampère equation, *Amer. J. of Math.* 119(1997), 423-465.
Caffarelli, L. and McCann, R., Free boundaries in optimal transport and Monge-Ampère obstacle problems, *Ann. Math. (2)* 171(2010), 673-730.
Chou, K. S. and Wang, Y. D., An obstacle problem for the Monge-Ampère equation, *Comm. PDEs* 18(1993), 1069-1084.
Donaldson, S.K., Scalar curvature and stability of toric varieties, *J. Diff. Geom.* 62(2002), 289-349.
Donaldson, S.K., Interior estimates for solutions of Abreu’s equation, *Collect. Math.* 56(2005), 103-142.
Donaldson, S.K., Extremal metrics on toric surfaces: a continuity method, *J. Diff. Geom.* 79(2008), 389-432.
Donaldson, S.K., Constant scalar curvature metrics on toric surfaces, *Geom. Funct. Anal.* 19(2009), 83-136.
Gilbarg, D. and Trudinger, N., *Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
Gutiérrez, C., *The Monge-Ampère equation*. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 44. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2001.
Lee, K. A., The obstacle problem for Monge-Ampère equation, *Comm. PDEs* 26(2001), 33-42.
Liu, J., Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., Interior $C^{2,\alpha}$ regularity for potential functions in optimal transportation. *Comm. Partial Differential Equations*, 35 (2010), 165-184.
Savin, O., The obstacle problem for Monge Ampère equation, *Calc. Var. PDE* 22(2005), 303-320.
Sheng, W. M., Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., Enclosed convex hypersurfaces with maximal affine area, *Math. Z.* 252(2006), 497-510.
Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., The Bernstein problem for affine maximal hypersurfaces, *Invent. Math.* 140(2000), 399-422.
Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., The affine Plateau problem, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* 18(2005), 253-289.
Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., The Monge-Ampère equation and its geometric applications. *Handbook of geometric analysis. No. 1,* 467-524, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), 7, *Int. Press, Somerville, MA,* 2008.
Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., Boundary regularity for the Monge-Ampère and affine maximal surface equations, *Ann. Math.* 167(2008), 993-1028.
Trudinger, N. S. and Wang, X.-J., The affine Plateau problem II, *preprint*.
Zhou, B., The first boundary value problem for Abreu’s equation, *IMRN* rnr076, 46 pages.
Zhou, B., The Bernstein theorem for a class of fourth order equations, *Calc. Var. PDEs* 43(2012), 25-44.
[^1]: The first author is supported by the Simons Foundation. The second author is supported by National Science Foundation of China No. 11101004 and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation.
[^2]: ©2012 by the authors. All rights reserved
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, the problem of finite horizon inverse optimal control (IOC) is investigated, where the quadratic cost function of a dynamic process is required to be recovered based on the observation of optimal control sequences. We propose the first complete result of the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of corresponding LQ cost functions. Under feasible cases, the analytic expression of the whole solution space is derived and the equivalence of weighting matrices in LQ problems is discussed. For infeasible problems, an infinite dimensional convex problem is formulated to obtain a best-fit approximate solution with minimal control residual. And the optimality condition is solved under a static quadratic programming framework to facilitate the computation. Finally, numerical simulations are used to demonstrate the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed methods.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden'
- 'Control and Simulation Center, Harbin Institute of Technology, 150001 Harbin, P. R. China'
author:
- Yibei Li
- Yu Yao
- Xiaoming Hu
bibliography:
- 'autosam.bib'
title: 'Continuous-Time Inverse Quadratic Optimal Control Problem '
---
,
,
Inverse optimization; Linear quadratic problem; Linear matrix inequality.
Introduction
============
In recent years, the problem of inverse optimization has regained increasing popularity in the fields of robotics, economics, and bionics [@Mombaur2010; @Finn2016; @Berret2011; @Berret2016]. It has numerous varieties in different domains, such as the inverse reinforcement learning problem in machine learning [@hadfield2016cooperative], and the mechanism design problem in game theory [@pavan2014dynamic]. In this paper we mainly focus on the problem of inverse optimal control, which is aimed at recovering the cost function of a dynamic process based on the observation of optimal actions. The optimality principle has been investigated as an important tool to analyze natural phenomena, such as Fermat’s law in optics and Lagrange dynamics in mechanics [@pauwels2016linear]. In the field of biology, it is also a general hypothesis that the behavior of living systems are generated based on some optimal criteria, which leads to a promising topic of inverse optimal control. The basic question is that given a dynamic system, when we observe the optimal policy of a specific task, how can we recover the optimization criterion based on which the optimal policy is generated? Such estimation could then help us develop a better understanding of the physical system and reproduce a similar optimal controller in other applications. For example, inverse optimal control is a promising tool to investigate the mechanisms underlying the human locomotion and to implement them in humanoid robots [@mainprice2016goal]. The problem of reconstructing cost functions has been investigated intensively. Among the existing literatures, one well-studied direction is to treat it as a parameter identification problem, where numerous numerical results have been developed. Under this situation the cost function is usually assumed to be a linear combination of certain basic functions, with the weights remaining to be identified. On one hand, in some papers like [@Mombaur2010] and [@Berret2011], the problem is solved in a bilevel hierarchical framework and learning methods are utilized. But a forward optimal control problem has to be solved repeatedly in each inner loop to test optimality of a candidate cost function, which would lead to a computational bottleneck. On the other hand, in [@hatz2012estimating], [@keshavarz2011imputing], [@johnson2013inverse], [@Pauwels2014inverse] and [@pauwels2016linear], the problem structure is better exploited and the optimal control model is characterized by its optimality conditions. Then the problem is reformulated as a residual optimization problem, where the inner loop forward optimal control problem is replaced by a set of constraints based on Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions or Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations.
Among the various forms of the cost function, one important direction falls under the field of deterministic linear quadratic problems, which are not only well-defined but also popular for practical purposes. Some analytic results have also been obtained due to its special form. The inverse LQ problem is first proposed by [@Kalman1964] for the following Linear Quadratic (LQ) optimal control problem: $$\label{eIntro}
\begin{aligned}
\mathop {\min }\limits_u {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} & \int_0^{{\infty}} {\left( {{x^T}\left( t \right)Qx\left( t \right) + {u^T}\left( t \right)Ru\left( t \right) } \right)}dt \\
s.t.{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} &\dot x\left( t \right) = Ax\left( t \right) + Bu\left( t \right)\\
&x\left( {{t_0}} \right) = {x_0}
\end{aligned}$$
In general, given a stabilizable constant linear plant $\left( {A,B} \right)$, and a constant stabilizing feedback control law ${u^*}\left( t \right) = K{x^*}\left( t \right)$, the inverse optimal control problem is defined by two sub-problems:
\(1) Existence: determine the necessary and sufficient conditions on matrices A, B and K, such that K is an optimal control law for some cost function in the form of Eq. (\[eIntro\]).
\(2) Solution: determine all $R$ and $Q$ in Eq. (\[eIntro\]) corresponding to the same $K$.
For the infinite-time case, Kalman studied the single-input case (R=I) in frequency domain with the return difference condition, which is then extended to the multi-input case by [@Anderson1989]. In time domain based on the study of matrix equations, [@jameson1973inverse] gives the necessary and sufficient condition to derive the solution of $R$ from the feedback matrix $K$. However, in that result the obtained $Q$ cannot be guaranteed to be constant and nonnegative. From then on, the results of Anderson and Jameson are extended and improved to derive different results for the existence problem, such as [@Fujii1984], [@SUGIMOTO1987], and [@Fujii1987]. Then in recent years, the tool of Linear Matrix Inequality (LMI) and optimization are used in [@Boyd1994] and [@Priess2015] to calculate the solutions of $Q$ and $R$.
However, on the other hand, the inverse LQ problem in finite time is still an open problem. To the best of our knowledge, there are only a few results related to this problem. In addition to the incomplete result of [@jameson1973inverse], [@Nori2004] makes a step forward, showing that for any quadratic cost function, there exists a canonical form with a cross term such that it can generate the same optimal control. Then [@jean2018inverse] makes some extensions to investigate the uniqueness of the canonical form. But under this framework, the problem is reduced to a constrained parameter identification problem, which is however not easy to solve. In this paper, the finite-time inverse LQ problem is investigated. Given the observation of an optimal feedback matrix, the necessary and sufficient condition is given for the existence of corresponding LQ cost functions by a LMI condition. For feasible problems, the analytic expression of the whole solution space is derived and the uniqueness of solutions are analyzed. On the other hand, for infeasible cases, a best-fit approximate solution is obtained, which minimizes the control residual. The main contribution of this paper is two-folded:
1. To the best of our knowledge, our result is the first attempt to give out a complete necessary and sufficient condition for the well-posedness of the inverse LQ problem, i.e. the existence of LQ cost functions. Unlike [@Nori2004] and [@jean2018inverse], here we focus on the standard form without cross terms, which is more advantageous in its practical meaning. For feasible cases, the whole solution space is analyzed analytically, which also sheds new light on explaining the equivalence of weighting matrices in LQ problems.
2. In infeasible cases, approximate solutions are computed through a well-posed infinite dimensional convex problem, which is formulated to minimize the residual of optimal controllers. The optimality condition is derived by the primal-dual method in the form of a matrix boundary value problem (BVP) under the constraints of positive semi-definite cones. Instead of solving the BVP numerically, we transfer it into a static quadratic programming problem, which is more computationally efficient.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, some preliminaries and notations are introduced. In section 3, the inverse LQ problem are formulated mathematically. The well-posedness and exact solutions of the inverse LQ problem is investigated in Section 4, while under infeasible cases an infinite-dimensional convex optimization problem is solved to obtain a best-fit approximate solution in Section 5. Numerical simulations are given in Section 6 and some concluding remarks are drawn in Section 7.
Notations and Mathematical Preliminaries
========================================
In this paper, we denote $\mathbb{R}^n$ as the space of $n$ dimensional column vector. $\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ denotes the space of $n \times n$ dimensional matrix. For any two matrices $X$ and $Y$, $X \succeq Y$ means $X-Y$ is positive semi-definite. We use $C\left[ 0,T \right]$ and $NBV\left[ 0,T \right]$ to denote the space of continuous functions and normalized bounded variations over $[0,T]$ respectively. For some special matrix spaces, we use notations $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{S}^{n} &:= \left\lbrace S \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n},~S=S^{T} \right\rbrace , \\
\mathbb{S}_+^{n} &:= \left\lbrace S \in \mathbb{S}^{n},~S \succeq 0 \right\rbrace, \\
\mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] &:= \left\lbrace C\left( t \right)=C^{T}\left( t \right),~C_{ij} \in C\left[ 0,T \right] \right\rbrace, \\
NBV_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] &:= \left\lbrace X\left( t \right)=X^{T}\left( t \right),~X_{ij} \in NBV\left[ 0,T \right] \right\rbrace,
\end{aligned}$$ to denote the space of Hermitian matrices, the cone of positive semi-definite matrices, matrices of continuous functions, and the matrices of normalized bounded variations respectively.
The spaces $ \mathbb{S}^{n} $ and $ \mathbb{S}_+^{n} $ are Hilbert spaces, on which the inner product is defined as: $$\left\langle S_1, S_2 \right\rangle = tr\left( {S_1^T} {S_2} \right) = tr\left( {S_1} {S_2} \right),$$ where $ tr $ denotes the traces of two matrices.
Some matrix operators are also used in this paper. $X^\dagger$ denotes the Moore-Penrose inverse. $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. $\lVert \cdot \rVert_F $ denotes the Frobenius norm of a matrix. We use $vec(\cdot)$, $vech(\cdot)$ and $mat(\cdot)$ to denote vectorization, half vectorization, and matricization respectively. Let $e_i$ be the $i-th$ canonical basis vector for $\mathbb{R}^n$. The matrix $E_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ has one in its $(i,j)-th$ position and zeroes elsewhere, i.e. $E_{ij}={e_i}{e_j}^T$. The column-wise block matrix $B_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2 \times n}$ consists of $n$ blocks of size $n \times n$, where only the $i-th$ block is an identity matrix $I_n$ and the others are all zeros. Then for any matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and vector $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$, the operators of vectorization and matricization can be expressed in the form of linear transmission as $$\begin{aligned}
& vec(X) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i}X{e_i}, \\
& mat(x) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i}^Tx{e_i}^T.
\end{aligned}$$
The duplication matrix $D$ and elimination matrix $ L $ are defined respectively by $$\begin{aligned}
& D^T = \sum_{n \geq i \geq j \geq 1} {u_{ij}}{vec(T_{ij})}^T, \\
& L= \sum_{n \geq i \geq j \geq 1} {u_{ij}}{vec(E_{ij})}^T ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& u_{ij} = vech(T_{ij}), \\
& T_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
E_{ii} & \textit{if}~i=j, \\
E_{ij}+E_{ji} & \textit{otherwise}.
\end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$
Then for any symmetric matrix $X \in \mathbb{S}^n$, there exists a linear transformation between its vectorization and half vectorization as $$\begin{aligned}
& vec(X) =D vech(X), \\
& vech(X) =L vec(X).
\end{aligned}$$
Problem Formulations
====================
Considering the standard finite time LQ problem: $$\label{e23}
\begin{aligned}
\mathop {\min }\limits_u {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} &{x^T}\left( T \right)Fx\left( T \right) + \int_0^{{T}} {\left( {{x^T}\left( t \right)Qx\left( t \right) + {u^T}\left( t \right)u\left( t \right) } \right)}dt \\
s.t.{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} &\dot x\left( t \right) = Ax\left( t \right) + Bu\left( t \right)\\
&x\left( {{t_0}} \right) = {x_0}
\end{aligned}$$ where $ x \in \mathbb{R}^n $, $ u \in \mathbb{R}^m $, and $Q, F \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n}$.
Here we make the standard assumption on the system that $ \left( A,B \right) $ is controllable, $B$ has full column rank. For the forward problem, it is well-known that there exists a unique optimal feedback control that minimizes the quadratic cost function: $$\label{e12}
u\left( t \right) = K\left( t \right)x\left( t \right)
=- {B^T}P\left( t \right)x\left( t \right),$$ where $ P $ is the positive semi-definite solution to the following matrix Differential Riccati Equation (DRE): $$\label{e13}
- \dot P = PA + {A^T}P - PB{B^T}P + Q, P(T)=F.$$
Then the inverse optimal control problem is formulated as following:
\[prob1\] Given a controllable constant linear plant $\left( {A,B} \right)$, and an optimal feedback control law $ K\left( t \right) $, estimate the constant matrices $ Q $ and $ F $ in the quadratic cost function (\[e23\]) such that it could generate the observed optimal controller.
Here the inverse problem is investigated in two steps.
1. *Existence:* determine whether there exists a quadratic cost function that could generate the observed optimal controller, and whether the solution is unique.
2. *Reconstruction:* compute a best cost function under some optimal criterion if the existence problem is feasible; otherwise give an approximate solution.
Firstly for the existence problem, [@jameson1973inverse] gives out the necessary and sufficient condition to recover a symmetric non-negative matrix $ P\left( t \right) $ from the feedback matrix $ K $.
\[thm1\] Given a feedback matrix $ K(t) $, there exists a real symmetric solution $P\left(t\right)=P\left(t\right)^T$ satisfying $K\left(t\right)=-B^T P\left(t\right)$ if and only if $K\left(t\right)B$ is symmetric and $$\label{e14}
rank\left(K\left(t\right)B\right)=rank\left(K\left(t\right)\right).$$
Then all real symmetric $P\left(t\right)$ satisfying $B^{T}P\left(t\right)=-K\left(t\right)$ are presented by: $$\label{e15}
P\left(t\right)=-K^{T}\left(t\right)\left(K\left(t\right)B\right)^{\dagger}K\left(t\right)+Y\left(t\right),$$ where $Y\left(t\right)$ are all real matrices that satisfy: $$\label{e16}
B^{T}Y\left(t\right)=0, Y\left(t\right)=Y^{T}\left(t\right).$$
And $P\left(t\right)$ is nonnegative if and only if the eigenvalues (must be real) of $K\left(t\right)B$ are nonpositive, and $Y\left(t\right)=Y^{T}\left(t\right) \succeq 0$.
Then the matrix $Q$ can be computed by $P\left(t\right)$ through DRE, and $ F $ is determined by $ F = P\left(T\right) = P_0\left(T\right)+Y\left(T\right) $.
However, the above conditions cannot guarantee a constant and nonnegative matrix $ Q $, which does not exactly solve Problem \[prob1\].
Denote $P_0\left(t\right) = -K^{T}\left(t\right)\left(K\left(t\right)B\right)^{+}K\left(t\right)$. Substituting Eq.(\[e15\]) into the Ricatti equation, we could simplify the nonlinear constraint of Riccati equation into the following linear one, which is in fact a Lyapunov differential equation: $$\label{e18}
\dot Y\left(t\right) = -{A^T}Y\left(t\right) - Y\left(t\right)A - Q - G\left(t\right),$$ where $G\left(t\right)= \dot{P_0} + {A^T}{P_0} + {P_0}A - {P_0}B{B^{T}}{P_0}$. On the other hand, in order to get rid of the time-variant constraint of $Y(t) \succeq 0$, we notice that for the differential Ricatti equation in Eq. (\[e13\]), given any $Q \succeq 0$, the boundary condition $P(T) \succeq 0$ is enough to guarantee the positive semi-definiteness of $P(t)$ throughout the time interval $[0,T]$. Thus in our paper the constraint $P\left(t\right) \succeq 0$ is characterized by $P(T) = Y\left( T \right)+P_0(T) \succeq 0$. Then the inverse LQ problem is reformulated as:
\[thm2\] The observed feedback control matrix $ K\left( t \right) $ is optimal to some quadratic cost function in the form of Eq.(\[e23\]) if and only if $K\left(t\right)B$ is symmetric with nonpositive eigenvalues and $$\label{e20}
rank\left(K\left(t\right)B\right)=rank\left(K\left(t\right)\right),$$ and there exists $Q \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n}$, $ Y\left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^n\left[ {0,T} \right] $, such that: $$\label{e21}
\begin{aligned}
&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dot Y\left( t \right) = - {A^T}Y\left( t \right) - Y\left( t \right)A - Q - G\left( t \right) \\
{B^T}Y\left( t \right) = 0 \quad \forall t \in \left[ {0,T} \right]
\end{array} \right. .
\end{aligned}$$ with the boundary constraint $F = Y\left( T \right)+P_0(T) \succeq 0$.
Therefore, in this paper, we mainly focus on the following problem:
\[prob2\] Find $Q \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n}$, such that: $$\label{e22}
\begin{aligned}
\exists Y& \left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^n\left[ {0,T} \right],~s.t. \\
&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dot Y\left( t \right) = - {A^T}Y\left( t \right) - Y\left( t \right)A - Q - G\left( t \right) \\
{B^T}Y\left( t \right) = 0 \quad \forall t \in \left[ {0,T} \right] \\
Y\left( T \right)+P_0(T) \succeq 0
\end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}$$
Exact Solution to the Inverse Problem {#SecExact}
=====================================
In this section the analytic solutions to Problem \[prob2\] is investigated. For any feasible solution $Q=Q^T \geq 0$, there exists a unique solution $Y(t)$, whose expression can be computed explicitly. Then the existence problem is equivalent to the feasibility of a LMI problem. Furthermore, for feasible problems, the structure of the solution space is analyzed and an optimal solution $Q$ can be obtained through semi-definite programming (SDP) under some optimal criterion.
Existence Problem
-----------------
The existence problem for the inverse LQ problem is studied in this part. Given the observation of an optimal controller $K(t)$, a necessary and sufficient condition is given for the existence of a corresponding quadratic cost function.
### Single Input Case {#SI}
In order to make the expressions clear and straightforward, in this part we first start with the single-input case where $m=1$. The results will be naturally extended to the multiple-input case in Section \[MI\].
Firstly, a basic lemma is given, which will be used throughout this section.
\[cor1\] If the original system $(A,B)$ is controllable, then the matrix $$\label{e8}
H=\begin{bmatrix}
I_n \otimes B^T \\
(I_n \otimes B^T )(-(I_n \otimes A^T + A^T \otimes I_n)) \\
\vdots \\
(I_n \otimes B^T )(-(I_n \otimes A^T + A^T \otimes I_n))^{n-1}
\end{bmatrix},$$ has full column rank.
Denote $$\label{e_barAB}
\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{A}=-{I_n} \otimes A - A \otimes {I_n}, \\
& \tilde{B}={I_n} \otimes B.
\end{aligned}$$
We prove $ H $ has full column rank by showing that its kernel space is zero, i.e. $Ker(H)= \lbrace \theta \rbrace$. Suppose $x=\begin{bmatrix}
x_1^T & \dots & x_n^T
\end{bmatrix}^T \in Ker(H) $, where $x_i \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Then we have $$\label{Eqker1}
\tilde{B}^T(\tilde{A}^T)^k x = 0, \quad k=0,...,n-1.$$
Firstly we show by induction that $B^T(A^T)^kx_i=0, \forall k=0,...,n-1, \forall i=1,...,n$.
When $k=0$, it is obvious that $B^T{x_i}=0$ for all $i=1,...,n$ since $(I_n \otimes B^T )x=0$.
Suppose $B^T\left(A^T\right)^j{x_i}=0$ for all $0 \leq j \leq k$ and we want to show $B^T\left(A^T\right)^{k+1}x_i=0$.
Through simple calculations, we have that: $$\tilde{A}^k = \begin{pmatrix}
k \\
0
\end{pmatrix}{I_n} \otimes A^k
+\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
1
\end{pmatrix} A \otimes A^{k-1}
+ \dots
+\begin{pmatrix}
k \\
k
\end{pmatrix}A^{k} \otimes {I_n}.$$ Then $\tilde{B}^T(\tilde{A}^T)^{k+1} x = 0$ can be rewritten as: $$\label{Eqker2}
\begin{aligned}
0 &= \tilde{B}^T(\tilde{A}^T)^{k+1} x \\
&= \sum_{j=0}^{k+1} \begin{pmatrix}
k+1 \\
j
\end{pmatrix} [(A^T)^{j} \otimes {B^T}(A^T)^{k+1-j}]x.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $B^T\left(A^T\right)^j{x_i}=0$ for all $0 \leq j \leq k$, it holds that $$\label{Eqker3}
[(A^T)^{j} \otimes {B^T}(A^T)^{k+1-j}]x = 0, \quad 1 \leq j \leq k+1$$
Plugging Eq. (\[Eqker3\]) into Eq. (\[Eqker2\]), we can get $$\begin{aligned}
& [I_n \otimes {B^T}\left( A^T \right) ^{k+1}]x = 0 \\
\Rightarrow & {B^T}\left( A^T \right) ^{k+1}{x_i} = 0, \quad i=1,...,n
\end{aligned}$$
Denote ${\Gamma}_c= \begin{bmatrix}
{B} & {A}{B} & \dots & {A}^{n-1}{B}
\end{bmatrix}$ as the controllability matrix of the system $\left( A, B \right)$. Then $B^T\left( A^T \right)^kx_i=0~\left(k=0,...,n-1\right)$ can be combined as ${\Gamma}_c^T {x_i} = 0$. Since $\left( A, B \right)$ is controllable, we know that ${\Gamma}_c^T$ has full column rank, thus ${x_i} = 0,~\forall i=1,...,n$.
Hence we have proved that $Ker(H)= \lbrace \theta \rbrace$, which means matrix $H$ must have full column rank.
For the single-input case, $m=1$ means that the matrix $H$ is a square matrix , which is nonsingular when $(A,B)$ is controllable.
\[unique\] For any $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, there exists at most one $Y(t)$ that satisfies $$\label{e24}
\begin{aligned}
&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dot Y\left( t \right) = - {A^T}Y\left( t \right) - Y\left( t \right)A - Q - G\left( t \right) \\
{B^T}Y\left( t \right) = 0
\end{array} \right.
\end{aligned}.$$
If $Q$ is feasible, the corresponding $Y(t)$ is uniquely determined by $$\label{e34}
Hvec(Y) + Nvec(Q) + f(vec(G)) = 0,$$ where $ N $ and $f(vec(G))$ denote $$\begin{aligned}
N &=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -\tilde{B} & -\tilde{A}\tilde{B} & \dots & -\tilde{A}^{n-2}\tilde{B}
\end{bmatrix}^T, \\
f(vec(G)) &= \sum_{i=0}^{n-2} \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \\
-\tilde{B}^T \\
\vdots \\
-\tilde{B}^T(\tilde{A}^T)^{n-2-i}
\end{bmatrix} vec(G^{(i)}).
\end{aligned}$$
It is well-known that for a given boundary condition $Y(T)$, the solution to the first equation in Eq. (\[e24\]) is uniquely given by $Y(t) = \int_t^T e^{A^T(\tau-t)}(Q+G(\tau))e^{A(\tau-t)} d{\tau} + e^{A^T(T-t)}Y(T)e^{A(T-t)}$. To show the Lemma is to show that for a given $Q$, there exists at most one $Y(T)$ $s.t.~B^TY(t) \equiv 0$. However, in order to derive the analytic expressions of $(Q, Y(T))$ that also satisfy $B^TY(t) \equiv 0$ for any $t \in [0,T]$, we investigate vectorized equations instead in the remaining part of this section. Suppose Eq. (\[e24\]) has a pair of solution $(Q, Y(t))$, vectorization of the two equations leads to $$\label{e30}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
vec(\dot Y)= {\tilde{A}^T}vec(Y) - vec(Q) - vec(G), \\
{\tilde{B}^T}vec(Y) = 0,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $ \tilde{A} $ and $ \tilde{B} $ are defined in (\[e\_barAB\]),and ’$(t)$’ is omitted for the sake of brevity.
Taking $n-1$ derivatives of ${\tilde{B}^T}vec(Y)=0$ and plugging in the first equation in Eq. (\[e30\]), it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
0 &=
\begin{bmatrix}
{\tilde{B}^T}vec(Y) \\
{\tilde{B}^T}vec(\dot Y) \\
\vdots \\
{\tilde{B}^T}vec(Y^{(n-1)})
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=Hvec(Y) + Nvec(Q) + f(vec(G)),
\end{aligned},$$ where the subscript $i$ denotes the $i-th$ derivative, and $H$ and $N$ are the same as that in Eq. (\[e34\]).
Since $H$ has full column rank, we know that for any feasible solutions, $Y(t)$ is uniquely determined by $Q$.
We have shown that if the inverse LQ problem has solutions, then for any feasible $Q$, $Y(t)$ and corresponding $F$ is uniquely determined by an explicit expression in Eq. (\[e34\]). Then $Y(t)$ can be regarded as a function of $Q$ and the necessary and sufficient condition for the consistency of Eq. (\[e24\]) is then given only in terms of $Q$.
\[thm3\] There exists solution to Eq. (\[e24\]) if and only if there exists $q_v \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$ satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e33}
(H\tilde{A}^TH^{-1}N+H){q_v} \\
= -H\tilde{A}^TH^{-1}f(vec(G))+\dot{f}(vec(G))-Hvec(G) .\end{gathered}$$ If Eq. (\[e33\]) holds, a solution $Q$ and the unique corresponding $Y(t)$ to Eq. (\[e24\]) is given by $$\label{eSolVec}
\begin{aligned}
& Q=mat(q_v), \\
& Y(t) = -mat(H^{-1}(Nq_v + f(vec(G)))),
\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ and $f(vec(G))$ are the same as that in Lemma \[unique\].
We first prove the necessity.
If there exist solutions to Eq. (\[e24\]), by Lemma \[unique\] we know that Eq. (\[eSolVec\]) holds, which coincides with Eq. (\[e34\]).
Taking the derivative of Eq. (\[e34\]) and plugging in the first equation in Eq. (\[e30\]) to eliminate $vec(\dot Y)$, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
-\dot{f}(vec(G)) &= H\tilde{A}^Tvec(Y) - Hvec(Q) - Hvec(G) \\
& \begin{split}
=H\tilde{A}^T(-H^{-1}Nvec(Q)-H^{-1}f(vec(G)))\\
- Hvec(Q) - Hvec(G),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{gathered}
(H\tilde{A}^TH^{-1}N+H)vec(Q) \\
= -H\tilde{A}^TH^{-1}f(vec(G))+\dot{f}(vec(G))-Hvec(G) .\end{gathered}$$
Next we prove the sufficiency. Given a $q_v=vec(Q)$ that satisfies Eq. (\[e33\]), we compute a $vec(Y)$ from Eq. (\[e34\]). Then we show that such $vec(Q)$ and $vec(Y)$ are the solutions to Eq. (\[e30\]).
Note that the first $n$ rows of Eq. (\[e34\]) gives $${\tilde{B}^T}vec(Y) = 0.$$
Taking the derivative of Eq. (\[e34\]), it gives $$\dot{f}(vec(G))=-Hvec(\dot{Y}).$$
Plug it into Eq. (\[e33\]) and multiply $H^{-1}$ on the left on both sides, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
-vec(\dot{Y}) &= H^{-1}\dot{f}(vec(G)) \\
&\begin{split}
= \tilde{A}^TH^{-1}(Nvec(Q)+f(vec(G))) \\
+vec(Q)+vec(G)
\end{split} \\
&= \tilde{A}^TH^{-1}(-Hvec(Y))+vec(Q)+vec(G) \\
&= -\tilde{A}^Tvec(Y)+vec(Q)+vec(G).
\end{aligned}$$
Hence $vec(Q)$ and $vec(Y)$ given by (\[e33\]) and (\[e34\]) must satisfy (\[e30\]). And the uniqueness of $vec(Y)$ is shown by Lemma \[unique\].
For convenience, in the remaining part we denote $$\begin{aligned}
& A_Q = (H\tilde{A}^TH^{-1}N+H), \\
& B_Q = -H\tilde{A}^TH^{-1}f(vec(G))+\dot{f}(vec(G))-Hvec(G).
\end{aligned}$$
Thus (\[e33\]) can be denoted by $$\label{e36}
A_Q vec(Q) = B_Q.$$
As $Q$ is required to be a constant matrix, a necessary condition for Problem \[prob2\] to be feasible is that $B_Q$ is constant over $[0,T]$, and the above time-invariant linear equation has solutions.
Then it is obvious that equations Eq. (\[e36\]) and Eq. (\[e34\]) together with the symmetric and nonnegative constraints of $Q$ and $Y(T)+P_0(T)$ form the solutions to Problem \[prob2\].
Firstly, when we consider the vectorized equations (\[e30\]), we should also guarantee that the matricization of the solutions are symmetric. For the differential Lyapunov equation with $Q \in \mathbb{S}^n$, we know that since $G(t)$ is symmetric, the symmetry of $Y(t)$ for $t \in [0,T]$ is equivalent to the boundary constraint $Y(T) \in \mathbb{S}^n$. The symmetry of matrices $Q$ and $Y(T)$ is guaranteed if we consider its half vectorizations $q=vech(Q)$ and $y_T=vech(Y(T))$. Then there exist symmetric solutions $Q$ and $Y(t)$ to Eq. (\[e30\]) if and only if the system $$\label{SysQY}
\underbrace {
\begin{bmatrix}
A_QD & 0 \\
ND & HD
\end{bmatrix}}_{{A_s}}\begin{bmatrix}
q \\
y_T
\end{bmatrix} = \underbrace {\begin{bmatrix}
B_Q \\
-f(vec(G(T)))
\end{bmatrix}}_{{b_s}}$$ is consistent, i.e. ${A_s}{A_s^\dagger}{b_s}={b_s}$.
Next the nonnegative constraints of $Q$ and $Y(T)+P_0(T)$ can also be rewritten as a set of linear constraint by $$\begin{aligned}
& Q = mat(Dq) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i^T}Dq{e_i^T} \succeq 0 \\
& P(T) = P_0(T) + Y(T) \\
& \qquad ~ = P_0(T) + \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i^T}D{y_T}{e_i^T} \succeq 0.
\end{aligned}$$
With the above results, then we can propose the main theorem in this part. The feasibility of the inverse LQ problem (Problem \[prob2\]) is transformed to a standard LMI problem as claimed in Theorem \[thmLMI\].
\[thmLMI\] Problem \[prob2\] is feasible if and only if $B_Q$ is constant over $[0,T]$, $A_Q$ and $B_Q$ satisfy $$\label{e40}
{A_s}{A_s^\dagger}{b_s}={b_s},$$ and the following LMI problem of $v=(v_1,...,v_r)^T \in \mathbb{R}^r$ is feasible $$\label{e42}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
Q_0 + \sum_{i=1}^r {v_i}{Q_i} \succeq 0, \\
P_0(T) + Y_{T0} + \sum_{i=1}^r {v_i}Y_{Ti} \succeq 0,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\begin{bmatrix}
q^0 \\
y_T^0
\end{bmatrix}:={A_s^\dagger}{b_s}$, $\begin{bmatrix}
q^1 \\
y_T^1
\end{bmatrix},\cdots, \begin{bmatrix}
q^r \\
y_T^r
\end{bmatrix}$ span the null space of $A_s$, and $Q_0, Q_i, Y_{T0}, Y_{Ti} \in \mathbb{S}^n$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& Q_0 = mat(Dq^0) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i^T}D{q^0}{e_i^T}, \\
& Q_i = mat(Dq^i) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i^T}D{q^i}{e_i^T}, \\
& Y_{T0} = mat(Dy_T^0) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i^T}D{y_T^0}{e_i^T}, \\
& Y_{Ti} = mat(Dy_T^i) = \sum_{i=1}^n {B_i^T}D{y_T^i}{e_i^T}.
\end{aligned}$$
By the knowledge of linear algebra, we know that Eq. (\[e40\]) is a sufficient and necessary condition for the linear equation (\[SysQY\]) to have a solution. And if it holds, the solutions can be expressed in the form $$\begin{bmatrix}
q \\
y_T
\end{bmatrix} = (A_QD)^\dagger B_Q + \sum_{i=1}^r {v_i}\begin{bmatrix}
q^i \\
y_T^i
\end{bmatrix},$$ for any $v_i \in \mathbb{R}$, $i=1, \dots, r$.
Then it is obvious that Eq. (\[e42\]) is equivalent to $Q \succeq 0$ and $P(T)=P_0(T)+Y(T) \succeq 0$ respectively. Since $Q_0, Q_i, P_0(T), Y_{T0}, Y_{Ti} \in \mathbb{S}^n$, Eq. (\[e42\]) is a standard LMI problem and can be solved easily with toolboxes like *Matlab cvx*.
If the LMI problem defined in Theorem \[thmLMI\] is feasible, then at least one exact solution to the inverse LQR problem exists. Then an optimal $Q$ can be obtained under some criterion. If the LMI problem is infeasible, then the inverse problem has no solutions. In this case an approximate solution minimizing the control residual can be obtained in Section \[appro\].
### Multiple Input Case {#MI}
In this part, the results for the single input case is extended to systems with multiple input, i.e. $m > 1$. Here some modifications are made to generalize the results in Section \[SI\], which in fact include the single input case as a special case.
Note that in Theorem \[unique\] when we prove the uniqueness of $Y(t)$ for a given $Q$, we only use the fact that $H$ has full column rank. Hence the uniqueness $Y(t)$ also holds for the multi-input case.
However, for systems with $m > 1$, $H \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2m \times n^2}$ is not a square matrix. Thus for a given $vec(Q)$, we cannot use (\[e34\]) to compute $vec(Y)$ directly without discussing the existence of solutions. As $H$ has full column rank, we can choose $n^2$ independent rows in $H$ to form a square matrix, denoted by $\bar{H}$. Then for the linear equations in (\[e34\]), for the chosen rows in $H$, we also pick out the corresponding rows in $N$ and $f(vec(G))$, denoted by $\bar N$ and $\bar{f}(vec(G))$ respectively. Then Theorem \[thm3\] can be generalized to account for the multiple input case.
\[thm4\] There exists solution to Eq. (\[e30\]) if and only if there exists $q_v \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$ satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e37}
(\bar{H}\tilde{A}^T\bar{H}^{-1}\bar{N}+\bar{H}){q_v} \\
= -\bar{H}\tilde{A}^T\bar{H}^{-1}\bar{f}(vec(G))+\dot{\bar{f}}(vec(G))-\bar{H}vec(G) .\end{gathered}$$ Then the unique $vec(Y)$ for a feasible $vec(Q)=q_v$ is given by $$\label{e38}
\bar{H}vec(Y) + \bar{N}vec(Q) + \bar{f}(vec(G)) = 0.$$
Since we assume that $B$ has full column rank, then we know that the rows of $\tilde{B}^T$ are linearly independent. Thus $\tilde{B}^T$ must be involved in $\bar{H}$. Then the first $nm$ rows in (\[e38\]) also indicates that $\tilde{B}^T vec(Y) = 0$. And the remaining proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \[thm3\]. which is omitted here.
Then with similar modifications, $vec(Q)$ can also be computed with Theorem \[thmLMI\], where $H$, $N$ and $f$ are replaced by $\bar H$, $\bar N$ and $\bar f$ respectively.
Note that when $m=1$, we have $\bar{H} = H$. And the results in this part are exactly the same as that in Section \[SI\]. Thus we can conclude that the above results include the single input case as a special case, and are general for systems with any number of inputs.
Analysis of the Solution Space
------------------------------
In this part, the solution space of the inverse problem is analyzed when the feasible domain is non-empty. We will show that for a given optimal controller, the solution space of $Q$ to the inverse problem is a closed and bounded convex set, whose expression can be derived explicitly. The equivalence of quadratic cost functions are analyzed thoroughly, and the uniqueness of solutions is also discussed.
For any two linear quadratic cost functions defined by $(Q_1, F_1)$ and $(Q_2, F_2)$ respectively, we denote $P_i(t)~(i=1,2)$ as the corresponding solution to the (DRE) with $P_i(T)=F_i$. Then by simple computations, we know that the two cost functions could generate the same optimal control $K(t)$ if and only if $$\label{DQ_DRE}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
-{\Delta}{\dot P(t)} = A^T{\Delta}P(t)+{\Delta}P(t)A+{\Delta}Q, \\
B^T {\Delta}P(t) = 0 \quad \forall t \in [0,T].
\end{array} \right.$$ where ${\Delta}P(t)=P_1(t)-P_2(t)$ and ${\Delta}Q=Q_1-Q_2$.
With similar techniques as in Section \[SI\], it holds that $vec({\Delta}P(t))=-H^{-1}Nvec(\Delta Q)$. Then it is obvious that $ {\Delta}P(t) $ is constant throughout the whole time interval, i.e. $ {\Delta}{\dot P(t)} = 0 $.
For a given optimal feedback matrix $K(t)$, denote the equivalent set of corresponding quadratic cost functions as $\mathbb{J}(K) =\lbrace (Q,F) \in \mathbb{S}_+^n \times \mathbb{S}_+^n \vert K(t)=DRE \lbrace Q,F \rbrace \rbrace$. Then in $\mathbb{J}(K)$, the mapping between $Q$ and $F$ is bijective. It means that for any $Q (or~F)$ in $ \mathbb{J}(K)$, there exists exactly one $F (or~Q) \in \mathbb{S}_+^n$ such that $ (Q,F) \in \mathbb{J}(K) $.
Assume that the inverse LQ problem has a feasible solution $(\bar{Q}, \bar{F}) \in \mathbb{J}(K)$. From Eq. (\[DQ\_DRE\]) we know that $Q \in \mathbb{S}^n$ could generate the same $K(t)$ if and only if there exists $\Delta P \in \mathbb{S}^n$, such that $ {\Delta}Q = Q-\bar{Q} $ satisfies $$\label{DQ}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
A^T{\Delta}P+{\Delta}PA+{\Delta}Q=0, \\
B^T {\Delta}P = 0,
\end{array} \right.$$ and the corresponding terminal penalty matrix for $Q$ is $F=\bar{F}+\Delta P$.
It is obvious that if $\Delta F=\Delta P=0$, then ${\Delta}Q=0$. Hence in $\mathbb{J}(K)$, the mapping from $Q$ to $F$ is injective. On the other hand, if $\Delta Q=0$, by Eq. (\[DQ\]) we know that ${(A+BD)^T}\Delta P - {\Delta P }(A+BD)=0 $ for any $D \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$. Since $(A,B)$ is controllable, we can always find a $D$ such that $Re ~\lambda (A+BD) < 0$. Hence the Sylvester equation has a unique solution $ \Delta P = 0 $. Therefore, we have shown that $\Delta Q = 0 \Longleftrightarrow \Delta F = 0$, i.e. the mapping between $Q$ and $F$ is bijective.
Hence the solution space of the cost functions $\mathbb{J}(K)$ to the inverse LQ problem can be characterized by an equivalent set of matrix $Q$, which is denoted by $$\mathcal{D}_{K+} = \{Q \in \mathbb{S}_+^n \vert (Q,F) \in \mathbb{J}(K) ~\textit{for some}~F \in \mathbb{S}_+^n \}.$$
From the above proof we know that if there exists a feasible solution $\bar Q$ to the inverse LQ problem, then the set of $Q \in \mathbb{S}^n$ that could derive the same $K(t)$ is characterized by the affine manifold $$\mathcal{D}_K = \{Q \vert Q=\bar{Q}+{\Delta}Q, {\Delta}Q \in \mathcal{S} \},$$ where $\mathcal{S}$ denotes the linear subspace $$\mathcal{S} = \{{\Delta}Q \vert \exists \Delta P \in \mathbb{S}^n, s.t. {\Delta}Q~\textit{and}~{\Delta}P~\textit{satisfy}~(\ref{DQ}) \}.$$ Recall that we have assumed that $B$ has full column rank. Then the singular value decomposition of $ B^T $ is expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
B^T &= U*\begin{bmatrix}
\Sigma & 0
\end{bmatrix}
*V^{T}, \\
&=U*\begin{bmatrix}
\Sigma & 0
\end{bmatrix}
*\begin{bmatrix}
V_{1} & V_{2}
\end{bmatrix}^{T},
\end{aligned}$$ where $ U \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}$ and $ V \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} $ are unitary matrices, $ V_{1} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m} $, $ V_{2} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times \left(n-m\right) } $, and $ \Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}$ is a diagonal matrix with the diagonal entries equal to the singular values of $ B^T $.
Then it can be proved that $ B^T {\Delta}P = 0 $ if and only if $${\Delta}P = V_2 X V_2^T, \quad X \in \mathbb{S}^{n-m},$$ which means that the linear subspace $ \mathcal{S} $ is uniquely determined by the system matrix $A$ and $B$ as $$\mathcal{S} = \{{\Delta}Q \vert \Delta Q = A^TV_2 X V_2^T + V_2 X V_2^TA, X \in \mathbb{S}^{n-m} \}.$$
It is obvious that the affine space $\mathcal{D}_K$ is non-empty with the dimension $$r = \dfrac{(n-m)(n-m+1)}{2}.$$
Since the solution $Q$ is also required to be nonnegative, the whole solution space of the inverse LQ problem is determined by $$\mathcal{D}_{K+} = \mathcal{D}_K \cap \mathbb{S}_+^{n}.$$
Then the uniqueness of the solution to the inverse problem can be analyzed as claimed in Theorem \[thm\_sol\], whose proof is given in the appendix.
\[thm\_sol\] Assume $\bar{Q} \in \mathbb{S}_+^n$ is a feasible solution to the inverse LQ problem, then the solution space of $Q$ has the following properties:
1. $\mathcal{D}_{K+}$ is a closed and bounded convex set with dimension $r$. For any $Q_1, Q_2 \in \mathcal{D}_{K+}$ and $Q_1 \neq Q_2$, $\Delta Q = Q_1 - Q_2$ must be indefinite with eigenvalues on both sides of the imaginary axis.
2. If $\bar{Q}=0$ is a feasible solution, then that is the unique solution to the inverse LQ problem.
3. If $\bar{Q} \succ 0$, then there must exist infinite number of solutions.
4. If $\bar{Q}$ is on the boundary of $\mathbb{S}_+^n$ (i.e. $rank(\bar{Q})<n$), uniqueness of the solution depends on the specific position of $\bar{Q}$. A sufficient condition for $\bar{Q}$ to be the unique solution can be given as claimed in Proposition \[prop\_Quni\].
\[prop\_Quni\] Suppose $\bar{Q} \in \partial~\mathbb{S}_+^n$ is a feasible solution to the inverse LQ problem. Let $ \{ \Delta Q_1, \dots, \Delta Q_r \} $ denote the basis of the subspace $ \mathcal{S} $. Denote $X^*$ as a non-zero optimal solution to $$\label{eqDQ_P}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathop {\min } {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} tr(\bar{Q}X) \\
s.t.{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} & tr(\Delta Q_i X) = 0,\quad (i=1,...,r)\\
& X \succeq 0
\end{aligned}$$ where $X^* = Vdiag(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_l,0,\cdots,0)V^T$ for some unitary matrix $V$ and $l=rank(X^*)$. Define $\mathcal{T}$ as $$\mathcal{T} = \{V \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & W
\end{bmatrix}V^T \vert W \in \mathbb{S}^{n-l} \}.$$ If $\mathcal{T} \cap \mathcal{S} = \{0\}$, then $\bar{Q} $ is the unique solution to the inverse LQ problem.
Here some examples are given to illustrate different structures of the solution space.
\(1) Unique solution on $\partial~\mathbb{S}_+^n$.
For the finite-time LQ problem (\[e23\]) on time interval $\left[ {0,1} \right]$, consider the system $$A = \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 1 \\
0 & -1
\end{bmatrix},
\quad
B = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
1
\end{bmatrix},
\quad
x\left(0\right) = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix},$$ with the cost function defined by $$Q = \begin{bmatrix}
4 & 2 \\
2 & 1
\end{bmatrix},
\quad
F = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Through checking the sufficient conditions in Proposition \[prop\_Quni\], we can get that $Q$ is the unique solution to the inverse problem, which means that there exists no other $Q$ that would generate the same optimal controller as the given cost function.
\(2) Infinite solutions on both $\partial~\mathbb{S}_+^n$ and $int(\mathbb{S}_+^n)$.
For the system in case (1), we choose another $Q$ as: $$Q = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 2
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Through solving the inverse problem, we can know that all the cost functions with $Q$ in $$\mathcal{D}_{K+} = \{ \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 2
\end{bmatrix}
+ \alpha \begin{bmatrix}
4 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \vert~ 0 \leq \alpha \leq 8 \}$$ are equivalent to the given one in the sense that they lead to the same optimal controller.
\(3) Infinite solutions only on $\partial~\mathbb{S}_+^n$.
Suppose the matrix parameters are chosen as $$A = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & -1 & 1 \\
0 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 3
\end{bmatrix},
~
B = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix},
~
Q = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Then it can be computed that the solution space of the inverse problem is $$\mathcal{D}_{K+} = \{ \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
+ \alpha \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & -3 \\
0 & -3 & 4
\end{bmatrix} \vert~ -0.2 \leq \alpha \leq 10.2 \},$$ which lies on $\partial~\mathbb{S}_+^n$.
In general, when the problem is feasible, there always exist an infinite number of $Q$ leading to the same optimal controller. Therefore, we define an additional criteria to obtain an “optimal” $Q$ in some sense. Here we choose to minimize the conditional number of $Q$, which is always related to the problem of numerical stability [@cheney2012]. Then the LMI in Eq. (\[e42\]) can be reformulated as the following semidefinite programming (SDP) problem, which can be solved efficiently in polynomial-time.
(semidefinite programming) $$\label{sdp}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathop {\min }\limits_{v,\alpha} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} \alpha \\
s.t.{\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} & \alpha I_n \succeq Q_0 + \sum_{i=1}^r {v_i}{Q_i}\\
& Q_0 + \sum_{i=1}^r {v_i}{Q_i} \succeq 0 \\
& P_0(T) + Y_{T0} + \sum_{i=1}^r {v_i}Y_{Ti} \succeq 0
\end{aligned}$$
From the results of [@ferrante2005parametrization; @jean2018inverse], we know that the optimal controller of the finite-horizon LQ problem can be uniquely parametrized by the solutions of the Algebraic Riccati Equation (ARE). Then it can be proved any two cost functions in (\[e23\]) with different $Q$ lead to the same optimal controller if and only if their infinite-horizon counterparts also derive the same optimal feedback control matrix $K$. Therefore, the above analysis of equivalent LQ problems also applies to infinite horizon problems.
Approximate Solution for Infeasible Cases {#appro}
=========================================
In this section we consider the cases where Problem \[prob2\] is infeasible and the exact solution does not exist. For example, the optimal controller $K(t)$ might be obtained from noisy experimental data. We want to find an optimal $Q$ that minimizes the residual error of the derived optimal controller. Here we denote $Y\left(T\right) = Y_T$, and the approximate problem is formulated in the following convex optimization framework.
\[prob3\] The approximate cost function is obtained by solving the following convex optimization problem on $ Y\left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^n\left[ {0,T} \right] $, $Q \in \mathbb{S}^{n}$ and $Y_T \in S^{n}$: $$\label{e_appro}
\begin{aligned}
&\min_{Y\left( t \right) ,Q,Y_T} \dfrac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T} \lVert B^{T}Y\left(t\right) \rVert_F^{2} dt \\
s.t.~&\dot Y\left(t\right) = -{A^T}Y\left(t\right) - Y\left(t\right)A - Q - G\left(t\right) \\
&Q \geq 0 \\
&Y_T + P_0(T) \geq 0
\end{aligned}$$
Note that for any feasible $Q$ and $Y_T$, $Y(t)$ can be uniquely determined from the Lyapunov differential equation on $[0,T]$. Then the above problem is always feasible and the finite optimal value can be reached. The optimal solution can be regarded as a best approximation of the inverse problem in the sense that it minimizes the control residual with the observed controller, i.e. $\int_{0}^{T} \lVert K^*\left(t\right)-K\left(t\right) \rVert_F^{2} dt$.
The basic idea of residual optimization comes from our previous paper [see @li2018convex]. But in this paper, numerous extensions are investigated and the infinite-dimensional problem is completed solved through the transformation to a quadratic programming problem.
In order to solve the optimization problem in Eq. (\[e\_appro\]), the first constraint is rewritten as: $$\mathcal{A}\left(Y,Q,Y_T \right) = 0,$$ where $\mathcal{A}(Y,Q,Y_T) = Y(t) - Y_T + \int_{T}^{t} ( {A^T}Y(\tau) + Y(\tau)A + Q + G(\tau)) d\tau $ is an affine-linear operator from $\mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] \times {\mathbb{S}^{n}} \times {\mathbb{S}^{n}}$ to $\mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right]$.
In order to solve this infinite-dimensional convex problem with the primal-dual method, firstly the regularity condition has to be checked. For the convex cost function in Eq.(\[e\_appro\]), the variables are optimized over an affine-linear equality constraint, and two convex inequality constraints where the positive ordering cones are closed with nonempty interiors. A series of work has been conducted to give sufficient conditions for the strong duality in infinite dimensional spaces [see @jeyakumar1992generalizations; @donato2011infinite; @maugeri2010remarks]. For instance, based on the concept of strong quasi-relative interior, the general Slater’s condition and the closed range of $\mathcal{A}$ are sufficient to guarantee the existence of Lagrange multipliers. Then by Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 5.1 in [@jeyakumar1992generalizations], it is easy to check that the regularity condition holds for our problem.
In order to formulate the dual problem , firstly we define the Lagrange multiplier as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Lambda\left(t\right) \in NBV_S^{n}\left[0,T\right],\\
&\Delta_1 \in \mathbb{S}^{n}, \\
&\Delta_2 \in \mathbb{S}^{n}. \\
\end{aligned}$$
The algebraic dual of $ \mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] $ is the matrix of bounded variations, which is denoted as: $$\left\langle C\left( t \right), \Lambda\left( t \right) \right\rangle = \int_{0}^{T} tr\left[ d\Lambda^{T}\left( t \right)C\left( t \right) \right],$$ where $ C\left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] $ and $ \Lambda\left( t \right) \in NBV_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] $.
The Lagrangian of the primal problem is calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
& \begin{split}
L = \dfrac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T} \lVert B^{T}Y\left(t\right) \rVert_F^{2} dt + \left\langle \mathcal{A}\left(Y,Q,Y_T \right),\Lambda(t)\right\rangle \\
- \left\langle Q ,\Delta_1\right\rangle - \left\langle Y_T+P_0(T) ,\Delta_2\right\rangle
\end{split}\\
& \begin{split}
~~= \dfrac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{T} \lVert B^{T}Y\left(t\right) \rVert_F^{2} dt + \int_{0}^{T} tr\left[ d{\Lambda(t)}^{T}\mathcal{A}\left(Y,Q,Y_T \right) \right] \\
-tr\left(Q{\Delta_1} \right)-tr\left((Y_T+P_0(T)){\Delta_2} \right).
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
Then the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions for this convex problem can be given as $$\label{eKKT}
\begin{aligned}
&\delta L\left( {Y\left( t \right);h\left( t \right)} \right) = 0~for~any~h\left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right], \\
&{{\partial L} \over {\partial Q}} = 0, {{\partial L} \over {\partial {Y_0}}} = 0, \\
&\dot Y\left(t\right) = -{A^T}Y\left(t\right) - Y\left(t\right)A - Q - G\left(t\right),\\
&Y\left(t\right) \geq 0,~\forall t \in \left[ 0,T \right], \\
&Q \geq 0,~ Y_T + P_0(T) \geq 0, \\
&tr\left(Q{\Delta_1} \right) = 0,~\Delta_1 \geq 0, \\
&tr\left((Y_T + P_0(T)){\Delta_2} \right) = 0,~\Delta_2 \geq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ which is composed of the stationary conditions, primal feasibility, dual feasibility, and complementary slackness conditions.
As for the stationary condition, firstly the Gateaux derivative of $ L $ has to be computed. Since $\Lambda\left(t\right)$ is a bounded variations, we can assume that ${\Lambda}\left(0\right)=0$ without loss of generality. Then the Gateaux derivative of $ L $ in the direction of $ h\left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right] $ is calculated by: $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta L\left( {Y\left( t \right);h\left( t \right)} \right) \\
=& \int_{0}^{T} tr\left[BB^{T}Y\left(t\right)h\left(t\right)\right]dt \\
& + \int_{0}^{T} tr\left\lbrace d{\Lambda}^{T}\left(t\right)\left[ h\left(t\right) + \int_{T}^{t} \left( A^{T}h\left(\tau\right)+h\left(\tau\right)A\right) d\tau \right] \right\rbrace \\
=& \int_{0}^{T} tr\left[BB^{T}Y\left(t\right)h\left(t\right)\right]dt + \int_{0}^{T} tr \left[ d{\Lambda}^{T}(t)h\left(t\right) \right] \\
& - \int_{0}^{T} tr\left\lbrace {\Lambda}^{T}\left(t\right)\left[ A^{T}h\left(t\right)+h\left(t\right)A \right] \right\rbrace dt.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $h\left( t \right)$ is arbitrary, here we consider $h\left( t \right)$ that is vanishing at 0 and $T$. Then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \delta L\left( {Y\left( t \right);h\left( t \right)} \right) \\
& \begin{split}
=\int_{0}^{T} tr\left\lbrace \left[ BB^{T}Y\left(t\right)-{\Lambda}^{T}\left( t \right)A^{T}-A{\Lambda}^{T}\left( t \right)\right]h\left(t\right) \right\rbrace dt\\
-\int_{0}^{T} tr\left\lbrace {\Lambda}^{T}\left(t\right)\dot{h}\left(t\right) \right\rbrace dt.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ which holds for any variation $h\left( t \right) \in \mathbb{C}_s^{n}\left[ 0,T \right]$ with $h\left( 0 \right) = h\left( T \right) = 0$.
By the theory in the calculus of variation, we know that ${\Lambda}\left( t \right)$ must satisfy: $$\dot{\Lambda}(t)
= -\dfrac{1}{2}( BB^{T}Y(t) + Y^{T}(t)BB^{T} ) +{\Lambda}^{T}(t)A^{T}+A{\Lambda}^{T}( t ).$$
Then calculating the differential of $L$ w.r.t. $Q$ and $Y_T$ respectively, we have that: $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\partial L} \over {\partial Q}} = -\int_{0}^{T}{\Lambda}\left(t\right)dt - \Delta_1 = 0, \\
&{{\partial L} \over {\partial Y_T}} = -\int_{0}^{T}d{\Lambda}\left(t\right) - \Delta_2 = -\Lambda\left( T \right) - \Delta_2 = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
In order to give out the optimality condition in the form of differential equations, we denote $ \Omega\left(t\right) = \int_{0}^{t} {\Lambda}\left(\tau\right) d\tau $. Then the KKT condition Eq.(\[eKKT\]) can be transformed to a boundary value problem: $$\label{KKT_ODE}
\begin{aligned}
&\dot Y\left(t\right) = -{A^T}Y\left(t\right) - Y\left(t\right)A - Q - G\left(t\right)\\
&\begin{split}
\dot{\Lambda}\left(t\right) = -\dfrac{1}{2}\left( BB^{T}Y\left(t\right) + Y^{T}\left(t\right)BB^{T} \right) \\
+{\Lambda}^{T}\left( t \right)A^{T}+A{\Lambda}^{T}\left( t \right)
\end{split} \\
&\dot {\Omega}\left(t\right) = {\Lambda}\left(t\right) \\
&\Lambda\left( 0 \right) = 0,~{\Omega}\left(0\right)=0 \\
&Q{\Omega}\left(T\right) = 0,~(Y_T+P_0(T)){\Lambda}\left(T\right) = 0 \\
&{\Omega}\left(T\right) \preceq 0,~Q \succeq 0, {\Lambda}\left(T\right) \preceq 0,~Y_T+P_0(T) \succeq 0
\end{aligned}$$
The system of matrix differential equations in Eq.(\[KKT\_ODE\]) forms a boundary value problem (BVP) of symmetric matrices $Y$, $\Lambda$, $\Omega$ and $Q$ under the constraints of positive semi-definite cones. And the above system of matrix differential equations must be consistent since there always exist at least one optimal solution to Problem \[prob3\].
Generally speaking, handling of inequality constraints in the above BVP is non-trivial, which requires a-priori knowledge of the optimal solution structure and always suffers from significant numerical difficulty. Therefore, in the following part instead of solving Eq. (\[KKT\_ODE\]) numerically, we transform it into a static quadratic programming problem of initial conditions, which is well-defined and computationally tractable.
It is obvious that for this system of linear differential equations, $Y(T)$, $\Lambda(T)$ and $\Omega(T)$ are uniquely determined by each pair of $(Q, Y(0))$. Hence solving the boundary value problem in Eq.(\[KKT\_ODE\]) is equivalent to finding $(Q, Y(0))$ such that the boundary conditions at terminal time (last two lines in Eq.(\[KKT\_ODE\])) are satisfied.
\[lem1\] If $ M, N \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n} $ , then we have that: $$tr\left( MN \right) \geq 0,$$ and the equality holds if and only if $ MN=0 $
Since $ Q, -\Omega(T), Y(T)+P_0(T), -{\Lambda}\left(T\right) \in \mathbb{S}_+^{n} $, it follows that $tr(-Q{\Omega}(T)) \succeq 0$ and $-tr((Y_T+P_0(T)){\Lambda}\left(T\right)) \succeq 0$. Then the boundary value problem is equivalent to $$\label{ApproSDP}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{Q,Y(0)}& -tr(Q{\Omega}(T))-tr(Y(T)+P_0(T)){\Lambda}\left(T\right)) \\
s.t.~&Q \succeq 0,~Y(T)+P_0(T) \succeq 0 \\
&{\Omega}\left(T\right) \preceq 0, {\Lambda}\left(T\right) \preceq 0
\end{aligned}$$ where $Y(T)$, $\Lambda(T)$ and $\Omega(T)$ are determined by $Q$ and $ Y(0)$ through the differential equations.
The consistency of matrix differential equations in Eq. (\[KKT\_ODE\]) guarantees the existence of optimal solutions to the above problem, which might not be unique. Every optimal $Q$ with optimal value at zero can be regarded as a best approximation of the inverse LQ problem with minimal control residual.
In order to derive the analytic solution of $Y(T)$, $\Lambda(T)$ and $\Omega(T)$, techniques of vectorization are utilized. Here we denote $y(t)=vech(Y(t))$, $\lambda(t)=vech(\Lambda(t))$, $\omega(t)=vech(\Omega(t))$, $q=vech(Q)$, $y_0=y(0)$, $g(t)=vech(G(t))$, $p_{0T}=vech(P_0(T))$ and choose the state vector as $z(t)=[y(t);\lambda(t);\omega(t)]$. Then the differential equations in Eq. (\[KKT\_ODE\]) can be rewritten as a linear system: $$\dot{z} = \hat{A}z+\begin{bmatrix}
-q-g(t) \\
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}, \quad z(0)=\begin{bmatrix}
y_0 \\
0 \\
0
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $$\hat{A}=\begin{bmatrix}
-L(I \otimes A^T + A^T \otimes I)D & 0 & 0 \\
-\dfrac{1}{2}L(I \otimes (BB^T) + (BB^T) \otimes I)D & L(I \otimes A + A \otimes I)D & 0 \\
0 & I & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
For this time-invariant linear system, the state transition matrix is partitioned as $$e^{\hat{A}t}=\begin{bmatrix}
\Phi_{11}(t) & \Phi_{12}(t) &\Phi_{13}(t) \\
\Phi_{21}(t) & \Phi_{22}(t) &\Phi_{23}(t) \\
\Phi_{31}(t) & \Phi_{32}(t) &\Phi_{33}(t)
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Then $z(T)$ can be derived by: $$z(T)=\begin{bmatrix}
y(T)\\
\lambda(T) \\
\omega(T)
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
A_1\\
A_2 \\
A_3
\end{bmatrix} y_0 + \begin{bmatrix}
B_1\\
B_2 \\
B_3
\end{bmatrix} q +\begin{bmatrix}
C_1\\
C_2 \\
C_3
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $A_i$, $B_i$ and $C_i$ denote $$\begin{aligned}
& A_i = \Phi_{i1}(T), \quad i=1,2,3 \\
& B_i = -\int_{0}^{T} \Phi_{i1}(T-s)ds, \quad i=1,2,3 \\
& C_i = -\int_{0}^{T} \Phi_{i1}(T-s)g(s)ds, \quad i=1,2,3
\end{aligned}$$
Denote the decision variable as $x_v=[q ; y_0]$. Through some matrix computations, we can get that the cost function in Eq. (\[ApproSDP\]) is equivalent to a quadratic function of $x_v$ denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
& -tr(Q{\Omega}(T))-tr(Y(T)+P_0(T)){\Lambda}\left(T\right)) \\
= & -q^TD^TD{\omega}(T)-(y(T)+p_{0T})^TD^TD{\lambda}(T) \\
= &~x_v^TH_vx_v+f_v^Tx_v+g_v
\end{aligned}$$ where $H_v \in \mathbb{R}^{n(n+1)\times n(n+1)}$, $f_v \in \mathbb{R}^{n(n+1)}$ and $g_v \in \mathbb{R}$ are determined by system matrices $A$, $B$ and observation $G(t)$.
Similar to the techniques in Section \[SI\], the constraints of positive semi-definiteness in Eq. (\[ApproSDP\]) can also be transformed into a set of LMI constraints of $x_v$, which is denoted by $LMI(x_v) \succeq 0$. Then the optimization problem in Eq. (\[ApproSDP\]) can be reformulated as the following quadratic programming problem with LMI constraints, which can be easily solved with the interior point method. $$\begin{aligned}\label{ApproQP}
&\min_{x_v}~ x_v^TH_vx_v+f_v^Tx_v+g_v\\
& \begin{array}{r@{\quad}r@{}l@{\quad}l}
s.t.&LMI(x_v) \succeq 0\\
&x_v \in \mathbb{R}^{n(n+1)}
\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$
Simulation Results
==================
In this section, numerical simulations are given to illustrate the proposed methods for solving the inverse LQ problem for both feasible and infeasible cases.
Exact Solution of Feasible Cases
--------------------------------
Consider the following continuous time linear system: $$\dot{x} = Ax\left(t\right) + Bu\left(t\right),$$ where $$A = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 \\
-2 & -3 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 2
\end{bmatrix},
~
B = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix},
\quad
x\left(0\right) = \begin{bmatrix}
1 \\
-0.5 \\
0
\end{bmatrix}.$$
It is obvious that $ \left( A,B \right) $ is controllable. We consider the LQ problem in Eq.(\[e23\]) on time interval $\left[ {0,1} \right]$ with the coefficients in the cost function as: $$\begin{aligned}
&Q_0 = \begin{bmatrix}
4 & -1 & -2 \\
-1 & 2 & -2 \\
2 & -2 & 3
\end{bmatrix}, \quad
&F_0 = \begin{bmatrix}
3 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
The forward LQ problem could be solved by the differential Riccati equation and the optimal feedback matrix $ K\left(t\right) $ is obtained with Eq.(\[e12\]). Here we assume that $ K\left(t\right)$ is observed with no noise, which is then utilised to obtain precise solutions to the inverse problem.
With the observation of $K(t)$ we can solve the LMI optimization problems defined in Section \[SecExact\] efficiently using the CVX toolbox in Matlab. The analytic solution of $ Q $ and $ F $ is then obtained as: $$\begin{aligned}
&Q = \begin{bmatrix}
4 & -1 & 2 \\
-1 & 2 & -2 \\
2 & -2 & 3
\end{bmatrix}
+ \alpha \begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 & 1 \\
-1 & -3 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 3
\end{bmatrix} ,\\
&F = \begin{bmatrix}
3 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
+ \alpha \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -0.5 & 0.5 \\
0 & 0.5 & -0.5
\end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ where $-0.49 \le {\alpha} \le 0.33$ is the freedom in the solution.
Among the feasible solutions, the optimal $Q$ with minimal conditional number can be obtained from the SDP problem in Eq. (\[sdp\]) as $$Q = \begin{bmatrix}
4.0000 & -0.5097 & 1.5097 \\
-0.5097 & 3.4708 & -2.0000\\
1.5097 & -2.0000 & 1.5292
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Approximate Solution of Infeasible Cases
----------------------------------------
Consider the same system as in the previous example. In order to illustrate infeasible cases, we suppose that the optimal control feedback $K(t)$ is measured with 20dB Gaussian white noise, i.e. $$\bar K(t) = K(t) + w(t).$$
With the observation of $\bar K(t)$, the inverse problem is infeasible with no precise solution. In this case an approximate solution can be obtained from the quadratic programming problem defined in Eq. (\[ApproQP\]), and the corresponding optimal cost function turns out to be: $$\begin{aligned}
&Q^* = \begin{bmatrix}
3.9950 & -0.8847 & 1.8707 \\
-0.8847 & 2.3580 & -1.9989 \\
1.8707 & -1.9989 & 2.6441 \\
\end{bmatrix}, \\
&F^* = \begin{bmatrix}
3.0015 & -1.0024 & -0.0023 \\
-1.0024 & 2.0511 & -1.0411 \\
-0.0023 & -1.0411 & 1.0351 \\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$
The curves of the optimal feedback matrix and the corresponding closed-loop state trajectory are shown in Fig. \[fig1\] and Fig. \[fig2\] respectively, where the solid line and dashed line represents the elements of original signal and reconstructed best-fit signal respectively.
![Curves of optimal feedback matrix $K(t)$[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.png){width="\hsize"}
![Curves of closed-loop state trajectory[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.png){width="\hsize"}
The simulation shows that the recovered cost function fits the observed optimal process quite well with the optimal residual cost $$\int_{0}^{T} \lVert K^*\left(t\right)-K\left(t\right) \rVert_F^{2} dt = 0.0312,$$ and maximum reconstruction error $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathop {\max }\limits_t \left\| {{K^*}(t) - K\left( t \right)} \right\|_F = 0.2280, \\
& \mathop {\max }\limits_t \left\| {{x^*}(t) - x\left( t \right)} \right\| = 0.0296.
\end{aligned}$$
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we analyze the inverse LQ problem, where the existence and solutions are investigated respectively. The necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of corresponding LQ cost functions are given in the form of LMI conditions. For feasible cases, the whole solution space is shown to be a closed and bounded convex set, which is the intersection of an affine manifold and the positive semi-definite cone. And a sufficient condition for a unique cost function is also proposed. For infeasible cases, a best-fit approximate solution with minimal control residual is obtained by primal-dual method. A static quadratic programming framework is utilized to solve the optimality condition of matrix differential equations, thus improving the computational efficiency. Finally, the results of numerical simulations demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed methods and the quadratic cost function can be estimated at a high accuracy.
Appendix. Proofs
================
Proof of Theorem \[thm\_sol\]
-----------------------------
For any $Q_1, Q_2 \in \mathcal{D}_{K+}$ and $Q_1 \neq Q_2$, $\Delta Q = Q_1 - Q_2$ must be indefinite with eigenvalues on both sides of the imaginary axis.
We prove the proposition by contradiction. Suppose $\Delta Q \succeq 0$. Firstly, $B^T \Delta P = 0$ means that $$ImB \subseteq Ker \Delta P.$$
For any $x \in Ker \Delta P$, by (\[DQ\]) we know that $$x^T(A^T\Delta P+\Delta P A+\Delta Q)x = x^T{\Delta Q}x = 0.$$
Then $\Delta Q \succeq 0$ implies ${\Delta Q}x = 0$, i.e. $$Ker \Delta P \subseteq Ker \Delta Q.$$
For any $x \in Ker \Delta P$, multiplying the first equation in Eq. (\[DQ\]) by $x$ implies $$\Delta P Ax = 0~ \Rightarrow ~ Ax \in Ker \Delta P,$$ which means that $Ker \Delta P$ is A-invariant.
Thus we have that $$\Delta P \begin{bmatrix}
B & AB & \cdots & A^{n-1}B
\end{bmatrix} = 0.$$
Since $(A, B)$ is controllable, we must have $\Delta P = 0$, thus $\Delta Q = 0$, which is contradictory to $Q_1 \neq Q_2$.
If we assume $\Delta Q \preceq 0$, similar analysis can also show contradiction. Therefore, for any two solutions $Q_1 \neq Q_2$, $\Delta Q$ must be indefinite.
Consider the first property in Theorem \[thm\_sol\]. Since $\mathcal{D}_{K+}$ is obtained as the intersection of two closed convex sets, it must be convex and closed as well. And the boundedness is due to the fact that $\Delta Q$ is indefinite. Then the second and third properties can be easily derived from the first property. The forth property can be obtained by analyzing the uniqueness of solutions in LMI problems, as shown in the next brief proof.
Proof of Proposition \[prop\_Quni\]
-----------------------------------
Note that the dual problem of the semi-definite programming problem Eq. (\[eqDQ\_P\]) is $$\label{eqDQ_D}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathop {\max}\limits_{y_i} \quad 0 \\
s.t. & \sum_{i=1}^r {y_i}{\Delta Q_i} \preceq \bar Q
\end{aligned}$$
If $\mathcal{T} \cap \mathcal{S} = \{0\}$, then $X^*$ is optimal and nondegenerate. Hence there exists a unique optimal dual solution to (\[eqDQ\_D\]), which means that there exists a unique $\{ {{y_i}} \}_{i = 1}^r$ such that $\bar Q -\sum_{i=1}^r {y_i}{\Delta Q_i} \in \mathbb{S}_+^n$. Since $\bar Q \succeq 0$, we can conclude that $\bar Q$ is the unique solution to the inverse LQ problem.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
This paper is devoted to the study of a predator-prey model with predator-age structure that involves Michaelis-Menten type ratio-dependent functional response. We study some dynamical properties of the model by using the theory of integrated semigroup and the Hopf bifurcation theory for semilinear equations with non-dense domain. The existence of Hopf bifurcation is established by regarding the biological maturation period $\tau$ as the bifurcation parameter. The computer simulations and sensitivity analysis on parameters are also performed to illustrate the conclusions.
**Key words:** Predator-prey model; Michaelis-Menten type; Ratio-dependent; Age structure; Non-densely defined Cauchy problem; Hopf bifurcation
**Mathematics Subject Classification:** 34C20; 34K15; 37L10
author:
- |
Xiangming Zhang[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$^{a,}$[^1]</span>]{} and Zhihua Liu[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$^{a,*,}$</span>]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[^2]</span>\
$^{a}$School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University,\
Beijing, 100875, People’s Republic of China
title: |
**Hopf bifurcation of the Michaelis-Menten\
type ratio-dependent predator-prey\
model with age structure**
---
Introduction
============
In the predator-prey population dynamics, one of the most fashionable and considerable mathematical model sketching a predator-prey interaction is the following well-known Lotka-Volterra type predator-prey model with Michaelis-Menten (or Holling type II) functional response [@FreedmanHerbertI-1980]: $$\label{predator-prey}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
x'(t)=rx(1-\frac{x}{K})-p(x)y, \\
y'(t)=\eta p(x)y-\sigma y, \\
x(0)>0, y(0)>0, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $x$ and $y$ denote prey and predator density, respectively; $r$, $K$, $\eta$ and $\sigma$ are positive constants that denote prey intrinsic growth rate, carrying capacity of prey of the environment that is frequently determined by the available sustaining resources, coefficient for the conversion that predator intake to per capital prey and predator mortality rate. $p(x)=\frac{\alpha x}{m+x}$ is the Michaelis-Menten (or Holling type II) functional response, where $\alpha>0$ is the capturing rate and $m>0$ is the half saturation constant. From a biological point of view, the so-called predation term $p(x)$, which is the functional response of the predator to the change in the density of prey, generally demonstrates some saturation effect. Obviously the function $p(x)=\frac{\alpha x}{m+x}$ depends merely on prey density $x$. Therefore it is often called a *prey-dependent* response function. The model (\[predator-prey\]) demonstrates the well-known “paradox of enrichment" [@HairstonSmithSlobodkin-JTB-1960; @Rosenzweig-Science-1971] and the so-called “biological control paradox" [@Luck-TEE-1990]. According to [@Akcakaya-Ecology-1995; @CosnerDeAngelisAultOlson-TPB-1999], a more suitable realistic predation term of predator-prey model depends upon the amount of prey that each predator can share. This conclusion is supported by numerous fields, laboratory experiments and observations [@ArditiGinzburg-JTB-1989]. On the basis of the Michaelis-Menten (or Holling type II function), [@ArditiGinzburg-JTB-1989] proposed the following response function of the form $$p\left(\frac{x}{y}\right)=\frac{\alpha\frac{x}{y}}{m+\frac{x}{y}}=\frac{\alpha x}{my+x},$$ where $x$ and $y$ stand for prey and predator density, respectively. Such a functional response is usually called a *ratio-dependent* response function.
The difference between ratio-dependent models and prey-dependent models has been discussed in [@Berryman-E-1992]. Comparing the prey-dependent predator-prey models, [@ArditiGinzburg-JTB-1989] graphically analysed the advantages of the ratio-dependent predator-prey systems by using the isocline method. In this paper, we will contribute to the Hopf bifurcation analysis for ratio-dependent predator-prey with age structure rather than discuss the general ecological significance of this class of models.
Combined with local stability analysis and simulations, [@ArditiGinzburg-JTB-1989; @Berryman-E-1992] demonstrated that the ratio-dependent models have ability of producing more complex and more reasonable dynamics [@KuangBeretta-JMB-1998; @JostArinoArditi-BMB-1999; @XiaoRuan-JMB-2001]. In document [@KuangBeretta-JMB-1998], the authors discussed the model (\[predator-prey\]) and considered the global behaviors of solutions of model (\[predator-prey\]). They also demonstrated that ratio-dependent predator-prey systems are rich in boundary dynamics and if the positive steady state of the system (\[predator-prey\]) is locally asymptotically stable, then the system has no nontrivial positive periodic solutions. [@XiaoRuan-JMB-2001] studied the qualitative behavior of a class of ratio-dependent predator-prey system at the origin and shown that there can exist numerous kinds of topological structures in a neighborhood of the origin.
Age is one of the most prevalent and significant parameters structuring a population. In a word, many internal variables, at the level of the single individual, are inevitably depending upon the age because different age implies different reproduction and survival capacities, and, also different behaviors. Recently the papers about age structure become increasingly commonplace (see [@Khajanchi-AMC-2014; @MimmoIannelli-1995; @WangLangZou-NARWA-2017; @XuZhang-DCDS-B-2016; @YangLiZhang-IJB-2016; @YangRuanXiao-MBE-2015; @LiuLi-JNS-2015; @TangLiu-AMM-2016; @WangLiu-JMAA-2012; @CushingSaleem-JMB-1982]). However, most of the results on age structure model focus on the existence, bounded and stability of the positive solutions [@Khajanchi-AMC-2014; @MimmoIannelli-1995; @WangLangZou-NARWA-2017; @XuZhang-DCDS-B-2016; @YangLiZhang-IJB-2016; @YangRuanXiao-MBE-2015; @CushingSaleem-JMB-1982]. [@TangLiu-AMM-2016] investigated the Hopf bifurcation of prey-dependent predator-prey model with predator age structure. The authors formulated the model as an abstract non-densely defined Cauchy problem and derived the existence of Hopf bifurcation. However, they considered the predation term with prey-dependent response function.
Motivated by the references [@KuangBeretta-JMB-1998; @XiaoRuan-JMB-2001; @TangLiu-AMM-2016], we reconsider the Michaelis-Menten predator-prey model (\[predator-prey\]) with an predator-age structure. As far as we know, the age structure model can be considered as an abstract Cauchy problem with non-dense domain. In this paper, we attempt to investigate the model (\[system\]) by means of the theory of integrated semigroup and the Hopf bifurcation theory [@LiuMagalRuan-ZAMP-2011]. Furthermore, the existence of Hopf bifurcation is investigated and the numerical simulations are also presented to support our conclusions. Our results show that when the bifurcation parameter $\tau$ passes through a critical value, the Hopf bifurcation occurs.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first describe the Michaelis-Menten type ratio-dependent predator-prey model with age structure. Then this model is reformulated as an abstract non-densely defined Cauchy problem and the equilibria, linearized equation and characteristic equation are investigated. In Section 3, we show the existence of Hopf bifurcation. The numerical results are presented in Section 4. Sensitivity analysis are carried out in Section 5. Some conclusions are given in Section 6.
Preliminaries
=============
Model description
-----------------
In this section, we introduce the Michaelis-Menten type ratio-dependent predator-prey model with age structure. Let $a$ be the predator-age variable. $u(t,a)$ is the distribution function of the predators over predator-age $a$ at time $t$. Then the number of the predators at time $t$ equals to $\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}$. Correspondingly, the predation term that involves the ratio-dependent response function is given by $$p\left(\frac{V(t)}{\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}}\right)=\frac{\alpha\frac{V(t)}{\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}}}{m+\frac{V(t)}{\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}}}
=\frac{\alpha V(t)}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+V(t)}.$$
In mathematical terms, the dynamics of such a system of predator and prey may be written as $$\label{system}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\partial u(t,a)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial u(t,a)}{\partial a} = -\sigma u(t,a),\\
\frac{dV(t)}{dt}=rV(t)\left(1-\frac{V(t)}{K}\right)-\frac{\alpha V(t)}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+V(t)}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da} ,\\
u(t,0)=\eta \frac{\alpha V(t)}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+V(t)}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)u(t,a)da},\quad t>0,\\
u(0,\cdot)=u_{0}\in L_{+} ^{1}((0, + \infty ),\mathbb{R}),\quad V(0)=V_{0}\geq0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $V$ is the prey density; $r=\Lambda-\mu$ is the intrinsic growth rate of the prey, and the other parameters are the same as the model (\[predator-prey\]). Here and subsequently, $\beta(a)$ is an age-specific fertility function related to predator-age $a$ and satisfies the following assumption \[assumption1\].
\[assumption1\] Assume that $$\beta(a):=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\beta^{*}, &\quad \mbox{if} \quad a\geq \tau, \\
0, &\quad \mbox{if} \quad a\in (0,\tau), \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\tau>0$ and $\beta^{*}>0$. Additionally, it is beneficial and reasonable to assume that the predator population shows a stable trend. That is, $\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)e^{-\sigma a}da}=1$, where $e^{-\sigma a}$ denotes the survival probability.
Rescaling time and age
----------------------
In this subsection, our destination is to obtain a smooth dependency of the system (\[system\]) with respect to $\tau$ (i.e., in order to use the parameter $\tau$ as a bifurcation parameter). We first normalize $\tau$ in (\[system\]) by the time-scaling and age-scaling $$\hat{a}=\frac{a}{\tau} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \hat{t}=\frac{t}{\tau},$$ and the following distribution $$\hat{V}(\hat{t})=V(\tau\hat{t}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \hat{u}(\hat{t},\hat{a})=\tau u(\tau\hat{t},\tau\hat{a}).$$ For abbreviation, after the change of variables we drop the hat notation and obtain the following new system $$\label{newsystem}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\partial u(t,a)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial u(t,a)}{\partial a} = -\tau\sigma u(t,a),\\
\frac{dV(t)}{dt}=\tau\left[rV(t)\left(1-\frac{V(t)}{K}\right)-\frac{\alpha V(t)}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+V(t)}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}\right],\\
u(t,0)=\tau\left[\eta\frac{\alpha V(t)}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+V(t)}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)u(t,a)da}\right],\quad t>0,\\
u(0,\cdot)=u_{0}\in L_{+} ^{1}((0, + \infty ),\mathbb{R}),\quad V(0)=V_{0}\geq0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where the new function $\beta(a)$ is given by $$\beta(a)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\beta^{*}, & \quad \mbox{if} \quad a \geq 1,\\
0, & \quad \mbox{otherwise}, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$\int_{\tau}^{+\infty}{\beta^{*}e^{-\sigma a}da}=1\Leftrightarrow \beta^{*}=\sigma e^{\sigma \tau},$$ where $\tau\geq0$, $\beta^{*}>0$.
With the notation $V(t):=\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da}$ in (\[newsystem\]), the ordinary differential equation in (\[newsystem\]) can be rewritten as the following age-structured model $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\partial v(t,a)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial v(t,a)}{\partial a} =-\tau\mu v(t,a),\\
v(t,0)= \tau G(u(t,a),v(t,a)), \\
v(0,a)=v_{0}\in L^{1}((0,+\infty),\mathbb{R}), \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\begin{array}{ccl}
G(u(t,a),v(t,a)) & = & \Lambda\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da}-\frac{r}{K}\left(\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da}\right)^{2}
-\frac{\alpha\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da}}. \\
\end{array}$$ Let $w(t,a)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u(t,a) \\
v(t,a) \\
\end{array}
\right)
$, we can further obtain the equivalent system of model (\[system\]) $$\label{systempartialwta}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\partial w(t,a)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial w(t,a)}{\partial a} =-\tau Q w(t,a), \\
w(t,0)=\tau B(w(t,a)), \\
w(0,\cdot)=w_{0}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
u_{0} \\
v_{0} \\
\end{array}
\right)\in L^{1}((0,+\infty),\mathbb{R}^{2}),
\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\begin{array}{ccc}
Q=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma & 0 \\
0 & \mu \\
\end{array}
\right)
& \mbox{and} & B(w(t,a))=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\eta\alpha\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da} \int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)u(t,a)da}}
{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}+\int_{0}^{+\infty}{v(t,a)da}} \\
G(u(t,a),v(t,a)) \\
\end{array}
\right).\\
\end{array}$$ Next we consider the following Banach space $$X={\mathbb{R}}^{2} \times L^{1}{((0,+\infty),{\mathbb{R}}^{2})}$$ with $\left \|
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\alpha \\
\psi\\
\end{array}
\right)
\right \|
=\left \|\alpha\right\|_{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}+\left\|\psi\right\|_{L^{1}{((0,+\infty),{\mathbb{R}}^{2})}}$. Define the linear operator $A_{\tau} : D(A_{\tau})\rightarrow X$ by $$A_{\tau}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\varphi(0) \\
-\varphi'-\tau Q\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ with $D(A_{\tau})=\{0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\}\times W^{1,1}({(0,+\infty),{\mathbb{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}}) \subset X$, and the operator $H: \overline{D(A_{\tau})} \rightarrow X$ by $$H\left(
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
B(\varphi) \\
0_{L^{1}} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ The linear operator $A_{\tau}$ is non-densely defined because $$X_{0}:=\overline{D(A_{\tau})}=\{0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\} \times L^{1}{((0,+\infty),{\mathbb{R}}^{2})}\neq X.$$ Set $$x(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
w(t,\cdot) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ system (\[systempartialwta\]) can be further rewritten as the following non-densely defined abstract Cauchy problem $$\label{nonddaCp}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{dx(t)}{dt} = A_{\tau}x(t)+\tau H(x(t)), t\geq0, \\
x(0) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
w_0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in \overline{D(A_{\tau})}. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ The global existence and uniqueness of solution of system (\[nonddaCp\]) follow from the results of [@MagalRuan-ADE-2009] and [@Magal-EJDE-2001].
Equilibria and linearized equation
----------------------------------
In this subsection, we will obtain the equilibria of system (\[nonddaCp\]) and linearized equation of (\[nonddaCp\]) around the positive equilibrium.
### Existence of equilibria
Suppose that $\overline{x}(a)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\overline{w}(a) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in X_0
$ is a steady state of system (\[nonddaCp\]). Then $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\overline{w}(a) \\
\end{array}
\right)\in D(A_{\tau}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
A_{\tau}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\overline{w}(a) \\
\end{array}
\right)+\tau H\left(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\overline{w}(a) \\
\end{array}
\right)\right)=0,$$ which is equivalent to $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
-\overline{w}(0)+\tau B(\overline{w}(a))=0, \\
-\overline{w}^{'}(a)-\tau Q\overline{w}(a)=0. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Moreover, we obtain $$\label{overlinewa}
\left.
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\overline{w}(a) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\overline{u}(a) \\
\overline{v}(a) \\
\end{array}
\right)
= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\tau\frac{\eta\alpha \overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}
{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
e^{-\tau\sigma a}\\
\tau \left(
\Lambda\overline{V}-\frac{r}{K}\overline{V}^{2}
-\frac{\alpha\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
\right)e^{-\tau \mu a} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ with $\overline{V}=\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{v}(a)da}$.
According to the first equation of (\[overlinewa\]), we have $$\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}=\frac{\eta\alpha \overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}
{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad \int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}=\frac{1}{\sigma}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}.$$ On account of the second equation of (\[overlinewa\]), we get $$r\overline{V}-\frac{r}{K}\overline{V}^{2}
-\frac{\alpha\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}=0.\\$$ Hence, we have the following lemma.
System (\[nonddaCp\]) has always the equilibrium $$\overline{x}_{0}(a)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{L^{1}} \\
\tau\mu Ke^{-\tau\mu a} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Furthermore, there exists a unique positive equilibrium of system (\[nonddaCp\]) $$\overline{x}_{\tau}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\overline{w}_{\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{K\sigma(\alpha\eta-1)[ m r\eta-(\alpha\eta-1)]}{ m^{2}r\eta}\tau e^{-\tau\sigma a} \\
\frac{\mu K[ m r\eta-(\alpha\eta-1)]}{ m r\eta}\tau e^{-\tau\mu a} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{array}
\right),$$ if and only if $$m r\eta >\alpha\eta-1>0.$$ Correspondingly, there exists a unique positive equilibrium of system (\[system\]) $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\overline{u}_{\tau}(a) \\
\overline{V} \\
\end{array}
\right)=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{K\sigma(\alpha\eta-1)[ m r\eta-(\alpha\eta-1)]}{ m^{2}r\eta}\tau e^{-\tau\sigma a} \\
\frac{K[ m r\eta-(\alpha\eta-1)]}{ m r\eta} \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ if and only if $$m r\eta >\alpha\eta-1>0.$$
In the remainder of our paper we assume that $m r\eta >\alpha\eta-1>0$.
### Linearized equation
In order to get the linearized equation of (\[nonddaCp\]) around the positive equilibrium $\overline{x}_{\tau}$, we first apply the following change of variable $$y(t):= x(t)-\overline{x}_{\tau}.$$ Then, (\[nonddaCp\]) becomes $$\label{system4}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cll}
\frac{dy(t)}{dt} & = & A_{\tau}y(t)+\tau H(y(t)+\overline{x}_{\tau})-\tau H(\overline{x}_{\tau}), t\geq0, \\
y(0) & = & \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
w_0-\overline{w}_{\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right)
=: y_0\in \overline{D(A_{\tau})}.
\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Therefore the linearized equation (\[system4\]) around the equilibrium $0$ is given by $$\label{systemlinear}
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{dy(t)}{dt}=A_{\tau}y(t)+\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})y(t) & \quad\mbox{for}\quad t\geq 0, y(t)\in X_{0}, \\
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{cc}
\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\tau DB(\overline{w}_{\tau})(\varphi) \\
0_{L^{1}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
&\quad \mbox{for all}\quad\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)\in D(A_{\tau})\\
\end{array}$$ with $$\begin{array}{ccl}
&&DB(\overline{w}_{\tau})(\varphi)=\\
&&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{m\alpha\eta\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}} & \frac{\alpha\eta\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
-\frac{\alpha\eta\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}}\\
-\frac{\alpha\overline{V}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
+\frac{\alpha m\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}} & \Lambda-\frac{2r}{K}\overline{V}
-\frac{\alpha\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
+\frac{\alpha\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}
{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
&&\times\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\varphi(a)da}
+\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\alpha\eta\overline{V}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}} & 0_{\mathbb{R}} \\
0_{\mathbb{R}} & 0_{\mathbb{R}} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\varphi(a)da}. \\
\end{array}$$ Then we can rewrite system (\[system4\]) as $$\label{fracdytdt}
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{dy(t)}{dt}=B_{\tau}y(t)+\mathcal{H}(y(t)) &\quad \mbox{for}\quad t\geq0, \\
\end{array}$$ where $$B_{\tau}:=A_{\tau}+\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})$$ is a linear operator and $$\mathcal{H}(y(t))=\tau H(y(t)+\overline{x}_{\tau})-\tau H(\overline{x}_{\tau})-\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})y(t)$$ satisfying $\mathcal{H}(0)=0$ and $D\mathcal{H}(0)=0$.
Characteristic equation
-----------------------
In this subsection, we will get the characteristic equation of (\[nonddaCp\]) around the positive equilibrium $\overline{x}_{\tau}$. Denote $$\nu:=\min\{\sigma,\mu\}>0 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \Omega := \{\lambda \in \mathbb{C} : Re(\lambda)>-\nu\tau\}.$$ Following the results of [@LiuMagalRuan-ZAMP-2011], we derive the following lemma.
For $\lambda\in \Omega$, $\lambda\in \rho(A_{\tau})$ and $$\label{lambdaIAtau1}
(\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-1}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta \\
\psi\\
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
\Leftrightarrow
\varphi(a)=e^{-\int_{0}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\delta+\int_{0}^{a}{e^{-\int_{s}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\psi(s)}ds$$ with $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta \\
\psi \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in X
$ and $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in D(A_{\tau})
$. Furthermore, $A_{\tau}$ is a Hille-Yosida operator and $$\label{Hille-Yosida}
\left\|(\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-n}\right\|\leq\frac{1}{(Re(\lambda)+\nu\tau)^{n}},\forall\lambda\in\Omega,\forall n\geq 1.$$
Let $A_0$ be the part of $A_{\tau}$ in $\overline{D(A_{\tau})}$, namely, $A_0 := D(A_0)\subset X \rightarrow X$. For $\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in D(A_0)
$, we get $$A_0\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\hat{A_0}(\varphi) \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\hat{A_0}(\varphi)=-\varphi '-\tau Q\varphi$ with $D(\hat{A_0})=\{\varphi \in W^{1,1}((0,+\infty),{\mathbb{R}}^{2}): \varphi(0)=0\}$.
Note that $\tau DH(\overline{v}_{\tau}):D(A_{\tau}) \subset X \rightarrow X$ is a compact bounded linear operator. From (\[Hille-Yosida\]) we obtain $$\left\| T_{A_0}(t) \right\| \leq e^{-\nu\tau t} \quad \mbox{for} \quad t \geq 0.$$ Thus, we have $$\omega_{0,ess}(A_0)\leq\omega_0(A_{0})\leq -\nu\tau.$$ Combining with the perturbation results from [@DucrotLiuMagal-JMAA-2008], we get $$\omega_{0,ess}((A_{\tau}+\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau}))_{0})\leq-\nu\tau<0.$$ Consequently we derive the following proposition.
The linear operator $B_{\tau}$ is a Hille-Yosida operator, and its part $(B_{\tau})_{0}$ in $\overline{D(B_{\tau})}$ satisfies $$\omega_{0,ess}((B_{\tau})_{0})<0.$$
Let $\lambda\in \Omega$. Since $(\lambda I-A_{\tau})$ is invertible, and $$\label{invertible}
\begin{array}{ccl}
(\lambda I-B_{\tau})^{-1} & = & (\lambda I-(A_{\tau}+\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})))^{-1} \\
& = & (\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-1}(I-\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})(\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-1})^{-1}, \\
\end{array}$$ it follows that $\lambda I-B_{\tau}$ is invertible if and only if $I-\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})(\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-1}$ is invertible. Set $$(I-\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})(\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-1})\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\gamma \\
\psi \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ It follows that $$\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\delta \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
-\tau DH(\overline{x}_{\tau})(\lambda I-A_{\tau})^{-1}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\gamma \\
\psi \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Then we obtain $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\delta-\tau DB(\overline{w}_{\tau})\left(e^{-\int_{0}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\delta+\int_{0}^{a}{e^{-\int_{s}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\varphi(s)}ds\right)=\gamma, \\
\varphi=\psi, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ i.e., $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\delta-\tau DB(\overline{w}_{\tau})\left(e^{ -\int_{0}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\delta\right)=\gamma+\tau DB(\overline{w}_{\tau})\left(\int_{0}^{a}{e^{-\int_{s}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\varphi(s)}ds\right), \\
\varphi=\psi. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Taking the formula of $DB(\overline{w_{\tau}})$ into consideration, we obtain $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta(\lambda)\delta=\gamma+K(\lambda,\psi), \\
\varphi=\psi, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\label{Deltalambda}
\begin{array}{ccl}
&& \Delta(\lambda) = \\
&&I-\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{m\alpha\eta\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}} & \frac{\alpha\eta\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
-\frac{\alpha\eta\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da}}{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}}\\
-\frac{\alpha\overline{V}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
+\frac{\alpha m\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}} & \Lambda-\frac{2r}{K}\overline{V}
-\frac{\alpha\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}}
+\frac{\alpha\overline{V}\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}}
{\left(m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}} \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
&&\times\tau\int_{0}^{+\infty}{e^{-\int_{0}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}da}
-\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\alpha\eta\overline{V}}{m\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{u}(a)da}+\overline{V}} & 0_{\mathbb{R}} \\
0_{\mathbb{R}} & 0_{\mathbb{R}} \\
\end{array}
\right)\tau
\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)e^{-\int_{0}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}}da \\
\end{array}$$ and $$\label{Klambdapsi}
K(\lambda,\psi)=\tau DB(\overline{w}_{\tau})\left(\int_{0}^{a}{e^{-\int_{s}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}\psi(s)}ds\right).$$ Whenever $\Delta(\lambda)$ is invertible, we have $$\label{xi}
\delta=(\Delta(\lambda))^{-1}(\gamma+K(\lambda,\psi)).$$ Combining the above discussion and the proof of Lemma 3.5 in [@WangLiu-JMAA-2012], we obtain the following lemma.
The following results hold
- $\sigma(B_{\tau})\cap\Omega=\sigma_{p}(B_{\tau})\cap\Omega=\{\lambda\in\Omega: \det(\Delta(\lambda))=0\}$;
- If $\lambda\in\rho(B_{\tau})\cap\Omega$, we have the following formula for resolvent $$\label{lambdaIBtau}
(\lambda I -B_{\tau})^{-1}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta \\
\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \\
\psi \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $$\psi(a)= e^{-\int_{0}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}(\Delta(\lambda))^{-1}\left[\gamma+K(\lambda,\varphi)\right]+\int_{0}^{a}
{e^{-\int_{s}^{a}{(\lambda I+\tau Q)dl}}}\varphi(s)ds$$ with $\Delta(\lambda)$ and $K(\lambda,\varphi)$ defined in (\[Deltalambda\]) and (\[Klambdapsi\]).
Under Assumption \[assumption1\], we have $$\label{intea}
\int_{0}^{+\infty}{e^{-\int_{0}^{a}({\lambda I+\tau Q})dl}}da=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{\lambda+\sigma\tau} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{1}{\lambda+\mu\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\label{intbetaea}
\int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)e^{-\int_{0}^{a}({\lambda I+\tau Q})dl}}da=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\beta^{*} e^{-(\lambda+\sigma\tau)}}{\lambda+\sigma\tau} & 0 \\
0 & \frac{\beta^{*}e^{-(\lambda+\mu\tau)}}{\lambda+\mu\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ It follows from (\[Deltalambda\]), (\[intea\]) and (\[intbetaea\]) that the characteristic equation at the positive equilibrium $\overline{x}_{\tau}$ is $$\label{characteristicequation}
\begin{array}{ccl}
\det(\Delta(\lambda)) & = & \left|
\begin{array}{cc}
1+\frac{\tau m \alpha\eta \overline{V}\xi}{(\lambda+\sigma\tau)\left(m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}}
-\frac{\tau\alpha \eta \overline{V}\sigma e^{-\lambda}}{(\lambda+\sigma\tau)\left(m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}\right)}&
-\frac{\tau\left(
\frac{\alpha\eta\xi}{m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}}
-\frac{\alpha\eta\overline{V}\xi}{\left(m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}}
\right)}{\lambda+\mu\tau}\\
-\frac{\tau\left(
-\frac{\alpha\overline{V}}{m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}}
+\frac{m\alpha \overline{V}\xi}{\sigma\left(m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}}
\right)}{\lambda+\sigma\tau}&
1-\frac{\tau\left(
\Lambda-\frac{2r}{K}\overline{V}
-\frac{\alpha\xi}{\sigma\left(m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}\right)}
+\frac{\alpha\overline{V}\xi}{\sigma\left(m\frac{\xi}{\sigma}+\overline{V}\right)^{2}}
\right)}{\lambda+\mu\tau}\\
\end{array}
\right| \\
& = & \frac{\lambda^{2}+\tau p_{1}\lambda+\tau^{2} p_{0}+(\tau q_{1}\lambda +\tau^{2}q_{0})e^{-\lambda}}{(\lambda+\sigma\tau)(\lambda+\mu\tau)} \\
& \triangleq & \frac{\tilde{f}(\lambda)}{\tilde{g}(\lambda)}=0, \\
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{lll}
\xi & = & \int_{0}^{+\infty}{\beta(a)\overline{u}(a)da},\\
\overline{V} & = & \int_{0}^{+\infty}{\overline{v}(a)da}, \\
p_{1} & = & \sigma-r+\frac{2r}{K}\overline{V}+\frac{\alpha m\xi(\xi+\eta\sigma^{2}\overline{V})}{(m\xi+\sigma\overline{V})^{2}},\\
p_{0} & = &\frac{2r\sigma\overline{V}}{K}
-\frac{mr\alpha\eta\sigma^{2}\xi\overline{V}(K-2\overline{V})}{K(m\xi+\sigma\overline{V})^{2}}
- \frac{\sigma[m\xi^{2}(mr-\alpha)+r\sigma\overline{V}(\sigma\overline{V}+2m\xi)]}{(m\xi+\sigma\overline{V})^{2}}
+\frac{m\alpha^{2}\eta\sigma^{2}\xi^{2}\overline{V}}{(m\xi+\sigma\overline{V})^{3}},\\
q_{1} & = & -\frac{\alpha\eta\sigma^{2}\overline{V}}{m\xi+\sigma\overline{V}}, \\
q_{0} & = & \frac{\alpha\eta\sigma^{2}\overline{V}[r(K-2\overline{V})(m\xi+\sigma\overline{V})^{2}-K\alpha m \xi^{2}]}{K(m\xi+\sigma\overline{V})^{3}}, \\
\tilde{f}(\lambda) & = & \lambda^{2}+\tau p_{1}\lambda+\tau^{2} p_{0}+(\tau q_{1}\lambda +\tau^{2}q_{0})e^{-\lambda},\\
\tilde{g}(\lambda) & = & (\lambda+\sigma\tau)(\lambda+\mu\tau). \\
\end{array}$$ Let $$\lambda=\tau\zeta.$$ Then we get $$\label{characteristicequationg}
\tilde{f}(\lambda)=\tilde{f}(\tau\zeta):=\tau^{2}g(\zeta)=\tau^{2}[\zeta^{2}+ p_{1}\zeta+p_{0}+(q_{1}\zeta + q_{0})e^{-\tau\zeta}].$$ It is simple to prove that $$\{\lambda\in\Omega:\det(\Delta(\lambda))=0\}=\{\lambda=\tau\zeta\in\Omega:g(\zeta)=0\}.$$
Existence of Hopf bifurcation
=============================
In this section, we consider the parameter $\tau$ as a bifurcation parameter and study the existence of Hopf bifurcation by applying the Hopf bifurcation theory [@LiuMagalRuan-ZAMP-2011] to the Cauchy problem (\[nonddaCp\]). From (\[characteristicequationg\]), we have $$\label{characteristicequation3}
g(\zeta)=\zeta^{2}+ p_{1}\zeta+p_{0}+(q_{1}\zeta + q_{0})e^{-\tau\zeta},$$ where $$\label{p1p2p3p4}
\begin{array}{ll}
p_{1}=\frac{m\alpha\eta^{2}(r+2\sigma)-\alpha^{2}\eta^{2}-m\sigma\eta+1}{m\alpha\eta^{2}},
&p_{0}=\frac{\sigma[mr(2\alpha\eta-1)-2\alpha(\alpha\eta-1)]}{ m\alpha\eta}, \\
q_{1}=-\sigma, &
q_{0}=\frac{\sigma(-mr\alpha\eta^{2}+\alpha^{2}\eta^{2}-1)}{m\alpha\eta^{2}}. \\
\end{array}$$ Additionally, if $ m r\eta >\alpha\eta-1>0$, then $ p_{0}+q_{0} = \frac{\sigma(\alpha\eta-1)[mr\eta-(\alpha\eta-1)]}{m\alpha\eta^{2}}>0$ and $\zeta =0$ is not a eigenvalue of ([characteristicequation3]{}).
Let $\zeta=i\omega (\omega>0)$ be a purely imaginary root of $g(\zeta)=0$. Then we have $$-\omega^{2}+ip_{1}\omega+p_{0}+(iq_{1}\omega+q_{0})e^{-i\omega\tau}=0.$$ Separating real and imaginary parts of the above equation gives rise to $$\label{realimaginary}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\omega^{2}-p_{0}=q_{1}\omega\sin(\omega\tau)+q_{0}\cos(\omega\tau), \\
-p_{1}\omega=q_{1}\omega\cos(\omega\tau)-q_{0}\sin(\omega\tau). \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Consequently, we obtain $$(\omega^{2}-p_{0})^{2}+(-p_{1}\omega)^{2}=(q_{1}\omega)^2+q_{0}^{2},$$ that is, $$\label{omega34}
\omega^{4}+(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2})\omega^{2}+p_{0}^{2}-q_{0}^{2}=0.$$ Set $\omega^{2}=\theta$, then (\[omega34\]) becomes $$\label{siama2}
\theta^{2}+(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2})\theta+p_{0}^{2}-q_{0}^{2}=0.$$ Let $\theta_{1}$ and $\theta_{2}$ denote two roots of (\[siama2\]), then we find $$\label{sigma1sigma2}
\theta_{1}+\theta_{2}=-(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2}),\quad \theta_{1}\theta_{2}=p_{0}^{2}-q_{0}^{2}.$$ Consequently, it is apparent from (\[sigma1sigma2\]) that when $p_{0}-q_{0} = \frac{\sigma[mr\eta(3\alpha\eta-1)-(3\alpha\eta+1)(\alpha\eta-1)]}{m\alpha\eta^{2}}<0(i.e.,mr\eta(3\alpha\eta-1)<(3\alpha\eta+1)(\alpha\eta-1))$, (\[siama2\]) has only one positive real root $\theta_{0}$. Then (\[omega34\]) has only one positive real root $\omega_{0}=\sqrt{\theta_{0}}$. According to (\[realimaginary\]), we can yield that $g(\zeta)=0$ with $\tau=\tau_{k}$, $k=0,1,2,\cdots$ has a pair of purely imaginary roots $\pm i\omega_{0}$, where $$\omega_{0}^{2}=\frac{-(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2})+\sqrt{(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2})^{2}-4(p_{0}^{2}-q_{0}^{2})}}{2}$$ and $$\label{tauk}
\tau_{k}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{1}{\omega_{0}}\left(\arccos\frac{(q_{0}-p_{1}q_{1})\omega_{0}^{2}-p_{0}q_{0}}{q_{1}^{2}\omega_{0}^2+q_{0}^{2}}+2k\pi\right),
\mbox{ if } \frac{\omega_{0}(q_{1}\omega_{0}^{2}+p_{1}q_{0}-p_{0}q_{1})}{q_{1}^{2}\omega_{0}^2+q_{0}^{2}}\geq 0,\\
\frac{1}{\omega_{0}}\left(2\pi-\arccos\frac{(q_{0}-p_{1}q_{1})\omega_{0}^{2}-p_{0}q_{0}}{q_{1}^{2}\omega_{0}^2+q_{0}^{2}}+2k\pi\right),
\mbox{ if } \frac{\omega_{0}(q_{1}\omega_{0}^{2}+p_{1}q_{0}-p_{0}q_{1})}{q_{1}^{2}\omega_{0}^2+q_{0}^{2}}< 0,\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $k=0,1,2,\cdots.$
\[assumption2\] Assume that $m r\eta >\alpha\eta-1>0$ and $mr\eta(3\alpha\eta-1)<(3\alpha\eta+1)(\alpha\eta-1))$.
Let Assumption \[assumption1\] and \[assumption2\] hold, then $$\frac{\mbox{d}g(\zeta)}{\mbox{d}\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}}\neq0.$$ Therefore, $\zeta=i\omega_{0}$ is a simple root of (\[characteristicequation3\]).
On the basis of (\[characteristicequation3\]), we have $$\frac{\mbox{d}g(\zeta)}{\mbox{d}\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}}=\left\{2\zeta+p_{1}+[q_{1}-\tau (q_{1}\zeta+ q_{0})]e^{-\tau\zeta}\right\}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}}$$ and $$\left\{2\zeta+p_{1}+[q_{1}-\tau (q_{1}\zeta+ q_{0})]e^{-\tau\zeta}\right\}\frac{d\zeta(\tau)}{d\tau}=\zeta(q_{1}\zeta+q_{0})e^{-\tau\zeta}.$$ Suppose that $\frac{dg(\zeta)}{d\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}}=0$, then $$i\omega_{0}(iq_{1}\omega_{0}+q_{0})e^{-i\omega_{0}\tau}=0.$$ Separating real and imaginary in the above equation, we obtain $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
-q_{1}\omega_{0}^{2}\cos(\omega_{0}\tau)+q_{0}\omega_{0}\sin(\omega_{0}\tau)=0, \\
q_{1}\omega_{0}^{2}\sin(\omega_{0}\tau)+q_{0}\omega_{0}\cos(\omega_{0}\tau)=0. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ That is, $$(q_{1}\omega_{0}^{2})^{2}+(q_{0}\omega_{0})^{2}=0,$$ which implies $$q_{1}\omega_{0}^{2}=q_{0}\omega_{0}=0.$$ Since $\omega_{0}>0$, we conclude that $$q_{1}=q_{0}=0.$$ However, $q_{1}=-\sigma< 0$, which leads to a contradiction. Hence $$\frac{\mbox{d}g(\zeta)}{\mbox{d}\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}}\neq0.$$ This completes the proof.
Let Assumption \[assumption1\] and \[assumption2\] hold. Denote the root $\zeta(\tau)=\alpha(\tau)+i\omega(\tau)$ of $g(\zeta)=0$ satisfying $\alpha(\tau_{k})=0$ and $\omega(\tau_{k})=\omega_{0}$, where $\tau_{k}$ is defined in (\[tauk\]). Then $$\alpha^{'}(\tau_{k})=\frac{\mbox{d}Re(\zeta)}{\mbox{d}\tau}\Big|_{\tau=\tau_{k}}>0.$$
For convenience, we study $\frac{d\tau}{d\zeta}$ instead of $\frac{d\zeta}{d\tau}$. From the expression of $g(\zeta)=0$, we have $$\begin{array}{cll}
\frac{\mbox{d}\tau}{\mbox{d}\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}} & = & \frac{2\zeta+p_{1}+q_{1}e^{-\tau\zeta}-\tau(q_{1}\zeta +q_{0})e^{-\tau\zeta}}{\zeta(q_{1}\zeta +q_{0})e^{-\tau\zeta}}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}} \\
& = & \left(-\frac{2\zeta+p_{1}}{\zeta(\zeta^{2}+p_{1}\zeta+p_{0})}+\frac{q_{1}}{\zeta(q_{1}\zeta +q_{0})}-\frac{\tau}{\zeta}\right)\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}} \\
& = &-\frac{i2\omega_{0}+p_{1}}{i\omega_{0}(-\omega_{0}^{2}+ip_{1}\omega_{0}+p_{0})}+\frac{q_{1}}{i\omega_{0}(iq_{1}\omega_{0} +q_{0})}-\frac{\tau}{i\omega_{0}}\\
& = &\frac{1}{\omega_{0}}\frac{i2\omega_{0}+p_{1}}{p_{1}\omega_{0}-i(p_{0}-\omega_{0}^{2})}+\frac{1}{\omega_{0}}\frac{-q_{1}}{q_{1}\omega_{0}-iq_{0}}-\frac{\tau}{i\omega_{0}}\\
& = & \frac{1}{\omega_{0}}\frac{(i2\omega_{0}+p_{1})[p_{1}\omega_{0}+i(p_{0}-\omega_{0}^{2})]}{(p_{1}\omega_{0})^{2}+(p_{0}-\omega_{0}^{2})^{2}}
+\frac{1}{\omega_{0}}\frac{-q_{1}(q_{1}\omega_{0}+iq_{0})}{(q_{1}\omega_{0})^{2}+q_{0}^{2}}+\frac{i\tau}{\omega_{0}}.\\
\end{array}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{array}{ccl}
$\mbox{Re}$\left(\frac{\mbox{d}\tau}{\mbox{d}\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}} \right) & = & \frac{2\omega_{0}^{2}+p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}}{(p_{1}\omega_{0})^{2}+(p_{0}-\omega_{0}^{2})^{2}}-\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{(q_{1}\omega_{0})^{2}+q_{0}^{2}} \\
& = & \frac{2\omega_{0}^{2}+p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2}}{(q_{1}\omega_{0})^{2}+q_{0}^{2}}. \\
\end{array}$$ Since $$\omega_{0}^{2}=\frac{-(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2})+\sqrt{(p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2})^{2}-4(p_{0}^{2}-q_{0}^{2})}}{2},$$ we can further obtain $$\begin{array}{ccl}
\mbox{sign}\left(\frac{\mbox{d}\rm{Re}(\zeta)}{\mbox{d}\tau}\Big|_{\tau=\tau_{k}}\right) & = & \mbox{sign}\left(\mbox{Re}\left(\frac{\mbox{d}\tau}{\mbox{d}\zeta}\Big|_{\zeta=i\omega_{0}}\right)\right) \\
& = & \mbox{sign}\left(\frac{2\omega_{0}^{2}+p_{1}^{2}-2p_{0}-q_{1}^{2}}{(q_{1}\omega_{0})^{2}+q_{0}^{2}}\right)>0. \\
\end{array}$$
Thus we conclude the following theorem.
\[HopfBifurcation\] Let Assumption \[assumption1\] and \[assumption2\] hold. Then there exist $\tau_{k}>0, k=0,1,2,\cdots$($\tau_{k}$ is defined in (\[tauk\])), such that when $\tau=\tau_{k}$, the predator-prey model (\[system\]) undergoes a Hopf bifurcation at the equilibrium $(\overline{u}_{\tau_{k}}(a),\overline{V})$. In particular, a non-trivial periodic solution bifurcates from the equilibrium $(\overline{u}_{\tau_{k}}(a),\overline{V})$ when $\tau=\tau_{k}$.
Numerical simulations
=====================
In this section, we perform some numerical simulations to illustrate the results showed in Theorem \[HopfBifurcation\]. We choose the parameter values: $\Lambda=1.2, \mu=0.2, r=1, K=200, \alpha=2.35, m=1.66, \sigma=0.5, \eta=1$, and the initial values $u(0,\cdot)=30.3745e^{-a}$ and $V(0)=37.3494$. The age-specific fertility function becomes $$\beta(a):=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
0.5e^{0.5\tau}, &\quad \mbox{if}\quad a\geq \tau, \\
0, &\quad \mbox{if}\quad a\in (0,\tau). \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ With the help of the Matlab, we can readily get $m r\eta-(\alpha\eta-1)\approx 0.3100$, $\alpha\eta-1\approx 1.3500$, and $(3\alpha\eta+1)(\alpha\eta-1)-mr\eta(3\alpha\eta-1)\approx 0.8245$ which satisfy the conditions of Assumption \[assumption2\]. Calculating it further, we can easily obtain that $\omega_{0}\approx 0.1598$ and the first critical value $\tau_{0}\approx 1.9340$.
In Figure 1, we choose the bifurcation parameter $\tau=0.9<\tau_{0}$ and the positive equilibrium $(\overline{u}_{\tau=0.9}(a), \overline{V})=(13.6685e^{-0.45a}, 37.3494)$ is locally asymptotically stable. Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) demonstrate the solution behaviors of the predator and prey, respectively. Figure 1(c) reveals the phase diagram including $V(t)$ and $\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}$ trajectories for the system (\[system\]) and Figure 1(d) describes the change of the distribution function of the predators $u(t,a)$ as the time and age vary.
By further continuously increasing $\tau$ to $2>\tau_{0}$, there appears a sustained periodic oscillation behavior of system (\[system\]) around the positive equilibrium $(\overline{u}_{\tau=2}(a), \overline{V})=(30.3745e^{-a}, 37.3494)$, meanwhile the conclusion of Theorem \[HopfBifurcation\] is also numerically demonstrated (see Figure 2). In Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b), the solution curves illustrate a sustained periodic oscillation behavior. As is shown in Figure 2(c), the oribt of $V(t)$ and $\int_{0}^{+\infty}{u(t,a)da}$ consistently approaches the stable limit cycles around this positive equilibrium. The variation of $u(t,a)$ as time and predator-age vary at $\tau=2>\tau_{0}$ is demonstrated in Figure 2(d).
Sensitivity analysis
====================
In this section, we illustrate the influence of several important parameters on the dynamics of the predator population and prey population through graphical approach. The parameter values and the initial values are the same as Section 4.
Figure 3(a) and Figure 3(b) show that the carrying capacity of prey $K$ has a greater impact on both prey and predator. Figure 3(c) and Figure 3(d) illustrate the difference of the dynamics of predator and prey populations in terms of the different capturing rate $\alpha$. When the capturing rate increases gradually, the amplitude of the periodic oscillation phenomena of the two populations become bigger and bigger. We can readily find that when the capturing rate exceeds a certain value $(\alpha=2.35)$, the effect of the catching rate on predator population is less than the prey population. Compared with the capturing rate $\alpha$ (see Figure 3(c) and Figure 3(d)), the effect of the half capturing saturation constant $m$ (see Figure 3(e) and Figure 3(f)) on the dynamics of system (\[system\]) is just the opposite. As is shown in Figure 3(e) and Figure 3(f), the amplitude of the periodic oscillation behaviors gradually decrease with the increase of the half capturing saturation constant $m$. Obviously, in comparison with Figure 3(e), the change in Figure 3(f) is more evident. Comparing Figure 4(a), Figure 4(b), Figure 3(c) and Figure 3(d), we can readily observe that the effect of the conversion rate $\eta$ (see Figure 4(a) and Figure 4(b)) on the dynamic behaviors of system (\[system\]) is consistent with the effect of the capturing rate $\alpha$. The amplitude of the solution curves of system (\[system\]) demonstrate an increase tendency with the increase of the conversion rate $\eta$.
The effect of predator mortality rate $\sigma$ on the dynamics of the system (\[system\]) is also obvious. From the Figure 4(c) and Figure 4(d), we can clearly see that as the predator mortality rate $\sigma$ increases gradually, the amplitude of the periodic oscillation behaviors become smaller and smaller. In contrast with the predator population (see Figure 4(c)), the predator mortality rate has a greater impact on the dynamic behaviors of the prey population (see Figure 4(d)).
Conclusions
===========
In our model (\[system\]), we introduce a predator-prey model with predator-age structure that involves Michaelis-Menten type ratio-dependent functional response. Our results demonstrate that when the bifurcation parameter $\tau$ passes through the critical value $\tau_{k} (k=0,1,2,\cdots)$, the Hopf bifurcation occurs around the positive equilibrium of the system (\[system\]). Biologically the bifurcation parameter $\tau$ might be taken as a measure of a biological maturation period. Based on the theoretical analysis and numerical simulations, we conclude that the stability of the unique positive equilibrium of system (\[system\]) is unaffected when the biological maturation period $\tau$ is small enough. However, when the maturation period $\tau$ crosses critical value $\tau _{k} (k=0,1,2,\cdots)$, the sustained periodic oscillation phenomena appear around the positive equilibrium. On the basis of the sensitivity analysis, graphical method illustrates that the effect of parameters $\alpha$, $m$, $\eta$ and $\sigma$ on the dynamics of the prey population is more obvious than the predator population. However, the parameter $K$ has a greater impact on both prey and predator.
[99]{}
H. I. Freedman, [*Deterministic mathematical models in population ecology*]{}, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1980.
N. G. Hairston, F. E. Smith and L. B. Slobodkin, Community structure, population control, and competition, [*American Naturalist*]{} [**94**]{} (1960) 421-425.
M. L. Rosenzweig, Paradox of enrichment: destabilization of exploitation ecosystems in ecological time, [*Science*]{} [**171**]{} (1971) 385-387.
R. F. Luck, Evaluation of natural enemies for biological control: A behavioral approach, [*Trends Ecol. Evol.*]{} [**5**]{} (1990) 196-199.
H. R. Akcakaya, Ratio-dependent prediction: an abstraction that works, [*Ecology*]{} [**76**]{} (1995) 995-1004.
C. Cosner, D. L. DeAngelis, J. S.Ault, D. B. Olson, Effects of spatial grouping on the functional response of predators, [*Theor. Pop. Biol.*]{} [**56**]{} (1999) 65-75.
R. Arditi and L. R. Ginzburg, Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: Ratio-dependence, [*J. Theoret. Biol.*]{} [**139**]{} (1989) 311-326.
A. A. Berryman, The origins and evolution of predator-prey theory, [*Ecology*]{} [**73**]{} (1992) 1530-1535.
Y. Kuang and E. Beretta, Global qualitative analysis of a ratio-dependent predator-prey system, [*J. Math. Biol.*]{} [**36**]{} (1998) 389-406.
C. Jost, O. Arino and R. Arditi, About deterministic extinction in ratio-dependent predator-prey models, [*Bull. Math. Biol.*]{} [**61**]{} (1999) 19-32.
D. Xiao and S. Ruan, Global dynamics of a ratio-dependent predator-prey system, [*J. Math. Biol.*]{} [**43**]{} (2001) 268-290.
S. Khajanchi, Dynamic behavior of a Beddington-DeAngelis type stage structured predator-prey model, [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**244**]{} (2014) 344-360.
M. Iannelli, [*Mathematical theory of age-structured population dynamics*]{}, Giardini Editori E Stampatori, Pisa, 1995.
J. Wang, J. Lang and X. Zou, Analysis of an age structured HIV infection model with virus-to-cell infection and cell-to-cell transmission, [*Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.*]{} [**34**]{} (2017) 75-96.
X. Xu and S. Zhang, A mathematical model for hepatitis B with infection-age structure, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B*]{} [**21**]{} (2016) 1329-1346.
J. Yang, X. Li and F. Zhang, Global dynamics of a heroin epidemic model with age structure and nonlinear incidence, [*Int. J. Biomath.*]{} [**09**]{} (2016) 1650033.
Y. Yang, S. Ruan and D. Xiao, Global stability of an age-structured virus dynamics model with Beddington-DeAngelis infection function, [*Math. Biosci. Eng.*]{} [**12**]{} (2015) 859-877.
J. M. Cushing and M. Saleem, A predator prey model with age structure, [*J. Math. Biol.*]{} [**14**]{} (1982) 231-250.
Z. Liu and N. Li, Stability and bifurcation in a predator-prey model with age structure and delays, [*J. Nonlinear Sci.*]{} [**25**]{} (2015) 937-957.
H. Tang and Z. Liu, Hopf bifurcation for a predator-prey model with age structure, [*Appl. Math. Model.*]{} [**40**]{} (2016) 726-737.
Z. Wang and Z. Liu, Hopf bifurcation of an age-structured compartmental pest-pathogen model, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**385**]{} (2012) 1134-1150.
Z. Liu, P. Magal and S. Ruan, Hopf bifurcation for non-densely defined Cauchy problems, [*Z. Angew. Math. Phys.*]{} [**62**]{} (2011) 191-222.
P. Magal and S. Ruan, On semilinear Cauchy problems with non-dense domain, [*Adv. Differential Equations*]{} [**14**]{} (2009) 1041-1084.
P. Magal, Compact attractors for time-periodic age-structured population models, [*Electron. J. Differential Equations*]{} [**2001**]{} (2001) 1-35.
A. Ducrot, Z. H. Liu and P. Magal, Essential growth rate for bounded linear perturbation of non-densely defined Cauchy problems, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**341**]{} (2008) 501-518.
[^1]: Research was partially supported by NSFC (Grant No. 11471044 and 11771044) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
[^2]: [Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (X. Zhang), [email protected] (Z. Liu).]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this manuscript the concept of hyperspace is revisited. The main purpose is to study hyperconvergence and continuity of orbital and limit set functions for semigroup action on completely regular space. Some general facts on Hausdorff and Kuratowski hyperconvergence are presented.'
address: |
Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Brazil.\
Email: [email protected]
author:
- 'Josiney A. Souza'
- 'Richard W. M. Alves'
title: Hyperconvergence in topological dynamics
---
Introduction
============
The present paper contributes to topological dynamics by studying hyperconvergence and continuity of orbital and limit set functions for semigroup actions on topological spaces. The phase space is required to be completely regular for the purpose of selecting an admissible family of open coverings. The admissible structure is employed to reproduce a uniformity for hyperspace and define hyperconvergence and semicontinuity of set-valued functions.
One of the main theorems in topology establishes the Hausdorff metric on the set of all compact subsets of a metric space. E. Michael [@Michael] reproduced the Hausdorff topology in the setting of compact spaces under absence of metrization. The Hausdorff topology is currently a special concept of the hyperspace theory on uniformizable spaces (e.g. [Nadler,Will]{}). Inspired in the original metric space methods, we reproduce a uniform structure on hyperspace by means of a binary function that generalizes the Hausdorff metric. The strategy is to consider the description of uniformizable spaces as admissible spaces, which are topological spaces admitting admissible family of open coverings ([Richard]{}). If $X$ is an admissible space endowed with an admissible family of open coverings $\mathcal{O}$, it is possible to define a binary function $%
\rho _{H}$ on the hyperspace $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ with values in the powerset $\mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $. This function is employed to construct the surroundings for a base of diagonal uniformity on $%
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ (Theorem \[T4\]). The balls of $\rho _{H}$ form a base for a uniform topology on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ (Theorem \[T3\]). This uniform structure yields the extension of classical results on hyperconvergence. In special, we relate the Kuratowski hyperconvergence and the Hausdorff hyperconvergence (Theorems \[PK\] and \[KP\]).
The main purpose of the paper is to study hyperconvergence in topological dynamics. We follow the line of investigation of the papers [BragaSouza,BBRS,BBRSCan]{} inspired by S. Saperstone and M. Nishihama [SA]{} from studies of stability and continuity of orbital and limit set maps of semiflows on metric spaces. For introducing the ideas of the paper, let $%
S $ be a semigroup acting on the admissible space $X$ and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a filter basis on the subsets of $S$. For a given $x\in X$, the $\omega $-limit set and the prolongational limit set of $x$ on the direction of $%
\mathcal{F}$ are respectively defined by $$L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}}K_{A}\left(
x\right) \qquad \qquad J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =\bigcap_{A\in
\mathcal{F}}D_{A}\left( x\right)$$where $K_{A}\left( x\right) =\mathrm{cls}\left( Ax\right) $ and $D_{A}\left(
x\right) =\bigcap_{\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}}\mathrm{cls}\left( A\mathrm{St}%
\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \right) $ ([@BragaSouza; @BBRS; @SouzaTozatti]). It is intuitive that the nets $\left( K_{A}\left( x\right) \right) _{A\in
\mathcal{F}}$ and $\left( D_{A}\left( x\right) \right) _{A\in \mathcal{F}}$ in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ converge respectively to the limit set $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ and to the prolongational limit set $J_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. We prove these facts under certain conditions (Propositions \[P4\] and \[P5\]). In other words, the nets of set-valued functions $\left( K_{A}\right) _{A\in \mathcal{F}}$ and $\left( D_{A}\left(
x\right) \right) _{A\in \mathcal{F}}$ pointwise converge to the functions $%
L_{\mathcal{F}}$ and $J_{\mathcal{F}}$, respectively.
In line of these statements, we investigate the Hausdorff continuity of the set-valued functions $K_{A}$, $D_{A}$, $L_{\mathcal{F}}$, and $J_{\mathcal{F}%
}$. The Hausdorff continuity of $K_{A}$ means that the $A$-orbits have trivial prolongations, that is, $K_{A}=D_{A}$ (Proposition \[K\]). If $%
K_{A}$ is Hausdorff continuous for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$, it follows that $%
L_{\mathcal{F}}=J_{\mathcal{F}}$. In special case, the Hausdorff continuity of $K_{S}$ means the stability of the orbit closure $\mathrm{cls}\left(
Sx\right) $ for every $x\in X$ (Theorem \[T1\]). In general, under certain conditions, the Hausdorff continuity of $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ means that every limit set $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is eventually stable (Theorem \[T10\]).
The results of the paper extend to general topological spaces under absence of metrization. For instance, if $G$ is a topological group and $S\subset G$ is a closed subgroup of $G$ then the function $K_{S}:G\rightarrow \mathcal{H}%
\left( G\right) $ assumes values in $\left. G\right/ S$ and then it corresponds to the standard projection $\pi :G\rightarrow \left. G\right/ S$. A natural question is the following: by inducing a uniformity on $\left.
G\right/ S$ from the uniformity of $\mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $, does the corresponding uniform topology coincide with the quotient topology? We have a positive answer for this question (Theorem \[T12\]). This means that $%
K_{S}:G\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $ is Hausdorff continuous and, in the case $S$ compact, every left coset $gS$ is stable.
For another nonmetrizable example, let $E^{E}$ be the function space of a normed vector space $E$ endowed with the uniformity of pointwise convergence. Let $F\subset E$ be a compact set and $X\subset E^{E}$ the subspace of all contraction maps of $E$ with fixed point in $F$ and same Lipschitz constant $L<1$. The subset $i\left( F\right) \subset X$ is the global asymptotically stable set for the action of the multiplicative positive integers on $X$ given by $nf=f^{n}$. The limit set function $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous on $X$, essentially because $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( f\right) =i\left( \mathrm{fix}f\right) $ (Example [Ex4]{}).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Section1\] we recall some definitions and fix notations of admissible structure on completely regular space. In Section \[SectionHyperspace\] we describe hyperspace by means of a binary function on the admissible space. The notions of hyperconvergence are defined in Section \[HK\], where we reproduce some classical theorems involving Kuratowski hyperconvergence and Hausdorff hyperconvergence. The main results of the paper are present in Section \[s4\] where we apply the results on hyperconvergence to study semicontinuity and Hausdorff continuity of functions defined by orbit closure, limit set, prolongation, and prolongational limit set. In the last section, we provide illustrating examples for the theory presented in the paper.
\[Section1\]Admissible structure
================================
This section contains the basic definitions and properties of admissible spaces. We refer to [@Richard], [@patrao2], and [@So] for the previous development of admissible spaces.
Let $X$ be a topological space and $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V}$ coverings of $X$. We write $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \mathcal{U}$ if $\mathcal{V}$ is a refinement of $\mathcal{U}$. One says $\mathcal{V}$ double-refines $\mathcal{%
U}$, or $\mathcal{V}$ is a double-refinement of $\mathcal{U}$, written $%
\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$ or $2\mathcal{V}\leqslant
\mathcal{U}$, if for every $V,V^{\prime }\in \mathcal{V}$, with $V\cap
V^{\prime }\neq \emptyset $, there is $U\in \mathcal{U}$ such that $V\cup
V^{\prime }\subset U$. We write $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2^{2}}%
\mathcal{U}$ if there is a covering $\mathcal{W}$ of $X$ such that $\mathcal{%
V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}%
\mathcal{U}$. Inductively, we write $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n}}%
\mathcal{U}$ if there is $\mathcal{W}$ with $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}%
\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2^{n-1}}\mathcal{U}$. In certain sense, the notion of double-refinement in topological spaces corresponds to the property of triangle inequality in metric spaces.
Now, for a covering $\mathcal{U}$ of $X$ and a subset $Y\subset X$, the *star* of $Y$ with respect to $\mathcal{U}$ is the set $$\mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}\right] =\bigcup \left\{ U\in \mathcal{U}%
:Y\cap U\neq \emptyset \right\} \text{.}$$If $Y=\left\{ x\right\} $, we usually write $\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}%
\right] $ rather than $\mathrm{St}\left[ \left\{ x\right\} ,\mathcal{U}%
\right] $. Then one has $\mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}\right]
=\bigcup\limits_{x\in Y}\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] $ for every subset $Y\subset X$.
\[Admiss\] A family $\mathcal{O}$ of open coverings of $X$ is said to be **admissible** if it satisfies the following properties:
1. For any $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$, there is $\mathcal{W}%
\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{V}$.;
2. The stars $\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] $, for $x\in X$ and $%
\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, form a basis for the topology of $X$.
The space $X$ is called **admissible** if it admits an admissible family of open coverings.
\[Ex1\]
1. If $X$ is a paracompact Hausdorff space, then the family $\mathcal{O}$ of all open coverings of $X$ is admissible.
2. If $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space, then the family $\mathcal{O}_{f}$ of all finite open coverings of $X$ is admissible.
3. If $\left( X,\mathrm{d}\right) $ is a pseudometric space, then the family $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{d}}$ of the coverings $\mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon
}=\left\{ \mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{d}}\left( x,\varepsilon \right) :x\in
X\right\} $ by $\varepsilon $-balls, for $\varepsilon >0$, is admissible. For every $\varepsilon >0$ and $Y\subset X$ we have $\mathcal{U}%
_{\varepsilon /2}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon }$ and $$\mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon /2}\right] \subset \mathrm{B}_{%
\mathrm{d}}\left( Y,\varepsilon \right) \subset \mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{%
U}_{\varepsilon }\right] \text{.}$$
4. If $X$ is a uniformizable space then any covering uniformity of $X$ is an admissible family of open coverings of $X$.
\[R1\] Since the collection $\left\{ \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}%
\right] :\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}\right\} $ is a neighborhood base at $%
x\in X$, one has $\bigcap\limits_{\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}}\mathrm{St}%
\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}\right] =\mathrm{cls}\left( Y\right) $ for every subset $%
Y\subset X$. If $X$ is Hausdorff, it follows that $\bigcap\limits_{\mathcal{U%
}\in \mathcal{O}}\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] =\left\{ x\right\} $ for every $x\in X$.
If $K\subset X$ is compact and $V\subset X$ is open with $K\subset V$ then there is $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ K,%
\mathcal{U}\right] \subset V$.
A topological space $X$ is admissible if and only if it is uniformizable ([@Richard]). It is well-known that $X$ is uniformizable if and only if it is completely regular.
Let $X$ be a fixed completely regular space endowed with an admissible family of open coverings $\mathcal{O}$. Let $\mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}%
\right) $ denote the power set of $\mathcal{O}$ and consider the partial ordering relation on $\mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ given by inverse inclusion: for $\mathcal{E}_{1},\mathcal{E}_{2}\in \mathcal{P}\left(
\mathcal{O}\right) $$$\mathcal{E}_{1}\prec \mathcal{E}_{2}\text{ if and only if }\mathcal{E}%
_{1}\supset \mathcal{E}_{2}.$$Concerning this relation, $\mathcal{O}$ is the lower bound for $\mathcal{P}%
\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ (the zero) and the empty set $\emptyset $ is the upper bound for $\mathcal{P}\left(
\mathcal{O}\right) $ (the infinity).
For each $\mathcal{E}\in \mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ and $n\in
\mathbb{N}^{\ast }$ we define the set $n\mathcal{E}$ in $\mathcal{P}\left(
\mathcal{O}\right) $ by $$n\mathcal{E}=\left\{ \mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}:\text{there is }\mathcal{V}%
\in \mathcal{E}\text{ such that }\mathcal{V}\leqslant \tfrac{1}{2^{n}}%
\mathcal{U}\right\} .$$
This operation is order-preserving, that is, if $\mathcal{E}\prec \mathcal{D}
$ then $n\mathcal{E}\prec n\mathcal{D}$. In fact, if $\mathcal{U}\in n%
\mathcal{D}$ then there is $\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{D}$ such that $\mathcal{V%
}\leqslant \tfrac{1}{2^{n}}\mathcal{U}$. As $\mathcal{D}\subset \mathcal{E}$, it follows that $\mathcal{U}\in n\mathcal{E}$, and therefore $n\mathcal{E}%
\prec n\mathcal{D}$. Note also that $n\mathcal{O}=\mathcal{O}$, for every $%
n\in \mathbb{N}^{\ast }$, since for each $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ there is $\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \tfrac{1}{%
2^{n}}\mathcal{U}$, that is, $\mathcal{U}\in n\mathcal{O}$.
We often consider the following notion of convergence in $\mathcal{P}\left(
\mathcal{O}\right) $.
\[Convergence\]We say that a net $\left( \mathcal{E}_{\lambda }\right) $ in $\mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ **converges** to $\mathcal{O}
$, written $\mathcal{E}_{\lambda }\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, if for every $%
\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ there is a $\lambda _{0}$ such that $\mathcal{U}%
\in \mathcal{E}_{\lambda }$ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$.
It is easily seen that $\mathcal{D}_{\lambda }\prec \mathcal{E}_{\lambda }$ and $\mathcal{E}_{\lambda }\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ implies $\mathcal{D}%
_{\lambda }\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. Moreover, $\mathcal{E}_{\lambda
}\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ implies $n\mathcal{E}_{\lambda }\rightarrow
\mathcal{O}$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^{\ast }$ (see [RichardA]{}).
We also need the auxiliary function $\rho :X\times X\rightarrow \mathcal{P}%
\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ given by $$\rho \left( x,y\right) =\left\{ \mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}:y\in \mathrm{St}%
\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \right\} .$$Note that the value $\rho \left( x,y\right) $ is upwards hereditary, that is, if $\mathcal{U}\leqslant \mathcal{V}$ with $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left(
x,y\right) $ then $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left( x,y\right) $. The following properties of the function $\rho $ are proved in [RichardA]{}.
\[P1\]
1. $\rho \left( x,y\right) =\rho \left( y,x\right) $ for all $x,y\in X$.
2. $\mathcal{O}\prec \rho \left( x,y\right) $, for all $x,y\in X$, and $%
\mathcal{O}=\rho \left( x,x\right) $.
3. If $X$ is Hausdorff, $\mathcal{O}=\rho \left( x,y\right) $ if and only if $x=y$.
4. $\rho \left( x,y\right) \prec n\left( \rho \left( x,x_{1}\right) \cap
\rho \left( x_{1},x_{2}\right) \cap \ldots \cap \rho \left( x_{n},y\right)
\right) $ for all $x,y,x_{1},...,x_{n}\in X$.
5. A net $\left( x_{\lambda }\right) $ in $X$ converges to $x$ if and only if $\rho \left( x_{\lambda },x\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$.
We now define bounded set and diameter.
A nonempty subset $Y\subset X$ is called **bounded** with respect to $%
\mathcal{O}$ if there is some $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $%
\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x,y\right) $ for all $x,y\in Y$.
Let $Y\subset X$ be a nonempty set. The **diameter** of $Y$ is the set $%
\mathrm{D}\left( Y\right) \in \mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ defined as $$\mathrm{D}\left( Y\right) =\bigcap\limits_{x,y\in Y}\rho \left( x,y\right) .$$
If $Y\subset X$ is a bounded set then $\mathrm{D}\left( Y\right) \neq
\emptyset $. It is easily seen that $\mathcal{U}\in \mathrm{D}\left(
Y\right) $ if and only if $Y$ is bounded by $\mathcal{U}$. The following properties of diameter are proved in [@RichardA Proposition 4].
\[P9\]
1. $\rho \left( x,y\right) \prec \mathrm{D}\left( A\right) $ for all $%
x,y\in A$.
2. $\mathrm{D}\left( A\right) \prec \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) $ if $%
A\subset B$.
3. $\mathrm{D}\left( A\right) \prec \mathrm{D}\left( \mathrm{cls}\left(
A\right) \right) \prec 2\mathrm{D}\left( A\right) .$
We finally define measure of noncompactness.
Let $Y\subset X$ be a nonempty set. The **star measure of noncompactness** of $Y$ is the set $\alpha \left( Y\right) \in \mathcal{P}%
\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ defined as $$\alpha \left( Y\right) =\left\{ \mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}:Y\text{ admits a
finite cover }Y\subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{St}\left[ x_{i},%
\mathcal{U}\right] \right\} ;$$the **Kuratowski measure of noncompactness** of $Y$ is the set $\gamma
\left( Y\right) \in \mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ defined as $$\gamma \left( Y\right) =\left\{ \mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}:Y\text{ admits a
finite cover }Y\subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}\text{ with }\mathcal{U}%
\in \mathrm{D}\left( X_{i}\right) \right\} .$$
If $Y\subset X$ is a bounded set then both the sets $\alpha \left( Y\right) $ and $\gamma \left( Y\right) $ are nonempty. The following properties of measure of noncompactness are proved in [@RichardA Proposition 10].
\[P19\]
1. $\alpha \left( Y\right) \prec \gamma \left( Y\right) \prec 1\alpha
\left( Y\right) .$
2. $\alpha \left( Y\right) \prec \mathrm{D}\left( Y\right) .$
3. $\alpha \left( Y\right) \prec \alpha \left( Z\right) $ if $Y\subset Z$.
4. $\alpha \left( Y\cup Z\right) =\alpha \left( Y\right) \cap \alpha
\left( Y\right) .$
5. $\alpha \left( Y\right) \prec \alpha \left( \mathrm{cls}\left(
Y\right) \right) \prec 1\alpha \left( Y\right) .$
Recall that a net $\left( x_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$ in $X$ is $\mathcal{O}$-Cauchy if for each $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ there is some $\lambda _{0}\in \Lambda $ such that such that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho
\left( x_{\lambda _{1}},x_{\lambda _{2}}\right) $ whenever $\lambda
_{1},\lambda _{2}\geqslant \lambda _{0}$. If every Cauchy net in the admissible space $X$ converges then $X$ is called a **complete admissible space**. If $\mathrm{cls}\left( Y\right) $ is compact then $\alpha
\left( Y\right) =\mathcal{O}$. The converse holds if $X$ is a complete admissible space (see [@RichardA Proposition 11]). The following theorem is proved in [@RichardA].
\[TK\] The admissible space $X$ is complete if and only if every decreasing net $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ of nonempty bounded closed sets of $X$, with $\gamma \left( F_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, has nonempty compact intersection.
\[SectionHyperspace\]The hyperspace
===================================
In this section we define hyperspace by means of a binary function of the admissible space. Throughout, there is a fixed completely regular space $X$ endowed with an admissible family of open coverings $\mathcal{O}$.
For a given point $x\in X$ and a subset $A\subset X$, we define the set $%
\rho \left( x,A\right) \in \mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ by$$\rho \left( x,A\right) =\bigcup\limits_{a\in A}\rho \left( x,a\right) .$$In Propositions \[P2\] and \[PKS\] below, we present some relevant properties of $\rho \left( x,A\right) $.
\[P2\]For a given point $x\in X$ and subsets $A,B\subset X$, the following properties hold:
1. $\rho \left( x,A\right) \prec \rho \left( x,a\right) $ for all $a\in A$.
2. If $B\supset A$ then $\rho \left( x,B\right) \prec \rho \left(
x,A\right) $.
3. $\rho \left( x,A\right) =\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $x\in \mathrm{cls}%
\left( A\right) $.
4. $\rho \left( x,\mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) \right) =\rho \left(
x,A\right) .$
Items $\left( 1\right) $ and $\left( 2\right) $ follow immediately by definition. For item $\left( 3\right) $, note that $\rho \left( x,A\right) =%
\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $A\cap \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right]
\neq \emptyset $ for all $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$. Since the collection $%
\left\{ \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] :\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}%
\right\} $ is a neighborhood base at $x$, it follows that $\rho \left(
x,A\right) =\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $x\in \mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) $. We now prove item $\left( 4\right) $. If $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x,%
\mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) \right) $ then $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left(
x,y\right) $ for some $y\in \mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) $. Hence $y\in
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \cap \mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) $, and therefore $\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \cap A\neq \emptyset $ because $\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] $ is open. It follows that $%
\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x,a\right) $ for some $a\in A$. Thus $\mathcal{U}%
\in \rho \left( x,A\right) $ and we have the inclusion $\rho \left( x,%
\mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) \right) \subset \rho \left( x,A\right) $. The inclusion $\rho \left( x,A\right) \subset \rho \left( x,\mathrm{cls}\left(
A\right) \right) $ is clear.
\[PKS\] Let $K$ be a compact subset of $X$ and $(x_{\lambda })_{\lambda
\in \Lambda }$ a net in $X$. If $\rho \left( x_{\lambda },K\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ then $x_{\lambda }$ admits a convergent subnet $%
x_{\lambda _{\mu }}\rightarrow y$, with $y\in \mathrm{cls}\left( K\right) $.
For a given $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, there is $\lambda _{\mathcal{U}%
}\in \Lambda $ such that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x_{\lambda },K\right) $ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{\mathcal{U}}$. Hence, for every $\lambda
\geq \lambda _{\mathcal{U}}$, we can take $z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}%
\right) }\in K$ such that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x_{\lambda },z_{\left(
\lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right) }\right) $. Define the set $$\Gamma =\left\{ \left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right) :\mathcal{U}\in \rho
\left( x_{\lambda },z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right) }\right) \right\}$$directed by $\left( \lambda _{1},\mathcal{U}_{1}\right) \geq \left( \lambda
_{2},\mathcal{U}_{2}\right) $ if and only if $\lambda _{1}\geq \lambda _{2}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{1}\leqslant \mathcal{U}_{2}$. For each $\left( \lambda ,%
\mathcal{U}\right) \in \Gamma $, we define $x_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}%
\right) }=x_{\lambda }$. By compactness of $K$, we may assume that $%
z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right) }\rightarrow z$ for some $z\in \mathrm{%
cls}\left( K\right) $. Now, for a given $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, take $%
\mathcal{U}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{O}$ with $\mathcal{U}^{\prime }\leqslant
\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. As $\rho \left( z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}%
\right) },z\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, there is $\left( \lambda _{0},%
\mathcal{U}_{0}\right) $ such that $\mathcal{U}^{\prime }\in \rho \left(
z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) },z\right) $ whenever $\left( \lambda ,%
\mathcal{V}\right) \geq \left( \lambda _{0},\mathcal{U}_{0}\right) $. Choose $\mathcal{U}_{0}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{U}%
_{0}^{\prime }\leqslant \mathcal{U}^{\prime }$ and $\mathcal{U}_{0}^{\prime
}\leqslant \mathcal{U}_{0}$. If $\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) \geq
\left( \lambda _{0},\mathcal{U}_{0}^{\prime }\right) $ then $\mathcal{U}%
^{\prime }\in \rho \left( x_{\lambda },z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right)
}\right) $, by hereditariness since $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left( x_{\lambda
},z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) }\right) $ and $\mathcal{U}^{\prime
}\in \rho \left( z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) },z\right) $, as $%
\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) \geq \left( \lambda _{0},\mathcal{U}%
_{0}\right) $. It follows that$$\rho \left( x_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right) },z\right) \prec 1(\rho
(x_{\lambda },z_{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) })\cap \rho (z_{\left(
\lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) },z))\prec 1\{\mathcal{U}^{\prime }\}\prec \{%
\mathcal{U}\}$$for all $\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{V}\right) \geq \left( \lambda _{0},%
\mathcal{U}_{0}^{\prime }\right) $. Thus the subnet $\left( x_{\left(
\lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right) }\right) _{\left( \lambda ,\mathcal{U}\right)
\in \Gamma }$ of $\left( x_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$ converges to $z\in \mathrm{cls}\left( K\right) $.
We now extend $\rho $ to an operation of sets.
For two closed subsets $A,B\subset X$, we define the collection $\rho
_{A}\left( B\right) \in \mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ by $$\rho _{A}\left( B\right) =\bigcap\limits_{b\in B}\rho \left( b,A\right)
=\bigcap\limits_{b\in B}\bigcup\limits_{a\in A}\rho \left( b,a\right)$$and the collection $\rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) \in \mathcal{P}\left(
\mathcal{O}\right) $ by $$\rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) =\rho _{A}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{B}\left(
A\right) =\left\{ \bigcap\limits_{b\in B}\bigcup\limits_{a\in A}\rho \left(
a,b\right) \right\} \cap \left\{ \bigcap\limits_{a\in A}\bigcup\limits_{b\in
B}\rho \left( a,b\right) \right\} .$$
Note that $\rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) $ is a symmetric relation, although $%
\rho _{A}\left( B\right) $ not. By Proposition \[P2\], $\rho _{H}\left(
A,B\right) =\rho _{H}\left( \mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) ,\mathrm{cls}\left(
B\right) \right) $ for all subsets $A,B\subset X$. Thus we may consider only closed sets in working with the function $\rho _{H}$.
From now on, the collection of all nonempty closed subsets of $X$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $. In the following we present some properties of $\rho _{H}$ on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $.
\[P3\]The binary function $\rho _{H}:\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \times
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{P}\left( \mathcal{O}\right) $ satisfies the following properties:
1. $\rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) =\rho _{H}\left( B,A\right) $ for all $%
A,B\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $.
2. $\rho _{H}\left( \left\{ x\right\} ,\left\{ y\right\} \right) =\rho
\left( x,y\right) $ for all $x,y\in X$.
3. $\rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) =\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $A=B$.
4. $\rho _{H}\left( A,C\right) \prec 1\left( \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right)
\cap \rho _{H}\left( B,C\right) \right) $ for all $A,B,C\in \mathcal{H}%
\left( X\right) $.
5. $\rho _{H}\left( A\cup B,C\cup D\right) \prec \rho _{H}\left(
A,C\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left( B,D\right) $ for all $A,B,C,D\in \mathcal{H}%
\left( X\right) $.
6. $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) $ if and only if $A\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $ and $B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,%
\mathcal{U}\right] $.
Items $\left( 1\right) $ and $\left( 2\right) $ are immediate from the definition. For item $\left( 3\right) $, note that $\rho _{A}\left( B\right)
=\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $B\subset \mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) =A$, by Proposition \[P2\]. Analogously, $\rho _{B}\left( A\right) =\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $A\subset B$. Hence, $\rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) =\mathcal{O}$ if and only if $\rho _{A}\left( B\right) =\rho _{B}\left( A\right) =\mathcal{%
O}$ if and only if $A=B$. For item $\left( 4\right) $, suppose that $%
\mathcal{U}\in 1\left( \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left(
B,C\right) \right) $. Then there is $\mathcal{V}\in \rho _{H}\left(
A,B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left( B,C\right) $ such that $\mathcal{V}\leqslant
\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V} &\in &\rho _{A}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{B}\left( A\right)
\cap \rho _{B}\left( C\right) \cap \rho _{C}\left( B\right) \\
&=&\left\{ \bigcap\limits_{b\in B}\bigcup\limits_{a\in A}\rho \left(
a,b\right) \right\} \cap \left\{ \bigcap\limits_{a\in A}\bigcup\limits_{b\in
B}\rho \left( a,b\right) \right\} \cap \left\{ \bigcap\limits_{c\in
C}\bigcup\limits_{b\in B}\rho \left( b,c\right) \right\} \cap \left\{
\bigcap\limits_{b\in B}\bigcup\limits_{c\in C}\rho \left( b,c\right)
\right\} .\end{aligned}$$For a given $c\in C$, there is $b\in B$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
\left( b,c\right) $, because $\mathcal{V}\in \rho _{B}\left( C\right) $. For this $b$, there is $a\in A$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left( a,b\right)
$, since $\mathcal{V}\in \rho _{A}\left( B\right) $. Hence $a,c\in \mathrm{St%
}\left[ b,\mathcal{V}\right] $, which implies $a\in \mathrm{St}\left[ c,%
\mathcal{U}\right] $, as $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. Thus $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( a,c\right) $. Since $c\in C$ is arbitrary, it follows that $\mathcal{U}\in \bigcap\limits_{c\in C}\rho \left( c,A\right)
=\rho _{A}\left( C\right) $. Similarly, by using $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
_{B}\left( A\right) \cap \rho _{C}\left( B\right) $, we obtain $\mathcal{U}%
\in \bigcap\limits_{a\in A}\rho \left( a,C\right) =\rho _{A}\left( C\right) $. Therefore $1\left( \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left(
B,C\right) \right) \subset \rho _{A}\left( C\right) \cap \rho _{C}\left(
A\right) =\rho _{H}\left( A,C\right) $. We now show the item $\left(
5\right) $. Suppose that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{H}\left( A,C\right) \cap
\rho _{H}\left( B,D\right) $ and let $x\in A\cup B$ and $y\in C\cup D$. In the case $x\in A$, we have $$\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{C}\left( A\right) \subset \rho \left( x,C\right)
\subset \rho \left( x,C\cup D\right) .$$If $x\in B$, we have $$\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{D}\left( B\right) \subset \rho \left( x,D\right)
\subset \rho \left( x,C\cup D\right) .$$Hence $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{C\cup D}\left( A\cup B\right) $. If $y\in C$ or $y\in D$, we have respectively $$\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{A}\left( C\right) \subset \rho \left( y,A\right)
\subset \rho \left( y,A\cup B\right)$$or $$\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{B}\left( D\right) \subset \rho \left( y,B\right)
\subset \rho \left( y,A\cup B\right) .$$Hence $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{A\cup B}\left( C\cup D\right) $, and therefore $%
\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{H}\left( A\cup B,C\cup D\right) $. It follows that $%
\rho _{H}\left( A,C\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left( B,D\right) \subset \rho
_{H}\left( A\cup B,C\cup D\right) $. Finally, we show the item $\left(
6\right) $. We have $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) $ if and only if $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( a,B\right) $, for every $a\in A$, and $%
\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( b,A\right) $, for every $b\in B$, which means that $A\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $ and $B\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] $.
The function $\rho _{H}$ also relates to the notion of diameter. In fact, by estimating the diameter of a reunion of sets, the distance between the sets should be regarded, as the following.
Let $A,B\subset X$ be nonempty subsets. The following properties hold:
1. $\mathrm{D}\left( A\cup B\right) \prec 1\left( \mathrm{D}\left(
A\right) \cap \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{A}\left( B\right)
\right) .$
2. $\mathrm{D}\left( A\cup B\right) \prec 1\left( \mathrm{D}\left(
A\right) \cap \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{B}\left( A\right)
\right) .$
3. $\mathrm{D}\left( A\cup B\right) \prec 1\left( \mathrm{D}\left(
A\right) \cap \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right)
\right) .$
For item $\left( 1\right) $ we suppose the nontrivial case $1\left( \mathrm{D%
}\left( A\right) \cap \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left(
A,B\right) \right) \neq \emptyset $. If $\mathcal{U}\in 1\left( \mathrm{D}%
\left( A\right) \cap \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left(
A,B\right) \right) $ then there is $\mathcal{V}\in \mathrm{D}\left( A\right)
\cap \mathrm{D}\left( B\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) $ such that $%
\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. Let $x,y\in A\cup B$. If $%
x,y\in A$, we have $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left( x,y\right) $, and then $%
\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x,y\right) $ because $\rho \left( x,y\right) $ is upward hereditary. By the same reason, $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left(
x,y\right) $ if $x,y\in B$. Suppose $x\in A$ and $y\in B$. Since $\mathcal{V}%
\in \rho _{A}\left( B\right) =\bigcap\limits_{b\in B}\bigcup\limits_{a\in
A}\rho \left( a,b\right) $, there is $a\in A$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
\left( a,y\right) $. As $\mathcal{V}\in \mathrm{D}\left( A\right) $, we have $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left( x,a\right) $. Hence $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left(
x,a\right) \cap \rho \left( a,y\right) $ and then $\mathcal{U}\in 1\left(
\rho \left( x,a\right) \cap \rho \left( a,y\right) \right) $. Since $\rho
\left( x,y\right) \prec 1\left( \rho \left( x,a\right) \cap \rho \left(
a,y\right) \right) $, it follows that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x,y\right)
$. In any case we have $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( x,y\right) $ for arbitraries $x,y\in A\cup B$. Therefore $\mathcal{U}\in \mathrm{D}\left(
A\cup B\right) $. Item $\left( 2\right) $ can be analogously proved and item $\left( 3\right) $ is a straightforward consequence of item $\left( 1\right)
$ together with item $\left( 2\right) $.
In order to provide a uniformity on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $, we construct a base for diagonal uniformity by means of the function $\rho _{H}$. For each $A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ and $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}
$, we define the set $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) $ in $%
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) &=&\left\{ B\in \mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) :\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{H}\left( A,B\right) \right\} \\
&=&\left\{ B\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) :A\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ B,%
\mathcal{U}\right] \text{ and }B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{U}%
\right] \right\} .\end{aligned}$$
We now construct a diagonal uniformity on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ by means of the sets $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) $. It should be remembered that for two surroundings $D,E\subset \mathcal{H}\left( X\right)
\times \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $, one has the composition $$D\circ E=\left\{ \left( A,B\right) \in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \times
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) :\left( A,C\right) \in E\text{ and }\left(
C,B\right) \in D\text{ for some }C\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \right\}$$and the inverse $$D^{-1}=\left\{ \left( A,B\right) \in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \times
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) :\left( B,A\right) \in D\right\} .$$
\[T4\] The collection of the sets $D_{\mathcal{U}}=\bigcup \left\{
\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) \times \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,%
\mathcal{U}\right) :A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \right\} $, for $%
\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, is a base for a diagonal uniformity $\mathfrak{D%
}_{\mathcal{H}}$ on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $.
Let $\Delta \subset \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \times \mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) $ be the diagonal of $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $, that is, $%
\Delta =\left\{ \left( A,A\right) :A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \right\} $. It is easily seen that $\Delta \subset D_{\mathcal{U}}$ for all $\mathcal{U%
}\in \mathcal{O}$. For $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$, take $%
\mathcal{W}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}%
\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{V}$. If $\left(
A,B\right) \in D_{\mathcal{W}}$ then there is $C\in \mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) $ such that $\left( A,B\right) \in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{W%
}\right) \times \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{W}\right) $. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
A &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{W}\right] \text{ and }C\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{W}\right] , \\
B &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{W}\right] \text{ and }C\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{W}\right] .\end{aligned}$$Thus $A\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{W}\right] $ and $C\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{W}\right] $, which implies $A\subset \mathrm{St}%
\left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $, since $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}%
\mathcal{U}$. On the other hand $B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{W}%
\right] $ and $C\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{W}\right] $, which implies $B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Hence $A\in
\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( B,\mathcal{U}\right) $, and therefore $\left(
A,B\right) \in D_{\mathcal{U}}$. As $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}%
\mathcal{V}$, we can similarly prove that $\left( A,B\right) \in D_{\mathcal{%
V}}$. Thus $D_{\mathcal{W}}\subset D_{\mathcal{U}}\cap D_{\mathcal{V}}$. Now, for a given surrounding $D_{\mathcal{U}}$, we should find $\mathcal{V},%
\mathcal{W}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $D_{\mathcal{V}}\circ D_{\mathcal{V}%
}\subset D_{\mathcal{U}}$ and $D_{\mathcal{W}}^{-1}\subset D_{\mathcal{U}}$. For indeed, since $D_{\mathcal{U}}$ is symmetric, we have $D_{\mathcal{U}%
}^{-1}=D_{\mathcal{U}}$. Take $\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $%
\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. If $\left( A,B\right) \in D_{%
\mathcal{V}}\circ D_{\mathcal{V}}$ then there is $C\in \mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) $ such that $\left( A,C\right) ,\left( C,B\right) \in D_{\mathcal{V}%
}$. Hence there are $E,F\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ such that $\left(
A,C\right) \in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( E,\mathcal{V}\right) \times \mathrm{B}%
_{H}\left( E,\mathcal{V}\right) $ and $\left( C,B\right) \in \mathrm{B}%
_{H}\left( F,\mathcal{V}\right) \times \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( F,\mathcal{V}%
\right) $. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
A &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ E,\mathcal{V}\right] \text{ and }E\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{V}\right] , \\
C &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ E,\mathcal{V}\right] \text{ and }E\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{V}\right] , \\
C &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{V}\right] \text{ and }F\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{V}\right] , \\
B &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{V}\right] \text{ and }F\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{V}\right] .\end{aligned}$$As $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
A &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{U}\right] \text{ and }C\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] , \\
B &\subset &\mathrm{St}\left[ C,\mathcal{U}\right] \text{ and }C\subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] .\end{aligned}$$Hence $\left( A,B\right) \in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{U}\right)
\times \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{U}\right) $, and therefore $D_{%
\mathcal{V}}\circ D_{\mathcal{V}}\subset D_{\mathcal{U}}$.
The resulting uniform space $\left( \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) ,\mathfrak{D}%
_{\mathcal{H}}\right) $ is called *hyperspace* of $X$ with respect to the admissible family $\mathcal{O}$.
Recall that the uniform topology on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ generated by $\mathfrak{D}_{\mathcal{H}}$ is the topology whose neighborhood base at $%
A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ is formed by the collection $\mathcal{N}%
_{A}=\left\{ D\left[ A\right] :D\in \mathfrak{D}_{\mathcal{H}}\right\} $ where $$D\left[ A\right] =\left\{ B\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) :\left( A,B\right)
\in D\right\} .$$The same topology is produced if we consider only elements $D_{\mathcal{U}}$ in the base for $\mathfrak{D}_{\mathcal{H}}$ (see [@Will Theorem 35.6]). The covering uniformity $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{H}}$ associated to the diagonal uniformity $\mathfrak{D}_{\mathcal{H}}$ has a base of uniform coverings of the form $\upsilon \left( D\right) =\left\{ D\left[ A\right]
:A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) \right\} $ for $D\in \mathfrak{D}_{\mathcal{%
H}}$.
\[T3\]For any $A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $, one has the inclusions:
1. $D_{\mathcal{V}}\left[ A\right] \subset \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,%
\mathcal{U}\right) \subset D_{\mathcal{U}}\left[ A\right] $ whenever $%
\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$.
2. $\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\upsilon \left( D_{\mathcal{V}}\right) \right]
\subset \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) \subset \mathrm{St}\left[
A,\upsilon \left( D_{\mathcal{U}}\right) \right] $ whenever $\mathcal{V}%
\leqslant \frac{1}{2^{2}}\mathcal{U}$.
$\left( 1\right) $ If $B\in D_{\mathcal{V}}\left[ A\right] $ then $\left(
A,B\right) \in D_{\mathcal{V}}$, hence there is $C\in \mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) $ such that $\left( A,B\right) \in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{V%
}\right) \times \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{V}\right) $. As $\mathcal{V}%
\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$, it follows that $B\in \mathrm{B}%
_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) $. The inclusion $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,%
\mathcal{U}\right) \subset D_{\mathcal{U}}\left[ A\right] $ is obvious.
$\left( 2\right) $ Let $\mathcal{W}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{V}%
\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}%
\mathcal{U}$. If $B\in \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\upsilon \left( D_{\mathcal{V}%
}\right) \right] $ then $A,B\in D_{\mathcal{V}}\left[ C\right] $ for some $%
C\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $. By item $\left( 1\right) $, we have $D_{%
\mathcal{V}}\left[ C\right] \subset \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{W}%
\right) $, hence $A,B\in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( C,\mathcal{W}\right) $. As $%
\mathcal{W}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$, it follows that $B\in \mathrm{B%
}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) $. Thus $\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\upsilon
\left( D_{\mathcal{V}}\right) \right] \subset \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,%
\mathcal{U}\right) $. Now, since $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right)
\subset D_{\mathcal{U}}\left[ A\right] $, the inclusion $\mathrm{B}%
_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) \subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\upsilon \left(
D_{\mathcal{U}}\right) \right] $ is clear.
The following results are immediate consequences of Proposition \[P3\], item 3, and Theorem \[T3\].
\[EC\] Let $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ be a net in $\mathcal{H}(X)$ and $F\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $. Then $F_{\lambda }\rightarrow F$ if and only if $\rho _{H}\left( F_{\lambda },F\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$.
The uniform topology in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ is Hausdorff.
Note that the convergence in the uniform topology generalizes the notion of Hausdorff convergence in metric spaces.
We now discuss the case of compact admissible space. Assume that $X$ is a compact Hausdorff space and let $\mathcal{O}_{f}$ be the admissible family of all finite open coverings of $X$. Then the hyperspace $\mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) $ is the set of all nonempty compact subsets of $X$. We shall prove that the uniform topology of $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ coincides with the Hausdorff topology. For a given finite collection $\mathcal{C}=\left\{
U_{1},...,U_{n}\right\} $ of open sets in $X$, we define the set $%
\left\langle \mathcal{C}\right\rangle \subset \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ by $$\left\langle \mathcal{C}\right\rangle =\left\{ A\in \mathcal{H}\left(
X\right) :A\subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{n}U_{i}\text{ and }A\cap U_{i}\neq
\emptyset \text{ for every }i=1,...,n\right\} .$$For $A\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ and $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}_{f}$, we define the collection $$\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] =\left\{ U\in \mathcal{U}:A\cap U\neq \emptyset
\right\} .$$It is well-known that the set $\mathcal{B}_{\mathcal{H}}=\left\{
\left\langle \left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] \right\rangle :A\in \mathcal{H}%
\left( X\right) ,\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}_{f}\right\} $ is a base for the compact Hausdorff topology of $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ ([@Michael]).
\[T5\]The uniform topology on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $, generated by the diagonal uniformity $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{H}}$, coincides with the Hausdorff topology.
According to Theorem \[T3\], it is enough to show that for each $A\in
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ and $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}_{f}$ there is $%
\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}_{f}$ such that $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{V}%
\right) \subset \left\langle \left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] \right\rangle
\subset \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) $. Firstly, note that $%
\mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] =\bigcup\limits_{U\in \left[ A,%
\mathcal{U}\right] }U$. If $B\in \left\langle \left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right]
\right\rangle $ then $B\subset \bigcup\limits_{U\in \left[ A,\mathcal{U}%
\right] }U$ and $B\cap U\neq \emptyset $ for every $U\in \left[ A,\mathcal{U}%
\right] $. Hence $B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] $ and $%
\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset \left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $. The second inclusion implies $A\subset \bigcup\limits_{U\in \left[ B,\mathcal{U}%
\right] }U=\mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Hence $B\in \mathrm{B}%
_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}\right) $, and therefore $\left\langle \left[ A,%
\mathcal{U}\right] \right\rangle \subset \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{U}%
\right) $. Now, let $\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] =\left\{
U_{1},...,U_{n}\right\} $. For each $i=1,...,n$, choose $x_{i}\in A\cap
U_{i} $ and define $\mathcal{V}_{i}\in \mathcal{O}_{f}$ by$$\mathcal{V}_{i}=\left\{ U_{1}\setminus \left\{ x_{i}\right\}
,...,U_{i},...,U_{n}\setminus \left\{ x_{i}\right\} ,X\setminus A\right\} .$$Take $\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}_{f}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\leqslant
\mathcal{V}_{i}$ for every $i=1,...,n$. We claim that $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left(
A,\mathcal{V}\right) \subset \left\langle \left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right]
\right\rangle $. For indeed, if $B\in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( A,\mathcal{V}%
\right) $ then $B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{V}\right] $ and $%
A\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{V}\right] $. Since $\mathcal{V}%
\leqslant \mathcal{V}_{i}$, we have $B\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ A,\mathcal{V}%
_{i}\right] $ and $A\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ B,\mathcal{V}_{i}\right] $. As $$\left[ A,\mathcal{V}_{i}\right] \subset \left\{ U_{1}\setminus \left\{
x_{i}\right\} ,...,U_{i},...,U_{n}\setminus \left\{ x_{i}\right\} \right\}$$it follows that $$B\subset \left( U_{1}\setminus \left\{ x_{i}\right\} \right) \cup \ldots
\cup U_{i}\cup \ldots \cup \left( U_{n}\setminus \left\{ x_{i}\right\}
\right) \subset \bigcup\limits_{j=1}^{n}U_{j}.$$To conclude that $B\in \left\langle \left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right]
\right\rangle $, it remains to prove the inclusion $\left[ A,\mathcal{U}%
\right] \subset \left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Suppose by contradiction that $B\cap U_{i}=\emptyset $ for some $U_{i}\in \left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Then $U_{i}\notin \left[ B,\mathcal{V}_{i}\right] $. As $A\subset \mathrm{St}%
\left[ B,\mathcal{V}_{i}\right] $, it follows that $A\subset \left(
\bigcup\limits_{j=1,j\neq i}^{n}U_{j}\right) \setminus \left\{ x_{i}\right\}
$, which is a contradiction. Hence $B\cap U_{i}\neq \emptyset $, and therefore $\left[ A,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset \left[ B,\mathcal{U}\right] $.
\[HK\]Hyperconvergence
======================
In this section we present some analogues of classical theorems involving set convergence on hyperspace. We define the notion of Kuratowski hyperconvergence and show that it coincides with the Hausdorff convergence in the compact case. Throughout, there is a fixed admissible space $X$ endowed with an admissible family of open coverings $\mathcal{O}$.
For the following, we call *Hausdorff convergence* the convergence with respect to the uniform topology on $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $.
\[b2’\] Let $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) ,\left( G_{\lambda }\right) $ be nets in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ and $F,G\in \mathcal{H}\left( X\right)
$. The following statement holds:
1. If $\rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ and $%
F\subset G$ then $\rho _{G}(F_{\lambda })\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$.
2. If $G_{\lambda }\subset F_{\lambda }$, for every $\lambda $, and $\rho
_{F}(F_{\lambda })\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ then $\rho _{F}(G_{\lambda
})\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$.
3. If $\rho _{G}(F_{\lambda })\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ and $\rho
_{F_{\lambda }}(F)\rightarrow \mathcal{\mathcal{\mathcal{\mathcal{\mathcal{O}%
}}}}$ then $F\subset G.$
4. If If $G_{\lambda }\subset F_{\lambda }$, for every $\lambda $, $%
F_{\lambda }\rightarrow F$, and $G_{\lambda }\rightarrow G$ then $F\subset G$.
Items $\left( 1\right) ,\left( 2\right) $ are obvious since $\rho _{G}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) \prec \rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ and $\rho
_{F}\left( G_{\lambda }\right) \prec \rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $. For item $\left( 3\right) $, we have $\rho _{G}\left( F\right) \prec 1\left(
\rho _{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right) \cap \rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right)
\right) $. Since $\rho _{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right) \cap \rho _{F}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, it follows that $1\left( \rho
_{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right) \cap \rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right)
\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, and therefore $\rho _{G}\left( F\right) =%
\mathcal{O}$. This means that $F\subset G$. For proving item $\left(
4\right) $, let $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$ with $\mathcal{V}%
\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. As $\rho _{H}\left( F_{\lambda },F\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ and $\rho _{H}\left( G_{\lambda },G\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, there exists $\lambda _{0}$ such that $\mathcal{V}%
\in \rho _{H}\left( F_{\lambda },F\right) \cap \rho _{H}\left( G_{\lambda
},G\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Hence $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
_{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right) \cap \rho _{G}\left( G_{\lambda }\right) $ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Now, since $F_{\lambda }\subset
G_{\lambda }$, we have $\rho _{G}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) \prec \rho
_{G}\left( G_{\lambda }\right) $, and then $\mathcal{V}\in \rho _{G}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) $ for $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Hence $$\rho _{G}(F)\prec 1(\rho _{F_{\lambda }}(F)\cap \rho _{G}(F_{\lambda
}))\prec 1\left\{ \mathcal{V}\right\} \prec \{\mathcal{U}\}.$$This means that $\rho _{G}\left( F\right) =\mathcal{O}$ and therefore $%
F\subset G$.
\[b2”\] Assume that $X$ is a Hausdorff space. Let $\left( K_{\lambda
}\right) \subset \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ be a net of compacts subsets and $B\subset X$ a compact subset. If $K_{\lambda }\rightarrow K$, with $K$ compact and $K_{\lambda }\cap B\neq \emptyset $ for all $\lambda $, then $%
K\cap B\neq \emptyset $.
Let $\left( x_{\lambda }\right) $ be a net with $x_{\lambda }\in K_{\lambda
}\cap B$. Since $B$ is compact, we may assume that $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow
a $ for some $a\in B$. Now, considerer $\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O%
}$ with $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. As $\rho _{H}\left(
K_{\lambda },K\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, there exists $\lambda _{0}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho _{K}\left( K_{\lambda }\right) $ for all $%
\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. This step concludes that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
_{K}\left( x_{\lambda }\right) $ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Then we can take some point $a^{\prime }\in K$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
\left( a^{\prime },x_{\lambda }\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Since $\rho \left( x_{\lambda },a\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, there exists $\lambda _{1}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho \left( x_{\lambda
},a\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{1}$. For $\lambda \geq \lambda
_{0},\lambda _{1}$, we have $$\rho \left( a,K\right) \prec \rho (a,a^{\prime })\prec 1(\rho (a,x_{\lambda
})\cap \rho (x_{\lambda },a^{\prime }))\prec 1\{\mathcal{V}\}\prec \{%
\mathcal{U}\}.$$It follows that $\rho (a,K)=\mathcal{O}$, which implies $a\in K$. Therefore $%
a\in K\cap B$.
We now define Kuratowski convergence.
Let $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ be a net in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $. The sets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{LS}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) &=&\left\{ x\in X:\text{for every
open neighborhood }U\text{ of }x\text{, }U\cap F_{\lambda }\neq \emptyset
\hspace{0.1cm}\text{frequently}\right\} , \\
\mathcal{LI}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) &=&\left\{ x\in X:\text{for every
open neighborhood }U\text{ of }x\text{, }U\cap F_{\lambda }\neq \emptyset
\hspace{0.1cm}\text{residually}\right\}\end{aligned}$$are called respectively **upper limit** and **lower limit** of $%
\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $. We say that $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ is **Kuratowski convergent** to $F\in \mathcal{H}(X)$ ($F_{\lambda }%
\overset{k}{\rightarrow }F$ for short) if and only if $F=\mathcal{LS}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) =\mathcal{LI}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $.
Note that $\mathcal{LI}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) \subset \mathcal{LS}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) $. Then, to verify the Kuratowski convergence, it is enough to prove the inclusions $\mathcal{LS}\left( F_{\lambda }\right)
\subset F\subset \mathcal{LI}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $.
\[PK\] Let $(F_{\lambda })$ be a net in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $.
1. If $\rho _{F}(F_{\lambda })\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ then $\mathcal{LS}%
\left( F_{\lambda }\right) \subset F$.
2. If $\rho _{F_{\lambda }}(F)\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ then $F\subset
\mathcal{LI}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $.
3. If $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ is a decreasing net and $%
F=\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{F_{\lambda }}$, with $\rho _{F}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, then $F_{\lambda }\rightarrow
F $.
4. Suppose that $X$ is complete and $\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ is a net of nonempty closed subsets of $X$ such that $\gamma \left( F_{\lambda
}\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. Then $F=\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{%
F_{\lambda }}$ is nonempty, compact, and $\rho _{H}\left( F_{\lambda
},F\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$.
$\left( 1\right) $ Take $x\in \mathcal{LS}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ and $%
\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$ with $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2%
}\mathcal{U}$. Since $\rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow
\mathcal{O}$, there is $\lambda _{0}\in \Lambda $ such that $\mathcal{V}\in
\rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Hence $F_{\lambda }\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{V}\right] $ for all $%
\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Since $x\in \mathcal{LS}\left( F_{\lambda
}\right) $, there exists $\lambda ^{\prime }\geq \lambda _{0}$ such that $%
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V}\right] \cap F_{\lambda ^{\prime }}\neq
\emptyset $. Let $y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V}\right] \cap
F_{\lambda ^{\prime }}$. As $y\in F_{\lambda ^{\prime }}$, it follows that $%
y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{V}\right] $, and therefore $\mathcal{V}\in
\rho \left( y,k\right) $ for some $k\in F$. Then we have $$\rho (x,k)\prec 1(\rho (x,y)\cap \rho (y,k))\prec 1\{\mathcal{V}\}\prec \{%
\mathcal{U}\}$$for all $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$. This implies $\rho \left( x,F\right) =%
\mathcal{O}$, and then $x\in F$.
$\left( 2\right) $ Let $x\in F$ and $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$. Since $%
\rho _{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, we can take $%
\lambda _{0}\in \Lambda $ such that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{F_{\lambda
}}\left( F\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Thus $x\in \mathrm{%
St}\left[ F_{\lambda },\mathcal{U}\right] $, which means $F_{\lambda }\cap
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \neq \emptyset $ for all $\lambda
\geq \lambda _{0}$. Therefore $x\in \mathcal{LI}(F_{\lambda })$.
$\left( 3\right) $ It is obvious since $\rho _{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right) =%
\mathcal{O}$ for every $\lambda $.
$\left( 4\right) $ By Theorem \[TK\], $F=\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{%
F_{\lambda }}$ is nonempty and compact. Suppose by contradiction that $%
\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $ does not converges to $F$ in the uniform topology. Then there is some $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that for every $\lambda \in \Lambda $ there exists $\lambda ^{\prime }\geq \lambda $ with $\mathcal{U}\notin \rho _{H}\left( F_{\lambda ^{\prime }},F\right) $. Since $F\subset F_{\lambda ^{\prime }}$, this means that $F_{\lambda
^{\prime }}\nsubseteq \mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{U}\right] $. As $%
F_{\lambda ^{\prime }}\subset F_{\lambda }$ it follows that $F_{\lambda
}\nsubseteq \mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{U}\right] $ for all $\lambda \in
\Lambda $. We now define $C_{\lambda }=F_{\lambda }\cap \left( X\setminus
\mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{U}\right] \right) $ for each $\lambda \in
\Lambda $. Then $\left( C_{\lambda }\right) $ is a decreasing net of nonempty closed sets such that $\gamma \left( C_{\lambda }\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, as $C_{\lambda }\subset F_{\lambda }$ and $\gamma
\left( F_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. By Theorem \[TK\], $%
\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{C_{\lambda }}\neq \emptyset $. On the other hand $$\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{C_{\lambda }}=\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{%
F_{\lambda }\cap }\left( X\setminus \mathrm{St}\left[ F,\mathcal{U}\right]
\right) =\bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{F_{\lambda }}\cap \left( X\setminus
\mathrm{St}\left[ \bigcap_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{F_{\lambda }},\mathcal{U}%
\right] \right) =\emptyset$$and then we have a contradiction.
This theorem allows to relate Hausdorff convergence and Kuratowski convergence.
Every convergent net in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ is Kuratowski convergent.
If $F_{\lambda }\rightarrow F$ then $\rho _{F}\left( F_{\lambda }\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ and $\rho _{F_{\lambda }}\left( F\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. By Theorem \[PK\], we have $\mathcal{LS}\left(
F_{\lambda }\right) \subset F\subset \mathcal{LI}\left( F_{\lambda }\right) $.
We now show that Hausdorff convergence and Kuratowski convergence are equivalent for compact space.
\[KP\] Assume that $X$ is a compact admissible space. Let $\left(
K_{\lambda }\right) $ be a net in $\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $. If $%
K_{\lambda }\overset{k}{\rightarrow }K$ then $K_{\lambda }\rightarrow K$.
Let $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ and take $x\in X\setminus \mathrm{St}\left[
K,\mathcal{U}\right] $. We have $x\notin \mathcal{LS}\left( K_{\lambda
}\right) =K$. Thus there is an open neighborhood $U_{x}$ of $x$ and $\lambda
_{x}\in \Lambda $ such that $U_{x}\cap K_{\lambda }=\emptyset $ for all $%
\lambda \geq \lambda _{x}$. Since $X\setminus \mathrm{St}\left[ K,\mathcal{U}%
\right] $ is compact, we can take a finite subcovering $X\setminus \mathrm{St%
}\left[ K,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^{n}{U_{x_{i}}}$. Now, choose $\lambda _{0}\in \Lambda $ such that $\lambda _{0}\geq \lambda
_{x_{i}}$ for all $i=1,...,n$. We have $\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}{U_{x_{i}}}\cap
K_{\lambda _{0}}=\emptyset $. This means that $X\setminus \mathrm{St}\left[
K,\mathcal{U}\right] \cap K_{\lambda }=\emptyset $ whenever $\lambda \geq
\lambda _{0}$. It follows that $K_{\lambda }\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ K,%
\mathcal{U}\right] $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$, and therefore $%
\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{K}\left( K_{\lambda }\right) $ whenever $\lambda \geq
\lambda _{0}$. By the compactness of $K$, we can take a finite open covering $K\subset \bigcup_{j=i}^{m}U_{j}$ such that $\mathcal{U}\in \mathrm{D}\left(
U_{j}\right) $ and $U_{j}\cap K\neq \emptyset $ for all $j=1,...,m$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{LI}\left( K_{\lambda }\right) =K$, hence there exists $%
\lambda _{j}\in \Lambda $ for each $j\in \left\{ 1,...,k\right\} $ such that $U_{j}\cap K_{\lambda }\neq \emptyset $ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{j}$. Fix some $\lambda ^{\prime }\geq \lambda _{j}$ for all $j\in \left\{
1,...,k\right\} $. We claim that $K\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ K_{\lambda },%
\mathcal{U}\right] $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda ^{\prime }$. In fact, for a given $x\in K$ there is $j\in \left\{ 1,...,k\right\} $ such that $x\in
U_{j}$. Since $\lambda \geq \lambda _{j}$ for all $j$, we have $U_{j}\cap
K_{\lambda }\neq \emptyset $. Hence there exists $y\in U_{j}\cap K_{\lambda
} $, and then $\rho \left( x,y\right) \prec \mathrm{D}\left( U_{j}\right)
\prec \left\{ \mathcal{U}\right\} $. Therefore $K\subset \mathrm{St}\left[
K_{\lambda },\mathcal{U}\right] $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda ^{\prime }$. Finally, choose $\lambda _{0}^{\prime }\geq \lambda _{0},\lambda ^{\prime }$. This implies that $K\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ K_{\lambda },\mathcal{U}%
\right] $ and $K_{\lambda }\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ K,\mathcal{U}\right] $ for every $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}^{\prime }$. In other words, $\mathcal{U}%
\in \rho _{K}\left( K_{\lambda }\right) \cap \rho _{K_{\lambda }}\left(
K\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}^{\prime }$, and therefore $%
\rho _{H}\left( K_{\lambda },K\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$.
We now define some notions of continuity of set-valued functions. For a given set-valued function $F:X\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ and a set $A\subset X$, we define the sets $$\begin{aligned}
F^{+}\left( A\right) &=&\left\{ x\in X:F(x)\subset A\right\} , \\
F^{-}\left( A\right) &=&\left\{ x\in X:F(x)\cap A\neq \emptyset \right\} .\end{aligned}$$
A set-valued function $F:X\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ is called
1. **lower semicontinuous** (LSC) at $x\in X$ if for every open set $%
V\subset X$ such that $F\left( x\right) \cap V\neq \emptyset $, there is a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $F\left( y\right) \cap V\neq \emptyset $ for every $y\in U$, that is, $U\subset F^{-}\left( V\right) $.
2. **upper semicontinuous** (USC) at $x\in X$ if for every open set $%
V\subset X$ such that $F\left( x\right) \subset V$, there is a neighborhood $%
U$ of $x$ such that $F\left( y\right) \subset V$ for every $y\in U$, that is, $U\subset F^{+}\left( V\right) $.
3. **Hausdorff continuous** at $x\in X$ if it is lower and upper semicontinuous at $x$.
We say that $F$ is upper semicontinuous (lower semicontinuous, Hausdorff continuous) if it is upper semicontinuous (lower semicontinuous, Hausdorff continuous) at every point of $X$.
Let $F,F_{1},F_{2}:X\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ be set-valued functions such that $F\left( x\right) =F_{1}\left( x\right) \cup F_{2}\left(
x\right) $ for some $x\in X$. If both $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ are USC at $x$ then $F$ is USC at $x$. If both $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ are closed functions which are LSC at $x$ then $F$ is LSC at $x$.
\[P6\] Let $F:X\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ be a set-valued function with $F\left( x\right) $ compact for every $x\in X$. The following statements holds:
1. $F$ is USC at $x$ if and only if $\rho _{F(x)}\left( F(x_{\lambda
})\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x$.
2. $F$ is LSC at $x$ if and only if $\rho _{F(x_{\lambda })}\left(
F(x)\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x$.
3. $F$ is Hausdorff continuous at $x$ if and only if $\rho _{H}\left(
F(x_{\lambda }),F(x)\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$.
$\left( 1\right) $ Suppose that $F$ is USC at $x$. Let $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$ and $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$. There is $\mathcal{V}\in
\mathcal{O}$ such that $F\left( y\right) \subset \mathrm{St}\left[ F\left(
x\right) ,\mathcal{U}\right] $ for every $y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V%
}\right] $. Take $\lambda _{0}$ such that $x_{\lambda }\in \mathrm{St}\left[
x,\mathcal{V}\right] $ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Then $F\left(
x_{\lambda }\right) \subset \mathrm{St}\left[ F\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{U}%
\right] $, and hence $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{F(x)}\left( F(x_{\lambda
})\right) $ for all $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. Thus $\rho _{F(x)}\left(
F(x_{\lambda })\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. On the other hand, suppose that $\rho _{F(x)}\left( F(x_{\lambda })\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x$. Let $V\subset X$ be an open set such that $F\left( x\right) \subset V$. By the compactness of $F\left( x\right) $, there is $\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ F\left(
x\right) ,\mathcal{V}\right] \subset V$. Suppose by contradiction that for every $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ there is $x_{\mathcal{U}}\in \mathrm{St}%
\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] $ such that $F\left( x_{\mathcal{U}}\right)
\nsubseteq V$. By hypothesis, $\rho _{F(x)}\left( F(x_{\mathcal{U}})\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ since $x_{\mathcal{U}}\rightarrow x$. Then there is $\mathcal{U}_{0}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \rho
_{F(x)}\left( F(x_{\mathcal{U}})\right) $ whenever $\mathcal{U}\leqslant
\mathcal{U}_{0}$. Hence $F(x_{\mathcal{U}})\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ F\left(
x\right) ,\mathcal{V}\right] \subset V$ for $\mathcal{U}\leqslant \mathcal{U}%
_{0}$, which is a contradiction. Thus $F$ is USC at $x$.
$\left( 2\right) $ Suppose that $F$ is LSC at $x$. Let $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$ and $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$. Take $\mathcal{V}\in
\mathcal{O}$ with $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. By the compactness of $F\left( x\right) $, we can get a finite sequence $%
y_{1},...,y_{n}\in F\left( x\right) $ such that $F\left( x\right) \subset
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{St}\left[ y_{i},\mathcal{V}\right] $. Since $F$ is LSC at $x$, there is a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $F\left( y\right)
\cap \mathrm{St}\left[ y_{i},\mathcal{V}\right] \neq \emptyset $ for all $%
y\in U$ and $i=1,...,n$. Take $\lambda _{0}$ such that $x_{\lambda }\in U$ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. For $y\in F\left( x\right) $ and $%
\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$, we have $y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ y_{i},\mathcal{V}%
\right] $, for some $i$, and $F\left( x_{\lambda }\right) \cap \mathrm{St}%
\left[ y_{i},\mathcal{V}\right] \neq \emptyset $. As $\mathcal{V}\leqslant
\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$, it follows that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left(
y,F(x_{\lambda })\right) $. Hence $\mathcal{U}\in \bigcap_{y\in F\left(
x\right) }\rho \left( y,F(x_{\lambda })\right) $ whenever $\lambda \geq
\lambda _{0}$, and therefore $\rho _{F(x_{\lambda })}\left( F(x)\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. Conversely, suppose that $\rho _{F(x_{\lambda
})}\left( F(x)\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$ and $F$ is not LSC at $x$. Then there is an open set $%
V\subset X$ such that $F\left( x\right) \cap V\neq \emptyset $ and $F\left(
x_{\lambda }\right) \cap V=\emptyset $ for some net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow
x$. Choose $y\in F\left( x\right) \cap V$ and take $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O%
}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset V$. By hypothesis, $\rho _{F(x_{\lambda })}\left( F(x)\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O%
}$. Hence there is $\lambda _{0}$ such that $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$ implies $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{F(x_{\lambda })}\left( F(x)\right) $. It follows that $\mathcal{U}\in \rho \left( y,F(x_{\lambda })\right) $ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$, and then $\emptyset \neq F\left( x_{\lambda
}\right) \cap \mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset F\left(
x_{\lambda }\right) \cap V$, a contradiction.
$\left( 3\right) $ It follows by applying item $\left( 1\right) $ together with $\left( 2\right) $.
We after need the following technical result.
\[LH\] Let $F:X\rightarrow \mathcal{H}(X)$ be a function with $F\left(
x\right) $ compact. If $F$ is USC at $x$ then $F(x)\cup \bigcup_{\lambda \in
\Lambda }{F(x_{\lambda })}$ is compact for any convergent net $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$.
Let $\left( y_{\mu }\right) $ be a net in $\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{F}%
\left( {x_{\lambda }}\right) $. Assume that $y_{\mu }\in F\left( x_{\lambda
_{\mu }}\right) $. Since $\rho _{F(x)}\left( F(x_{\lambda _{\mu }})\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, we have $\rho \left( y_{\mu },F(x)\right)
\rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. As $F\left( x\right) $ is compact, we can find a subnet $\left( y_{\mu _{\sigma }}\right) $ and $y\in F\left( x\right) $ so that $y_{\mu _{\sigma }}\rightarrow y$, by Proposition \[PKS\]. Therefore $%
\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{F}\left( {x_{\lambda }}\right) $ is compact.
\[s4\]Topological dynamics
==========================
We now apply the previous results on hyperconvergence to topological dynamics. We study semicontinuity and Hausdorff continuity of set-valued functions defined by orbit closure, limit set, prolongation, and prolongational limit set. Throughout, there is a fixed admissible space $X$ endowed with an admissible family of open coverings $\mathcal{O}$.
Let $S$ be a topological semigroup. An *action* of $S$ on $X$ is a continuous mapping
$$\mu :%
\begin{array}[t]{ccc}
S\times X & \rightarrow & X \\
(s,x) & \mapsto & \mu (s,x)=sx%
\end{array}%$$
satisfying $s\left( tx\right) =\left( st\right) x$ for all $x\in X$ and $%
s,t\in S$. We denote by $\mu _{s}:X\rightarrow X$ the map $\mu _{s}\left(
\cdot \right) =\mu \left( s,\cdot \right) $. A subset $Y\subset X$ is said to be forward invariant if $SY\subset Y$. A subset $M\subset X$ is called minimal if it is nonempty, closed, forward invariant, and has no proper subset satisfying these properties. In other words, $M$ is minimal if and only if $M=\mathrm{cls}\left( Sx\right) $ for every $x\in M$.
For limit behavior of $\left( S,X\right) $, we fix a filter basis $\mathcal{F%
}$ on the subsets of $S$ ($\emptyset \notin \mathcal{F}$ and given $A,B\in
\mathcal{F}$ there is $C\in \mathcal{F}$ with $C\subset A\cap B$). We often consider $\mathcal{F}$ directed by set inclusion. We might assume that $%
\mathcal{F}$ is a co-compact filter basis, that is, for each $A\in \mathcal{F%
}$, the complement $S\setminus A$ is compact in $S$.
The following notion of stability was stated in [@BBRS].
A subset $Y\subset X$ is called **stable** if for every neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ and $y\in Y$, there is $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $S%
\mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset U$; the set $Y$ is said to be **uniformly stable** if for every neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ there $%
\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $S\mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}%
\right] \subset U$.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a filter basis on the subsets of $S$. The set $Y$ is said to be $\mathcal{F}$**-eventually stable** if for every neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ there is a neighborhood $V$ of $Y$ such that for each $x\in V$ one has $Ax\subset U$ for some $A\in \mathcal{F}$.
Every uniformly stable set is stable and $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable. Any compact stable set is uniformly stable. If $Y$ is compact then $Y$ is stable if and only if for every neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ there is a neighborhood $V$ of $Y$ such that $SV\subset U$.
The following notion of divergent net was introduced in [@Ra].
\[Note\] A net $\left( t_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$ in $%
S $ **diverges** on the direction of $\mathcal{F}$ ($\mathcal{F}$**-diverges**) if for each $A\in \mathcal{F}$ there is $\lambda _{0}\in
\Lambda $ such that $t_{\lambda }\in A$ whenever $\lambda \geq \lambda _{0}$. The notation $t_{\lambda }\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $ means that $%
\left( t_{\lambda }\right) $ $\mathcal{F}$-diverges.
The following concept of limit set for semigroup action was introduced in [@BragaSouza].
The $\omega $**-limit set** of $Y\subset X$ on the direction of $%
\mathcal{F}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\omega \left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) &=&\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}}\mathrm{cls}%
\left( AY\right) \\
&=&\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
x\in X:\text{ there are nets }\left( t_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in
\Lambda }\text{ in }S\text{ and }\left( x_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in
\Lambda }\text{ in }Y \\
\text{such that }t_{\lambda }\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty \text{ and }%
t_{\lambda }x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x%
\end{array}%
\right\} .\end{aligned}$$
This notion of $\omega $-limit set extends the Conley definition of $\omega $-limit set for the Morse theory in dynamical systems ([@c]). Note that $%
\bigcup_{y\in Y}\omega \left( y,\mathcal{F}\right) \subset \omega \left( Y,%
\mathcal{F}\right) $, but the equality does not hold in general. Actually, the Conley definition of $\omega $-limit set of a subset approaches to the notion of prolongational limit set defined afterwards (Remarks \[R2\] and \[R3\]). We will show that how the continuity of the orbital functions depends on the equality $\bigcup_{y\in Y}\omega \left( y,\mathcal{F}\right)
=\omega \left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) $, and vice-versa.
We might assume the following additional hypothesis on the family $\mathcal{F%
}$.
\[hipH\] The family $\mathcal{F}$ is said to satisfy:
1. Hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{1}$ if for all $s\in S$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$ there exists $B\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $sB\subset A$.
2. Hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ if for all $s\in S$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$ there exists $B\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $Bs\subset A$.
3. Hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{3}$ if for all $s\in S$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$ there exists $B\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $B\subset As$.
Hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{1}$ yields the limit set $\omega \left( Y,\mathcal{F}%
\right) $ is forward invariant. Hypotheses $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ and $\mathrm{H}%
_{3}$ implies respectively $\omega \left( sx,\mathcal{F}\right) \subset
\omega \left( x,\mathcal{F}\right) $ and $\omega \left( x,\mathcal{F}\right)
\subset \omega \left( sx,\mathcal{F}\right) $ for every $s\in S$ and $x\in X$.
The following notion of attraction was introduced in [@BBRSCan].
The $\mathcal{F}$**-domain of attraction** of a set $Y\subset X$ is defined by $$\mathfrak{A}\left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) =\left\{ x\in X:\text{for each }%
\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}\text{ there is }A\in \mathcal{F}\text{ such that }%
Ax\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}\right] \right\} .$$The set $Y$ is called $\mathcal{F}$**-attractor** if there is $\mathcal{%
U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ Y,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset
\mathfrak{A}\left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) $; it is called **global** $%
\mathcal{F}$**-attractor** if $\mathfrak{A}\left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right)
=X$.
If $K\subset X$ is compact then $$\mathfrak{A}\left( K,\mathcal{F}\right) \subset \left\{ x\in X:\omega \left(
x,\mathcal{F}\right) \neq \emptyset \text{ and }\omega \left( x,\mathcal{F}%
\right) \subset K\right\} .$$The equality holds if $X$ is locally compact and $Ax$ is connected for all $%
A\in \mathcal{F}$ and $x\in X$ ([@BBRSCan Theorem 3.6]).
The semigroup action $\left( S,X\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$**-limit compact** if for every bounded set $Y\subset X$ and any $\mathcal{U}\in
\mathcal{O}$ there is $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $\mathcal{U}\in \gamma
\left( AY\right) $.
The following result is an application of Theorem \[PK\].
\[P4\]Assume that $X$ is a complete admissible space. If the semigroup action $\left( S,X\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-limit compact then $\omega
\left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) $ is nonempty, compact, and the net $\left(
\mathrm{cls}(AY)\right) _{A\in \mathcal{F}}$ converges to $\omega \left( Y,%
\mathcal{F}\right) $, for all bounded set $Y\subset X$.
Firstly, we prove that $\gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(AY)\right) \rightarrow
\mathcal{O}$. For a given $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, take $\mathcal{V}\in
\mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. Since $%
Y$ is a bounded subset of $X$, there exists $A_{1}\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \gamma \left( A_{1}Y\right) $. By Proposition \[P19\], we have $\gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(A_{1}Y)\right) \prec 1\left\{ \mathcal{V}%
\right\} \prec \left\{ \mathcal{U}\right\} $. For every $A\subset A_{1}$, we have $\gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(AY)\right) \prec \gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}%
(A_{1}Y)\right) $. Hence $\mathcal{U}\in \gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}%
(AY)\right) $ whenever $A\subset A_{1}$, and therefore $\gamma \left(
\mathrm{cls}(AY)\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. By Theorem \[PK\], it follows that $\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}}\mathrm{cls}\left( AY\right) =\omega
\left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) $ is nonempty, compact, and $\rho _{H}\left(
\mathrm{cls}(AY),\omega \left( Y,\mathcal{F}\right) \right) \rightarrow
\mathcal{O}$.
In line of this statement, we define the set-valued functions $K_{A},L_{%
\mathcal{F}}:X\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ by $$K_{A}\left( x\right) =\mathrm{cls}\left( Ax\right) ,\quad A\subset S,\qquad
L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}}K_{A}\left(
x\right) =\omega \left( x,\mathcal{F}\right) .$$
If $X$ is complete and the semigroup action $\left( S,X\right) $ is $%
\mathcal{F}$-limit compact, Proposition \[P4\] says that the net $\left(
K_{A}\right) _{A\in \mathcal{F}}$ pointwise converges to $L_{\mathcal{F}}$.
We also define the set-valued functions $D_{A},J_{\mathcal{F}}:X\rightarrow
\mathcal{H}\left( X\right) $ by$$D_{A}\left( x\right) =\bigcap_{\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}}{\mathrm{cls}}%
\left( {A\mathrm{St}}\left[ {x,\mathcal{U}}\right] \right) ,\quad A\subset
S,\qquad J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}%
}D_{A}\left( x\right) .$$
In the language of semigroup actions, $D_{A}\left( x\right) $ is the $A$-prolongation of $x$ and $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is the $\mathcal{F%
}$-prolongational limit set of $x$. They are described as$$\begin{aligned}
D_{A}\left( x\right) &=&\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
y\in X:\text{there are nets }\left( t_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in
\Lambda }\text{ in }A\text{ and }\left( x_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in
\Lambda }\text{ in }X\text{ } \\
\text{ such that }x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x\text{ and }t_{\lambda
}x_{\lambda }\rightarrow y%
\end{array}%
\right\} , \\
J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) &=&\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
y\in X:\text{there are nets }\left( t_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in
\Lambda }\text{ in }S\text{ and }\left( x_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in
\Lambda }\text{ in }X\text{ such that } \\
t_{\lambda }\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty \text{, }x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x\text{, and }t_{\lambda }x_{\lambda }\rightarrow y%
\end{array}%
\right\} .\end{aligned}$$See [@SouzaTozatti] for details.
\[R2\]It is not difficult to check that $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right)
=\bigcap_{\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}}{\omega }\left( {\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{%
U}],\mathcal{F}}\right) $ for every $x\in X$.
\[R3\]If $K\subset X$ is compact and $U\subset X$ is open then $\omega
\left( K,\mathcal{F}\right) \subset \bigcup_{x\in K}J_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $ and $\bigcup_{x\in U}J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset
\omega \left( U,\mathcal{F}\right) $ ([@BBRSmn Proposition 2.14]).
If $\mathcal{F}$ is a co-compact filter basis then $D_{A}\left( x\right)
=K_{A}\left( x\right) \cup J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ for every $x\in
X $. This is a little variation of Theorem 2.2 in [SouzaTozatti]{}.
If $\mathcal{F}$ satisfies the translation hypotheses $\mathrm{H}_{1},%
\mathrm{H}_{2}$, $Ax$ is connected and $\left( S\setminus A\right) x$ is closed, for all $x\in X$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$, then $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $ is nonempty and compact whenever $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is nonempty and compact ([@BBRSmn Proposition 3.1]).
For the following, we assume $\mathcal{O}$ directed by refinements.
\[P5\]Assume that $X$ is a complete admissible space and the semigroup action $\left( S,X\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-limit compact. Then $J_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is nonempty and compact and the net $\left(
\mathrm{cls}(A\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] )\right) _{(A,\mathcal{U%
})\in \mathcal{F}\times \mathcal{O}}$ converges to $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $, for all $x\in X$.
Consider the product direction on $\mathcal{F}\times \mathcal{O}$: $\left( A,%
\mathcal{U}\right) \leq \left( B,\mathcal{V}\right) $ if $B\subset A$ and $%
\mathcal{V}\leq \mathcal{U}$. We claim that $\gamma \left( A\mathrm{St}[x,%
\mathcal{U}]\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. Fix some $\mathcal{U}_{0}\in
\mathcal{O}$. For a given $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, take $\mathcal{V}\in
\mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\leq \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{U}$. Since $%
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right] $ is bounded, there exits $%
A_{0}\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $\mathcal{V}\in \gamma \left( A_{0}\mathrm{St%
}[x,\mathcal{U}_{0}]\right) $, and then $\gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(A_{0}%
\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{U}_{0}])\right) \prec 1\left\{ \mathcal{V}\right\}
\prec \left\{ \mathcal{U}\right\} $, by Proposition \[P19\]. Moreover, we have $\mathrm{cls}\left( A\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{W}]\right) )\subset \mathrm{%
cls}\left( A_{0}\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{U}_{0}]\right) $, for all $(A_{0},%
\mathcal{U}_{0})\leq (A,\mathcal{W})$. Thus $\gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(A%
\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{W}])\right) \prec \gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(A_{0}%
\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{U}_{0}])\right) $, which implies $\mathcal{U}\in
\gamma \left( \mathrm{cls}(A\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{W}]\right) $ for all $%
\left( A_{0},\mathcal{U}_{0}\right) \leq \left( A,\mathcal{W}\right) $. By Proposition \[PK\], it follows that $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right)
=\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F},\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}}{\mathrm{cls}}\left( {A%
\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{U}]}\right) $ is nonempty, compact, and $$\rho _{H}(\mathrm{cls}(A\mathrm{St}[x,\mathcal{U}]),D(x,A))\rightarrow
\mathcal{O}.$$
In the sequence, we study the continuity of the set-valued functions $K_{A}$, $D_{A}$, $L_{\mathcal{F}}$, and $J_{\mathcal{F}}$. We assume hereon that $%
K_{A}\left( x\right) $, $D_{A}\left( x\right) $, $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $, and $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ are nonempty and compact for every $x\in X$.
\[KA\]The function $K_{A}$ is LSC.
Let $x\in X$ and $U\subset X$ be an open neighborhood of $x$. Take $y\in
K_{A}^{-}\left( U\right) $. Then $K_{A}\left( y\right) \cap U\neq \emptyset $, and hence exists $ty\in Ay\cap U$ with $t\in A$. By continuity, we can take $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $t\mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{U}%
\right] \subset U$. Now, for any $z\in \mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{U}\right]
$, $tz\in U\cap Az$, hence $K_{A}\left( z\right) \cap U\neq \emptyset $. This means that $z\in K_{A}^{+}\left( U\right) $, and therefore $\mathrm{St}%
\left[ y,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset K_{A}^{+}\left( U\right) $. It follows that $K_{A}^{+}\left( U\right) $ is an open set and thus $K_{A}$ is LSC at $%
x $.
By Proposition \[P6\], we have $\rho _{K_{A}(x_{\lambda })}\left(
K_{A}(x)\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$. The following is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[KA\].
\[Co1\]The following statements are equivalent.
1. $K_{A}$ is USC at $x\in X$.
2. $K_{A}$ is continuous at $x$.
The map $D_{A}$ is USC at $x$ if and only if the reunion $D_{A}\left(
x\right) \cup \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{D_{A}}\left( {x_{\lambda }}%
\right) $ is compact for every net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x$.
Suppose that $D_{A}\left( x\right) \cup \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{D_{A}}%
\left( {x_{\lambda }}\right) $ is compact for every net $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$. Suppose by contradiction that $D_{A}$ is not USC at $x$. Then there exists a net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x$ such that $\rho
_{D_{A}(x)}\left( D_{A}(x_{\lambda })\right) $ does not converges to $%
\mathcal{O}$. Hence there exists some $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that for every $\lambda $ there is $\lambda ^{\prime }\geq \lambda $ such that $%
\mathcal{U}\notin \rho _{D_{A}(x)}\left( D_{A}(x_{\lambda ^{\prime
}})\right) $. Then we can take $y_{\lambda }\in D_{A}\left( x_{\lambda
^{\prime }}\right) $ such that $\mathcal{U}\notin \rho \left( y_{\lambda
},D_{A}(x)\right) $, that is, $y_{\lambda }\notin \mathrm{St}\left[
D_{A}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Now, since $D_{A}\left( x\right)
\cup \bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda }{D_{A}}\left( {x_{\lambda }}\right) $ is compact by hypothesis, we may assume that the net $\left( y_{\lambda
}\right) $ converges to some point $y$. As $y_{\lambda }\in X\setminus
\mathrm{St}\left[ D_{A}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{U}\right] $, it follows that $y\in X\setminus \mathrm{St}\left[ D_{A}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{U}%
\right] $. We claim this is a contradiction. Indeed, for arbitraries $%
\mathcal{V},\mathcal{W}\in \mathcal{O}$, we can choose a $\lambda $ such that $x_{\lambda ^{\prime }}\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V}\right] $ and $y_{\lambda }\in \mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{W}\right] $. Take $\mathcal{V}%
^{\prime }\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ x_{\lambda ^{\prime
}},\mathcal{V}^{\prime }\right] \subset \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V}%
\right] $. As $y_{\lambda }\in D_{A}\left( x_{\lambda ^{\prime }}\right) $, it follows that $\mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{W}\right] \cap A\mathrm{St}%
\left[ x_{\lambda ^{\prime }},\mathcal{V}^{\prime }\right] \neq \emptyset $, and hence $\mathrm{St}\left[ y,\mathcal{W}\right] \cap A\mathrm{St}\left[ x,%
\mathcal{V}\right] \neq \emptyset $. This means that $y\in D_{A}\left(
x\right) $, which contradicts $y\in X\setminus \mathrm{St}\left[ D_{A}\left(
x\right) ,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Thus $D_{A}$ is USC at $x$. The converse follows by Proposition \[LH\].
\[T6\]Assume that $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$. If $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact then $J_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC.
For a given $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, we take an open set $U\subset X$ such that $\mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) $ is compact and $J_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right) \subset U\subset \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) \subset
\mathrm{St}\left[ J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{U}\right] $.
There exist $\mathcal{W}\in \mathcal{O}$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $A%
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}\right] \subset U$. In fact, since $\mathrm{fr%
}\left( \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) \right) $ is compact there exist $%
A_{0}\in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{0}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $%
\mathrm{fr}\left( \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) \right) \cap A_{0}\mathrm{St}%
\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right] =\emptyset $. Suppose to the contrary that we can obtain $t_{(A,\mathcal{W})}x_{(A,\mathcal{W})}\in \mathrm{fr}\left(
\mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) \right) \cap A\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}%
\right] $, with $t_{(A,\mathcal{W})}\in A$ and $x_{(A,\mathcal{W})}\in
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}\right] $, for every $A\in \mathcal{F}$ and $%
\mathcal{W}\in \mathcal{O}$. By compactness, we may assume that $t_{(A,%
\mathcal{W})}x_{(A,\mathcal{W})}\rightarrow y$ for some $y\in \mathrm{fr}%
\left( \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) \right) $. As $t_{(A,\mathcal{W}%
)}\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $ and $x_{(A,\mathcal{W})}\rightarrow x$ we have $y\in J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, which is impossible. Now, for $t\in A_{0}$ and $y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right] $, we have two possibility: either$\ ty\in U$, in which $A_{0}y\subset U$ by connectedness of $A_{0}y$, or $ty\in X\setminus \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) $, in which $A_{0}y\subset X\setminus \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) $. Then we have the equalities $$\begin{aligned}
S_{0} &=&\left\{ y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right]
:A_{0}y\subset U\right\} =\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right] \cap
\mu _{t}^{-1}\left( U\right) , \\
S_{1} &=&\left\{ y\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right]
:A_{0}y\subset X\setminus \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) \right\} =\mathrm{St}%
\left[ x,\mathcal{U}_{0}\right] \cap \mu _{t}^{-1}\left( X\setminus \mathrm{%
cls}\left( U\right) \right) ,\end{aligned}$$which imply the sets $S_{0},S_{1}$ are open. Suppose that $x\in S_{1}$ and take $\mathcal{V}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V}%
\right] \subset S_{1}$. As $\mathrm{cls}\left( A_{0}S_{1}\right) \subset
X\setminus U$, it follows that $J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset
\mathrm{cls}\left( A_{0}\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{V}\right] \right)
\subset X\setminus U$, which is impossible. Hence $x\notin S_{1}$, and then $%
tx\notin X\setminus \mathrm{cls}\left( U\right) $. This means that $tx\in U$ and therefore $x\in S_{0}$. Then consider $\mathcal{W}_{0}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}_{0}\right] \subset S_{0}$. This implies that $A_{0}\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}_{0}\right] \subset
A_{0}S_{0}\subset U$. This proves the claim.
Finally, for a given $x^{\prime }\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}_{0}%
\right] $, let $\mathcal{W}_{0}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{O}$ with $\mathrm{St}%
\left[ x^{\prime },\mathcal{W}_{0}^{\prime }\right] \subset \mathrm{St}\left[
x,\mathcal{W}_{0}\right] $. We have$$J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x^{\prime }\right) \subset {\mathrm{cls}(A_{0}\mathrm{%
St}\left[ x^{\prime },\mathcal{W}_{0}^{\prime }\right] )}\subset \mathrm{cls}%
(A_{0}\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{W}_{0}\right] )\subset \mathrm{cls}%
(U)\subset \mathrm{St}\left[ J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{U}%
\right] .$$Consequently, $\mathcal{U}\in \rho _{J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) }\left(
J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x^{\prime }\right) \right) $ whenever $\mathcal{W}%
_{0}\in \rho \left( x^{\prime },x\right) $. Therefore $J$ is USC at $x\in X$.
Under the conditions of Theorem \[T6\], we have $\rho _{J_{\mathcal{F}%
}(x)}\left( J_{\mathcal{F}}(x_{\lambda })\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ for any net $x_{\lambda }\rightarrow x$. By taking in particular $\mathcal{F}%
=\left\{ A\right\} $, we have the following consequence.
If $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $A\subset S$ is nonempty and connected then $D_{A}$ is USC. Thus $D_{A}$ is Hausdorff continuous if and only if $D_{A}$ is LSC.
The following result means that the upper semicontinuity causes orbits with trivial prolongations.
\[K\] If $K_{A}$ is USC at $x$ then $K_{A}\left( x\right) =D_{A}\left(
x\right) $. The converse holds if $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $A$ is connected.
Suppose that $K_{A}$ is USC at $x$ and let $y\in D_{A}(x)$. Then there exist nets $\left( t_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$ in $A$ and $\left(
x_{\lambda }\right) _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$ in $X$ such that $x_{\lambda
}\rightarrow x$ and $t_{\lambda }x_{\lambda }\rightarrow y$. Since $%
t_{\lambda }x_{\lambda }\in K_{A}(x_{\lambda })$ and $\rho _{K_{A}(x)}\left(
K_{A}(x_{\lambda })\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$, it follows that $\rho
_{K_{A}(x)}\left( t_{\lambda }x_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$. Since $K_{A}\left( x\right) $ is closed, we obtain $y\in K_{A}\left(
x\right) $, by Proposition \[PKS\]. The converse follows by Theorem [T6]{}.
As a consequence of Corollary \[Co1\] and Proposition \[K\], we have the following.
\[Co2\]Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $A\subset S$ is nonempty and connected. The following statements are equivalent:
1. $K_{A}$ is Hausdorff continuous.
2. $K_{A}$ is USC.
3. $K_{A}=D_{A}$.
Any one of these three conditions implies that $D_{A}$ is Hausdorff continuous.
If orbits have trivial prolongations then the prolongational limit sets reduce to the limit sets, as the following.
\[T2\]If $K_{A}$ is USC for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$ then $J_{\mathcal{F}%
}=L_{\mathcal{F}}$. The converse holds if $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and locally connected, and $\mathcal{F}$ is a co-compact filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$.
Suppose that $K_{A}$ is USC for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$. By Proposition [K]{} we have $$J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}}{D}_{A}\left( {x}%
\right) =\bigcap_{A\in \mathcal{F}}{K_{A}}\left( {x}\right) =L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right)$$for every $x\in X$. As to the converse, suppose that $X$ is locally connected, $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$, and $J_{\mathcal{F}}=L_{\mathcal{F}}$. Let $A\in \mathcal{F}$ and $x\in X$. For a given open neighborhood $U$ of $K_{A}\left( x\right) $, take a compact neighborhood $V$ of $K_{A}\left( x\right) $ such that $V\subset U$. We claim that there is $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$ such that $A\mathrm{St}\left[ x,%
\mathcal{U}\right] \subset V$. Indeed, suppose by contradiction that $A%
\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \nsubseteq V$ for all $\mathcal{U}\in
\mathcal{O}$. For each $\mathcal{U}\in \mathcal{O}$, take a connected neighborhood $N_{\mathcal{U}}$ of $x$ with $N_{\mathcal{U}}\subset \mathrm{St%
}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] $. Then $AN_{\mathcal{U}}\nsubseteq V$ since there is a star of $x$ inside $N_{\mathcal{U}}$. As $Ax\subset V$ and $AN_{%
\mathcal{U}}$ is connected, it follows that $AN_{\mathcal{U}}\cap \mathrm{fr}%
\left( V\right) \neq \emptyset $. Then we can take $t_{\mathcal{U}}x_{%
\mathcal{U}}\in AN_{\mathcal{U}}\cap \mathrm{fr}\left( V\right) $ with $t_{%
\mathcal{U}}\in A$ and $x_{\mathcal{U}}\in N_{\mathcal{U}}$. By the compactness of $\mathrm{fr}\left( V\right) $, we may assume that $t_{%
\mathcal{U}}x_{\mathcal{U}}\rightarrow y$ for some $y\in \mathrm{fr}\left(
V\right) $. Now, if $t_{\mathcal{U}}\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $ then $%
y\in J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset
K_{A}\left( x\right) $, which contradicts $K_{A}\left( x\right) \subset
\mathrm{int}\left( V\right) $. Hence $\left( t_{\mathcal{U}}\right) $ does not $\mathcal{F}$-diverges. As $\mathcal{F}$ is co-compact, we may assume that $t_{\mathcal{U}}\rightarrow t$ with $t\in \mathrm{cls}\left( A\right) $. It follows that $t_{\mathcal{U}}x_{\mathcal{U}}\rightarrow tx$, and hence $%
y=tx\in \mathrm{cls}\left( Ax\right) =K_{A}\left( x\right) $, that is again a contradiction. This proves the claim. Finally, take $\mathcal{U}\in
\mathcal{O}$ such that $A\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] \subset V$. For each $z\in \mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right] $ we have $K_{A}\left(
z\right) \subset \mathrm{cls}\left( A\mathrm{St}\left[ x,\mathcal{U}\right]
\right) \subset V\subset U$. Therefore $K_{A}$ is USC at $x$.
We have the following consequence of Theorems \[T6\] and \[T2\].
Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$. If $K_{A}$ is USC, for every $A\in
\mathcal{F}$, then $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC.
We also have the following relation between the continuity of the orbital functions and the Conley definition of $\omega $-limit set.
If $K_{A}$ is USC for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$ then $\omega \left( K,\mathcal{F%
}\right) =\bigcup_{x\in K}L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ for every compact set $K\subset X$. The converse holds if $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and locally connected, and $\mathcal{F}$ is a co-compact filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$.
Suppose that $K_{A}$ is USC for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$ and let $K\subset X$ be a compact set. By Theorem \[T2\] and Remark \[R3\], we have $$\bigcup_{x\in K}L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset \omega \left( K,%
\mathcal{F}\right) \subset \bigcup_{x\in K}J_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right)
=\bigcup_{x\in K}L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) .$$As each single set $\left\{ x\right\} $ is compact, the converse follows by the second part of Theorem \[T2\].
\[T1\] If $K_{S}$ is USC then $K_{S}\left( x\right) $ is stable for every $x\in X$. The converse holds if $x\in K_{S}\left( x\right) $ for every $x\in X$.
Suppose that $K_{S}$ is USC and take $x\in X$. Let $U\subset X$ be an open neighborhood of $K_{S}\left( x\right) $. If $y\in K_{S}\left( x\right) $ then $K_{S}\left( y\right) \subset K_{S}\left( x\right) \subset U$. Hence there is an open neighborhood $V$ of $y$ such that $K_{S}\left( z\right)
\subset U$ for all $z\in V$. It follows that $SV\subset U$, and therefore $%
K_{S}\left( x\right) $ is stable. As to the converse, suppose that $%
K_{S}\left( x\right) $ is stable and $x\in K_{S}\left( x\right) $ for every $%
x\in X$. Let $U\subset X$ be an open neighborhood of $K_{S}\left( x\right) $. As $K_{S}\left( x\right) $ is compact and stable, there are neighborhoods $%
V,W$ of $K_{S}\left( x\right) $ such that $SV\subset W\subset \mathrm{cls}%
\left( W\right) \subset U$. If $y\in V$, we have $K_{S}\left( y\right)
\subset \mathrm{cls}\left( SV\right) \subset \mathrm{cls}\left( W\right)
\subset U$. Since $V$ is a neighborhood of $x$, this means that $K_{S}$ is USC at $x$.
Note that $x\in K_{S}\left( x\right) $ is and only if $x$ is a weak transitive point. For instance, every point is weak transitive if $S$ has identity. The following result is a combination of Corollary \[Co2\] and Theorem \[T1\].
Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact, $S$ is connected, and $x\in
K_{S}\left( x\right) $ for every $x\in X$. The following statements are equivalent:
1. $K_{S}$ is Hausdorff continuous.
2. $K_{S}$ is USC.
3. $K_{S}=D_{S}$.
4. $K_{S}\left( x\right) $ is stable for every $x\in X$.
Any one of these three conditions implies that $D_{S}$ is Hausdorff continuous.
We now relate upper semicontinuity of $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ to eventual stability. We need the following sequence of lemmas.
\[L1\] Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$. For any neighborhood $U$ of $%
L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, there exists $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $%
Ax\subset U$.
There exists a neighborhood $W$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ such that $W\subset U$ and $\mathrm{cls}\left( W\right) $ is compact. We claim that $Ax\subset W$ for some $A\in \mathcal{F}$. Suppose by contradiction that $Ax\nsubseteq W$ for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$. Since $W$ is a neighborhood of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, we have $Ax\cap W\neq
\emptyset $ for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$. As $Ax$ is connected, it follows that $Ax\cap \mathrm{fr}\left( \mathrm{cls}\left( W\right) \right) \neq
\emptyset $. For each $A\in \mathcal{F}$, take $t_{A}x\in Ax\cap \mathrm{fr}%
\left( \mathrm{cls}\left( W\right) \right) $. As $\mathrm{fr}\left( \mathrm{%
cls}\left( W\right) \right) $ is compact, we may assume that $%
t_{A}x\rightarrow y$ with $y\in \mathrm{fr}\left( \mathrm{cls}\left(
W\right) \right) $. Since $t_{A}\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $, this means that $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \cap \mathrm{fr}\left(
\mathrm{cls}\left( W\right) \right) $, which is impossible. Therefore $%
Ax\subset W$ for some $A\in \mathcal{F}$.
\[T7\]Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying both hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Then $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ if and only if $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right)
$ is minimal and $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable.
Suppose that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. For a given $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( y\right) \subset \mathrm{cls}\left( Sy\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right) $, because $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is forward invariant by hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{1}$. To prove that $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right) $ is minimal, suppose by contradiction that $\mathrm{cls}%
\left( Sy\right) \varsubsetneq L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ and take $%
z\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \setminus \mathrm{cls}\left( Sy\right) $. Then there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $\mathrm{cls}\left( Sy\right) $ such that $z\notin U$. Since $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is USC at $y$, there is an open neighborhood $V$ of $y$ such that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
v\right) \subset U$ for every $v\in V$. As $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $, there is $s\in S$ such that $sx\in V$, and then $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( sx\right) \subset U$. By hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{3}$, it follows that $z\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
sx\right) \subset U$, which is a contradiction. Hence $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) =\mathrm{cls}\left( Sy\right) $, and therefore $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right) $ is minimal. We now show that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable. Let $U$ be an open neighborhood of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. For a given $y\in L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right)
\subset L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset U$. Since $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC at $y$, there is an open neighborhood $V_{y}$ of $y$ such that $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( z\right) \subset U$ for all $z\in V_{y}$. Then $V=%
\underset{y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) }{\bigcup }V_{y}$ is an open neighborhood of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. If $z\in V$ then $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( z\right) \subset U$. By Lemma \[L1\] there is $A\in
\mathcal{F}$ such that $Az\subset U$. Hence $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable. As to the converse, take $y\in L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ and let $U$ be an open neighborhood of $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $. As $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is minimal, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) =L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
y\right) $. Take a compact neighborhood $V$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
y\right) $ with $V\subset U$. As $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $%
\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable, there is a neighborhood $W$ of $L_{\mathcal{F%
}}\left( x\right) $ such that for every $w\in W$ there is some $A\in
\mathcal{F}$ such that $Aw\subset V$, and hence $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
w\right) \subset \mathrm{cls}\left( Aw\right) \subset V\subset U$. Since $W$ is a neighborhood of $y$, $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC at $y$.
\[L2\] Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying both hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Then $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ if and only if $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on the $\mathcal{F}$-domain of attraction $\mathfrak{A}\left( L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) ,\mathcal{F}\right) $.
Suppose that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. For a given $y\in \mathfrak{A}\left( L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,%
\mathcal{F}\right) $ and a neighborhood $U$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
y\right) $, take a compact neighborhood $V$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
y\right) $ with $V\subset U$. By Proposition \[T7\], $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right) $ is minimal and $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable. As $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, it follows that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) =L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right)
$ and there is an open neighborhood $W$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ such that for every $w\in W$ there is $A\in \mathcal{F}$ with $Aw\subset V$. Moreover, by Lemma \[L1\], there is $B\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $%
By\subset W$. Pick $s\in B$. As $sy\in W$, there is an open neighborhood $%
V_{y}$ of $y$ such that $sV_{y}\subset W$. For a given $z\in V_{y}$, there is some $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $Asz\subset V$. Then we have $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( z\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( sz\right) \subset
\mathrm{cls}\left( Asz\right) \subset V\subset U$. Hence $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC at $y$, and therefore $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $\mathfrak{A}\left(
L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{F}\right) $. The converse is obvious since $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset \mathfrak{A}\left( L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{F}\right) $.
\[L3\] Assume that $\mathcal{F}$ satisfies the hypotheses $\mathrm{H}%
_{1} $ and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. If $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ is $%
\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable for every $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $ then $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is minimal.
Suppose by contradiction that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is not minimal. Since $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is compact and forward invariant, there is a minimal set $M\varsubsetneq L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $. Take $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \setminus M$. Then there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $M$ such that $y\notin \mathrm{cls}%
\left( U\right) $. For $z\in M$, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( z\right) =M$, and since $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( z\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable, there is a neighborhood $V$ of $M$ such that for every $v\in V$ there is some $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $Av\subset U$. As $M\subset L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \cap V$, we can find $s\in S$ such that $sx\in V$, and then there is $A\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $Asx\subset U$. It follows that $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
sx\right) \subset \mathrm{cls}\left( Asx\right) \subset \mathrm{cls}\left(
U\right) $, which is impossible.
We now have the following results on the upper semicontinuity of the limit set function.
\[T8\]Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying both hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Then $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC if and only if $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable for every $x\in X$.
Suppose that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable for all $x\in X$. By Lemma \[L3\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is minimal. By Proposition \[T7\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. By Lemma \[L2\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $\mathfrak{A}\left( L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{F}\right) $. Since $x\in \mathfrak{A}\left( L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) ,\mathcal{F}%
\right) $, $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC at $x$. Thus $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC. The converse follows by Proposition \[T7\].
Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying both hypotheses $\mathrm{H}%
_{1}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Assume that $\left( S,X\right) $ has global $%
\mathcal{F}$-attractor $\mathcal{A}$. Then $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC if and only if it is USC on $\mathcal{A}$.
Note that $X=\mathfrak{A}\left( \mathcal{A},\mathcal{F}\right) =\left\{ x\in
X:L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \subset \mathcal{A}\right\} $. Then the proof follows by Lemma \[L2\].
In the next results, we discuss the Hausdorff continuity of the function $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}$. We firstly prove a technical lemma.
\[L4\]Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying both hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$. If $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ then for each $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $ and a neighborhood $U$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ there is a neighborhood $V$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ such that $Av\cap
U\neq \emptyset $ for all $v\in V$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$. The converse holds if $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ is minimal for every $y\in L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $.
Suppose that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC on $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ and take $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. For a given open neighborhood $U$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ and $z\in L_{\mathcal{F%
}}\left( y\right) $, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( z\right) \subset L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) \subset U$. As $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC at $z$, there is an open neighborhood $V_{z}$ of $z$ such that $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( v\right) \neq \emptyset $ for all $v\in V_{z}$. Set $V=\underset{%
z\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) }{\bigcup }V_{z}$. Then $V$ is an open neighborhood of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ and $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( v\right) \neq \emptyset $ for all $v\in V$. This means that $U\cap
Av\neq \emptyset $ for all $v\in V$ for all $v\in V$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$. For the converse, assume that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ is minimal for every $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. Let $y\in L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( x\right) $ and let $U$ be an open set with $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( y\right) \neq \emptyset $. For $z\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) =\mathrm{cls}\left( Sz\right)
=K_{S}\left( z\right) $. Since $K_{S}$ is LSC at $z$, there is an open neighborhood $V_{z}$ of $z$ such that $U\cap K_{S}\left( v\right) \neq
\emptyset $ for every $v\in V_{z}$. Take a neighborhood $W_{z}$ of $z$ such that $\mathrm{cls}\left( W_{z}\right) $ is compact and $\mathrm{cls}\left(
W_{z}\right) \subset V_{z}$. We have the open covering $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( y\right) \subset \underset{z\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) }{%
\bigcup }W_{z}$. By the compactness of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $, we can take a finite subcovering $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) \subset
\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}W_{z_{i}}$. Set $W=\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}W_{z_{i}}$. Now there is a neighborhood $V$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ such that $Av\cap
W\neq \emptyset $ for all $v\in V$ and $A\in \mathcal{F}$. By Lemma \[L1\], there is $A_{0}\in \mathcal{F}$ with $A_{0}y\subset V$. For $s\in A_{0}$, there is an open neighborhood $N$ of $y$ such that $sN\subset V$. If $n\in N$ we have $Asn\cap W\neq \emptyset $ for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$. For each $%
A\in \mathcal{F}$, take $t_{A}\in A$ such that $t_{A}sn\in W$. Since $%
\mathrm{cls}\left( W\right) $ is compact, we may assume that $%
t_{A}sn\rightarrow w$ with $w\in \mathrm{cls}\left( W\right) $. As $%
t_{A}\rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $, we have $w\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
sn\right) $. Since $w\in \mathrm{cls}\left( W_{z_{i}}\right) \subset
V_{z_{i}}$ for some $z_{i}$, we have $U\cap K_{S}\left( w\right) \neq
\emptyset $, and then $\emptyset \neq U\cap \mathrm{cls}\left( Sw\right)
\subset U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( sn\right) $. By hypothesis $\mathrm{H}%
_{2}$, $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( sn\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
n\right) $ and hence $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( n\right) \neq \emptyset $ whenever $n\in N$. Therefore $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC at $y$.
Combining the hypotheses of Proposition \[T7\] and Lemma \[L4\], we have the following.
\[T9\] Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Then $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}$ is Hausdorff continuous on $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ if and only if $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable and minimal.
Suppose that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable and minimal. By Proposition \[T7\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. It remains to show that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC on $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. Indeed, for any $y\in L_{\mathcal{F%
}}\left( x\right) $, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) \subset L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, hence $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $. By Proposition \[T7\], $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( y\right) $ is minimal and $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable. Now let $%
U $ be an open neighborhood of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $. Then there is an open neighborhood $V$ of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) $ such that for each $v\in V$ there is $A_{0}\in \mathcal{F}$ such that $A_{0}v\subset U$. For any $A\in \mathcal{F}$, we have $A\cap A_{0}\neq \emptyset $, and then $Av\cap U\neq \emptyset $. By Lemma \[L4\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC on $%
L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. The converse follows by Proposition [T7]{}.
We now present the main theorem on continuity of limit set function.
\[T10\]Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Then $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}$ is Hausdorff continuous if and only if $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable for every $x\in X$.
Suppose that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is $\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable for all $%
x\in X$. By Proposition \[T8\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is USC. It remains to show that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC. Let $x\in X$. By Lemma \[L3\], $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is minimal. Let $U$ be an open set such that $%
U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) \neq \emptyset $. For every $y\in L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right) =L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $, hence $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( y\right)
\neq \emptyset $. By Lemma \[L4\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC on $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. Then there is a neighborhood $V_{y}$ of such that $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( v\right) \neq \emptyset $ for all $v\in
V_{y}$. Set $V=\underset{y\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) }{\bigcup }%
V_{y} $. Then $V$ is a neighborhood of $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $. By Lemma \[L1\], $Ax\subset V$ for some $A\in \mathcal{F}$. Pick $s\in A$. As $sx\in V$, there is a neighborhood $W$ of $x$ such that $sW\subset V$. If $%
w\in W$, we have $sw\in V$, and hence $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( sw\right)
\neq \emptyset $. As $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( sw\right) \subset L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( w\right) $, it follows that $U\cap L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( w\right)
\neq \emptyset $. Thus $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is LSC at $x$. The converse follows by Proposition \[T9\].
Proposition \[T9\] and Theorem \[T10\] together imply the following.
\[T11\] Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying hypotheses $%
\mathrm{H}_{1}$, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Assume that $\left(
S,X\right) $ has global $\mathcal{F}$-attractor $\mathcal{A}$. Then $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous if and only if it is Hausdorff continuous on $\mathcal{A}$.
A subset $Y\subset X$ is usually called $\mathcal{F}$-topologically transitive if $Y=\omega \left( y,\mathcal{F}\right) $ for some $y\in Y$. As an immediate consequence from Theorem \[T11\] we have the following.
Assume that $X$ is Hausdorff locally compact and $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying hypotheses $\mathrm{H}_{1}$, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, and $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Assume that $\left( S,X\right) $ has global $\mathcal{F}$-asymptotically stable set $\mathcal{A}$, that is, $%
\mathcal{A}$ is the global $\mathcal{F}$-attractor and is stable. If $%
\mathcal{A}$ is $\mathcal{F}$-topologically transitive then $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous.
It should be observed that the existence of the global $\mathcal{F}$-asymptotically stable set is not sufficient for Hausdorff continuity. See Example \[Ex2\] in the next section.
\[Examples\]Examples
====================
In this last section we provide illustrating examples for the setting of this paper.
Homogeneous spaces
------------------
Let $G$ be a topological group and $\mathcal{V}$ a basis of symmetric neighborhoods at the identity $e$ of $G$. For each $V\in \mathcal{V}$, define the open covering of $G$ $$\mathcal{U}_{V}=\left\{ Vg:g\in G\right\} .$$Let $\mathcal{O}$ be the family of all open covering $\mathcal{U}_{V}$, $%
V\in \mathcal{V}$. This family is admissible (see [@Souza Section 4]) and we have $$\mathrm{St}\left[ g,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right] =V^{2}g,\text{\qquad for every }%
g\in G.$$In general, a topological group is not metrizable.
Let $S\subset G$ be a closed subgroup of $G$ and $\left. G\right/ S$ the set of all left coset $gS$. Then $\left. G\right/ S$ is a subset of the hyperspace $\mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $. Now consider the standard left action of $S$ on $G$. We have $K_{S}\left( g\right) =gS$ for every $g\in G$. Then the function $K_{S}:G\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $ has values in $\left. G\right/ S$ and corresponds to the standard projection $%
\pi :G\rightarrow \left. G\right/ S$.
Provide $\left. G\right/ S$ with the quotient topology. Then $\pi
:G\rightarrow \left. G\right/ S$ is an open continuous map. The following theorem shows that the quotient topology and the uniform topology induced from $\mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $ are equivalent.
\[T12\] The quotient topology on $\left. G\right/ S$ coincides with the uniform topology induced from $\mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $ and the quotient map $\pi :G\rightarrow \left. G\right/ S$ is uniformly continuous.
By Theorem \[T3\], it is enough to compare the open sets of $\left.
G\right/ S$ and the sets $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( gS,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right)
\cap \left. G\right/ S$. We claim that $\pi \left( \mathrm{St}\left[ g,%
\mathcal{U}_{V}\right] \right) =\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( gS,\mathcal{U}%
_{V}\right) \cap \left. G\right/ S$ for all $g\in G$ and $\mathcal{U}_{V}\in
\mathcal{O}$. Firstly, by considering $gS$ as a subset of $G$, we have $%
\mathrm{St}\left[ gS,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right] =V^{2}gS$. Note also that $%
g_{1}S\in \pi \left( \mathrm{St}\left[ g,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right] \right) =\pi
\left( V^{2}g\right) $ if and only if $g_{1}S\subset V^{2}gS$. By the symmetry of $V$, $g_{1}S\subset V^{2}gS$ if and only if $gS\subset
V^{2}g_{1}S$. Hence $g_{1}S\in \pi \left( \mathrm{St}\left[ g,\mathcal{U}_{V}%
\right] \right) $ if and only if $g_{1}S\in \mathrm{B}_{H}\left( gS,\mathcal{%
U}_{V}\right) $, and therefore $\pi \left( \mathrm{St}\left[ g,\mathcal{U}%
_{V}\right] \right) =\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( gS,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right) \cap
\left. G\right/ S$, proving the claim. This means that $\pi $ is uniformly continuous with respect to $\mathcal{O}$ and the covering uniformity induced from $\mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $. Now, since $\pi $ is an open map, $%
\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( gS,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right) \cap \left. G\right/ S$ is an open set of the quotient topology on $\left. G\right/ S$, for all $g\in G$ and $\mathcal{U}_{V}\in \mathcal{O}$. On the other hand, let $U\subset
\left. G\right/ S$ be an open set. Then $\pi ^{-1}\left( U\right) $ is an open set in $G$. Take $g\in \pi ^{-1}\left( U\right) $. There is $\mathcal{U}%
_{V}$ such that $\mathrm{St}\left[ g,\mathcal{U}_{V}\right] \subset \pi
^{-1}\left( U\right) $, and then $\mathrm{B}_{H}\left( gS,\mathcal{U}%
_{V}\right) \cap \left. G\right/ S=\pi \left( \mathrm{St}\left[ g,\mathcal{U}%
_{V}\right] \right) \subset U$. This finalize the proof.
Thus the function $K_{S}:G\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\left( G\right) $ is Hausdorff continuous. This means that $\rho _{H}\left( g_{\lambda
}S,gS\right) \rightarrow \mathcal{O}$ whenever $g_{\lambda }\rightarrow g$. If $S$ is compact, each left coset $gS$ is stable, by Theorem \[T1\].
Transformation semigroups on function spaces
--------------------------------------------
Let $E$ be a normed vector space endowed with the admissible family $%
\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{d}}$ as stated in Example \[Ex1\]. For finite sequences $\alpha =\left\{ x_{1},...,x_{k}\right\} $ in $E$ and $\epsilon
=\left\{ \mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon _{1}},...,\mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon
_{k}}\right\} $ in $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{d}}$, let $\mathcal{U}_{\alpha
}^{\epsilon }$ be the cover of $E^{E}$ given by the sets of the form $%
\tprod_{x\in E}U_{x}$ where $U_{x_{i}}=\mathrm{B}\left( a_{i},\varepsilon
_{i}\right) \in \mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon _{i}}$, for $i=1,...,k$, and $%
U_{x}=E$ otherwise. The family $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{p}}=\left\{ \mathcal{U}%
_{\alpha }^{\epsilon }\right\} $ is a base for the uniformity of pointwise convergence on $E^{E}$ (see e.g. [@Will Corollary 37.13]).
Let $E^{E}$ endowed with the pointwise convergence topology. Then the inclusion map $i:E\hookrightarrow E^{E}$, where $i\left( x\right) $ is the constant function $i\left( x\right) \equiv x$, is a continuous map. It is well-known that $E^{E}$ is not metrizable with the pointwise convergence topology.
\[Ex4\]Let $\mathbb{N}$ be the semigroup of positive integers with multiplication and $\mu :\mathbb{N}\times E^{E}\rightarrow E^{E}$ the action given by $\mu \left( n,f\right) =f^{n}$. Consider the filter basis $\mathcal{%
F}=\left\{ A_{n}:n\in \mathbb{N}\right\} $, where $A_{n}=\left\{ k\in
\mathbb{N}:k\geq n\right\} $. In this case, $n_{\lambda }\rightarrow _{%
\mathcal{F}}\infty $ in $\mathbb{N}$ means $n_{\lambda }\rightarrow +\infty $. Let $F\subset E$ be a compact set and $X\subset E^{E}$ be the subspace of all contraction maps of $E$ with fixed point in $F$ and same Lipschitz constant $L<1$. Then $X$ is forward invariant and $i\left( F\right) \subset
X $ is a compact, closed, and forward invariant set in $X$. Consider the restriction action $\mu :\mathbb{N}\times X\rightarrow X$. We have $J_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( X\right) =i\left( F\right) $, and therefore $i\left(
F\right) $ is the global $\mathcal{F}$-asymptotically stable set for $\left(
\mathbb{N},X\right) $ (the details will appear latter in [@RichardB]). Note that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( f\right) =\left\{ i\left( x_{f}\right)
\right\} $, where $x_{f}$ denotes the fixed point of $f$. In particular, $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( i\left( x\right) \right) =\left\{ i\left( x\right)
\right\} $, for every $x\in F$, and therefore $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous on $i\left( F\right) $. Unfortunately, we can not apply Theorem \[T11\] here to conclude that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous on $X$, since $A_{n}$ is desconnected for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Then we provide a direct proof for it. Firstly, note that upper semicontinuity and lower semicontinuity are equivalent in this case, since each limit set consists of a single point. Then let $f\in X$ and $\mathcal{U}_{\alpha
}^{\epsilon }\in \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{p}}$, with $\alpha =\left\{
x_{1},...,x_{k}\right\} $ and $\epsilon =\left\{ \mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon
_{1}},...,\mathcal{U}_{\varepsilon _{k}}\right\} $. Define $\delta =\dfrac{%
\varepsilon \left( 1-L\right) }{2}$, where $\varepsilon =\min \left\{
\varepsilon _{1},...,\varepsilon _{k}\right\} $, and take $g\in \mathrm{St}%
\left[ f,\mathcal{U}_{\left\{ x_{f}\right\} }^{\left\{ \delta \right\} }%
\right] $. Then $g,f\in \tprod_{x\in E}U_{x}$ where $U_{x_{f}}=\mathrm{B}%
\left( a,\delta \right) \in \mathcal{U}_{\delta }$ and $U_{x}=E$ otherwise. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert x_{g}-x_{f}\right\Vert &\leq &\left\Vert g\left( x_{g}\right)
-g\left( x_{f}\right) \right\Vert +\left\Vert g\left( x_{f}\right) -f\left(
x_{f}\right) \right\Vert \\
&<&L\left\Vert x_{g}-x_{f}\right\Vert +2\delta\end{aligned}$$and thus $\left\Vert x_{g}-x_{f}\right\Vert <\dfrac{2\delta }{1-L}%
=\varepsilon $. This means that $$\left\Vert i\left( x_{g}\right) \left( x_{i}\right) -x_{f}\right\Vert
=\left\Vert x_{g}-x_{f}\right\Vert <\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon _{i}$$for every $x_{i}\in \alpha $. Hence $i\left( x_{g}\right) \left(
x_{i}\right) \in \mathrm{B}\left( x_{f},\varepsilon _{i}\right) $, for any $%
x_{i}\in \alpha $, and therefore $i\left( x_{g}\right) \in \mathrm{St}\left[
i\left( x_{f}\right) ,\mathcal{U}_{\alpha }^{\epsilon }\right] $ for every $%
g\in \mathrm{St}\left[ f,\mathcal{U}_{\left\{ x_{f}\right\} }^{\left\{
\delta \right\} }\right] $. This means that $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous at $f$.
Multi-time dynamical systems
----------------------------
An $n$-time dynamical system is an action of a convex cone $S\subset \mathbb{%
R}^{n}$ on a topological space $X$. Take a nonzero vector $u\in S$ and consider the family of translates $$\mathcal{F}=\left\{ S+tu:t\geq 0\right\} .$$Then $\mathcal{F}$ is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ satisfying hypotheses $\mathrm{H}_{1}$, $\mathrm{H}_{2}$, and $\mathrm{H}%
_{3} $, and the limit behavior with respect to $\mathcal{F}$ means the limit behavior on the direction of $u$.
Consider the $2$-time dynamical system $\left( S,\mathbb{R}^{2}\right) $ where $S=\left\{ \left( s,t\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{2}:s,t\geq 0\right\} $ and $\left( s,t\right) \left( x,y\right) =\left( b^{s}x,b^{t}y\right) $, with $b$ a fixed real number in the interval $\left( 0,1\right) $. Consider the filter basis $\mathcal{F}=\left\{ S+te_{1}:t\geq 0\right\} $ where the vector $e_{1}$ determines the direction of the axis $0x$. In this case, $%
\left( s_{\lambda },t_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $ means $s_{\lambda }\rightarrow +\infty $. For any $\left( x,y\right) \in
\mathbb{R}^{2}$, we have $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x,y\right) =\left\{ \left(
0,z\right) :0\leq z\leq by\right\} $. Hence the axis $0y$ is the global $%
\mathcal{F}$-attractor of $\left( S,\mathbb{R}^{2}\right) $. It is easily seen that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x,y\right) $ is stable, and then it is $%
\mathcal{F}$-eventually stable. By Theorem \[T10\], $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continous.
Control systems
---------------
Consider a control system $\dot{x}=X\left( x,u\left( t\right) \right) $ on a connected $C^{\infty }$-Riemannian manifold $M$, with control range $%
U\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and piecewise control functions $\mathcal{U}%
_{pc}=\left\{ u:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow U:u\text{ piecewise constant}\right\} $. Assume that, for each $u\in \mathcal{U}_{pc}$ and $x\in M$, the preceding equation has a unique solution $\varphi \left( t,x,u\right) $, $t\in \mathbb{%
R}$, with $\varphi \left( 0,x,u\right) =x$, and the vector fields $X\left(
\cdot ,u\right) $, $u\in U$, are complete. Set $F=\left\{ X\left( \cdot
,u\right) :~u\in U\right\} $. The system semigroup $S$ is defined as $$S=\left\{ \mathrm{e}^{t_{n}Y_{n}}\mathrm{e}^{t_{n-1}Y_{n-1}}...\mathrm{e}%
^{t_{0}Y_{0}}:Y_{j}\in F,t_{j}\geq 0,n\in \mathbb{N}\right\} .$$The family of vector fields $F$ and the system semigroup determine the trajectories of the control system in the sense that $Sx=\left\{ \varphi
\left( t,x,u\right) :t\geq 0,u\in \mathcal{U}_{pc}\right\} $ for every $x\in
M$.
For $t>0$ we define the set $$S_{\geq t}=\left\{ \mathrm{e}^{t_{n}Y_{n}}\mathrm{e}^{t_{n-1}Y_{n-1}}...%
\mathrm{e}^{t_{0}Y_{0}}:Y_{j}\in F,t_{j}\geq 0,\overset{n}{\underset{j=0}{%
\sum }}t_{j}\geq t,n\in \mathbb{N}\right\}$$and take the family $\mathcal{F}=\left\{ S_{\geq t}:t>0\right\} $. This family is a filter basis on the connected subsets of $S$ and satisfies both hypotheses $\mathrm{H}_{1}$ and $\mathrm{H}_{2}$ but need not satisfy hypothesis $\mathrm{H}_{3}$. Note that $\varphi \left( t_{\lambda
},x_{\lambda },u_{\lambda }\right) \rightarrow _{\mathcal{F}}\infty $ means $%
t_{\lambda }\rightarrow +\infty $.
We consider a Riemannian distance $\mathrm{d}$ on $M$ and endow $M$ with the admissible family $\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{d}}$ as stated in Example \[Ex1\].
Consider the control system $$\dot{x}=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
-u\left( t\right) & 1 \\
-1 & 0%
\end{array}%
\right) x\left( t\right) ,\quad U=\left[ 0,1\right] ,$$on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. For $u\equiv 0$ the system moves on circles centered at $0$; for $u>0$ the system moves on spirals centered at $0$. For any $u\in
\mathbb{R}^{2}$ we have $$K_{S_{\geq t}}\left( u\right) =K_{S}\left( u\right) =\left\{ v\in \mathbb{R}%
^{2}:\left\Vert v\right\Vert \leq \left\Vert u\right\Vert \right\}$$for all $t>0$, and then $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( u\right) =K_{S}\left(
u\right) =\left\{ v\in \mathbb{R}^{2}:\left\Vert v\right\Vert \leq
\left\Vert u\right\Vert \right\} $. Let $\varepsilon >0$ and take $w\in
\mathrm{B}\left( u,\varepsilon \right) $. Then we have $L_{\mathcal{F}%
}\left( w\right) =\left\{ v\in \mathbb{R}^{2}:\left\Vert v\right\Vert \leq
\left\Vert w\right\Vert \right\} $. If $v\in L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( w\right) $, it follows that $\left\Vert v\right\Vert \leq \left\Vert w-u\right\Vert
+\left\Vert u\right\Vert <\varepsilon +\left\Vert u\right\Vert $, and hence $%
v\in \mathrm{B}\left( L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( u\right) ,\varepsilon \right) $. This means that $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( w\right) \subset \mathrm{B}\left( L_{%
\mathcal{F}}\left( u\right) ,\varepsilon \right) $ and therefore $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}$ is USC. Since $L_{\mathcal{F}}=K_{S}$ is LSC, $L_{\mathcal{F}}$ is Hausdorff continuous.
\[Ex2\]Consider the control system $$\dot{x}\left( t\right) =X_{0}\left( x\left( t\right) \right) +u\left(
t\right) X_{1}\left( x\left( t\right) \right) ,\qquad U=\left[ 1,2\right] ,$$on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, where $X_{0},X_{1}$ are vector fields given by $$X_{0}\left( x,y\right) =\left( y,-x\right) \text{\quad and\quad }X_{1}\left(
x,y\right) =\left( x-xy^{2}-x^{3},y-yx^{2}-y^{3}\right) .$$ The unit disk $\mathbb{D}^{1}=\left\{ x\in \mathbb{R}^{2}:\left\Vert
x\right\Vert \leq 1\right\} $ is the global $\mathcal{F}$-asymptotically stable set of the system (see [@Ra Example 7] for details). Nevertheless, $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left( x\right) $ is the unit sphere $\mathbb{S%
}^{1}$, if $\left\Vert x\right\Vert \geq 1$, and $L_{\mathcal{F}}\left(
x\right) $ is the origin $0$, if $\left\Vert x\right\Vert <1$. Hence $L_{%
\mathcal{F}}$ is not USC.
[99]{} Alves, R. W. M.; Rocha, V. H. L.; and Souza, J. A., A characterization of completely regular spaces, *Int. J. Math.*, 26 (2015), 1550032.
Alves, R. W. M. and Souza, J. A., Cantor–Kuratowski theorem in uniformizable spaces. Submitted. (arXiv:1804.04468)
Alves, R. W. M. and Souza, J. A., Global attractors for semigroup actions on uniformizable spaces. Submitted. (arXiv:1804.05687)
Braga Barros, C. J. and Souza, J. A., Attractors and chain recurrence for semigroup actions, *J. Dyn. Diff. Equations*, 22 (2010), 723–740.
Braga Barros, C. J.; Rocha, V. H. L.; Souza, J. A., Lyapunov stability for semigroup actions, *Semigroup Forum*, 88 (2014), 227–249.
Braga Barros, C. J.; Rocha, V. H. L.; Souza, J. A., Lyapunov stability and attraction under equivariant maps, *Canad. J. Math.*, 67 (2015), 1247–1269.
Braga Barros, C. J.; Rocha, V. H. L.; Souza, J. A., On attractors and stability for semigroup actions and control systems. *Math. Nachr.*, 289 (2016), 272–287.
Conley, C., Isolated Invariant Sets and the Morse Index. *CBMS Regional Conf. Ser. in Math.* 38, American Mathematical Society, 1978.
Raminelli, S. A. and Souza, J. A., Global attractors for semigroup actions, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.*, 407 (2013), 316–327.
Saperstone, S. H. and Nishihama, M., Continuity of the limit set maps in semidynamical systems, *J. Diff. Equations,* 23 (1977), 183–199.
Michael, E., Topologies on spaces of subsets, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*, 71 (1951), 151–182.
Nadler, S. B., *Hyperspaces of sets*. Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Math., Vol. 49, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1978.
Patrão, M. and San Martin, L. A. B., Semiflows on topological spaces: chain transitivity and semigroups, *J. Dyn. Diff. Equations*, 19 (2007), 155–180.
Souza, J. A., On limit behavior of semigroup actions on noncompact spaces, *Proc. Am. Math. Soc.*, 140 (2012), 3959–3972.
Souza, J. A., Lebesgue covering lemma on nonmetric spaces, *Int. J. Math.*, 24 (2013), 1350018.
Souza, J. A. and Tozatti, H. V. M., Some aspects of stability for semigroup actions and control systems, *J. Dyn. Diff. Equations*, 26 (2014), 631–654.
Willard, S., *General topology*, Dover Publications, New York, 2004.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate operation of a small Fabry-Perot interferometer in which highly coherent Aharonov-Bohm oscillations are observed in the integer and fractional quantum Hall regimes. Using a novel heterostructure design, Coulomb effects are drastically suppressed. Coherency of edge mode interference is characterized by the energy scale for thermal damping, ${T_0=206}mK$ at $\nu=1$. Selective backscattering of edge modes originating in the ${N=0,1,2}$ Landau levels allows for independent determination of inner and outer edge mode velocities. Clear Aharonov-Bohm oscillations are observed at fractional filling factors $\nu=2/3$ and $\nu=1/3$. Our device architecture provides a platform for measurement of anyonic braiding statistics.'
author:
- 'J. Nakamura'
- 'S. Fallahi'
- 'H. Sahasrabudhe'
- 'R. Rahman'
- 'S. Liang'
- 'G. C. Gardner'
- 'M. J. Manfra'
title: 'Aharonov-Bohm interference of fractional quantum Hall edge modes'
---
Integer and fractional quantum Hall states are archetypal topological phases of a two-dimensional electron system (2DES) subjected to a strong perpendicular magnetic field [@JainBook]. Electronic Fabry-Perot interferometry has been proposed as a means to probe the properties of integer and fractional quantum Hall edge states [@Wen1997; @DasSarma2005; @Halperin2006; @Kim2006]; most intriguingly, interferometry may be used to directly observe anyonic braiding statistics [@Halperin1984] of fractional quantum Hall quasiparticles. Interference visibility in real devices is limited by finite phase coherence, a particularly acute problem in the fractional quantum Hall regime. Visibility may be improved by decreasing the size of the interferometer so that the path traveled by interfering excitations is shorter. However, attempts to measure interference in small devices have yielded results inconsistent with simple Aharonov-Bohm interference; specifically, the magnetic field oscillation period is found to change with filling factor, and constant phase lines in the gate voltage-magnetic field plane have positive slope rather than the expected negative slope [@Zhang2009; @Heiblum2010; @Goldman2009; @Ensslin2013]. This behavior is attributed to Coulomb charging effects [@Halperin2007; @Halperin2011], which cause the area of the interferometer to change as the magnetic field is varied. This “Coulomb-dominated” behavior masks the Aharonov-Bohm phase and makes braiding statistics unobservable [@Halperin2011]. The challenge for measuring robust interference and observing fractional braiding statistics is to create a device small enough to maintain phase coherence, while reducing Coulomb effects so that the device may operate in the Aharonov-Bohm regime. We report fabrication and operation of an interferometer that overcomes these challenges.
{width="\linewidth"}
The GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure was grown by molecular beam epitaxy [@Manfra2014; @Gardner2016] and is shown in Fig. \[Structure\] (a). While typical structures utilize a single GaAs quantum well in which the 2DES resides, our structure contains three GaAs wells: a primary quantum well 30nm wide and two additional 12nm wells located on either side of the primary well separated by 25nm AlGaAs spacers. The 2DES under study is located inside the primary GaAs quantum well, while the ancillary wells screen Coulomb effects so that the interferometer may operate in the Aharonov-Bohm regime rather than in the Coulomb-dominated regime [@Halperin2007; @Halperin2011]. The structure is modulation doped with silicon above the top screening well and below the bottom screening well. In Fig. \[Structure\] (b) we show the position of the $\Gamma$-band edge (red) and electron density (blue) calculated by the self-consistent Schrodinger-Poisson method [@Harshad2018]; the confinement energy in each screening well is tuned to match the experimentally measured densities. This structure is designed to have significantly higher density in the screening wells than in the primary well in order to facilitate strong screening.
Interferometer operation requires transport measurements through the primary quantum well unobscured by parallel conduction through the screening wells. Our device includes narrow gates on the top surface and on the back side of the chip that partially overlay the arms connecting each Ohmic contact to the mesa; this is shown schematically in Fig. \[Structure\] (c). The surface gates over the Ohmics are negatively biased at -0.29V; this bias is sufficient to deplete the electrons from the top screening well without depleting either the primary quantum well or the bottom screening well. Similarly, the back side gate over the Ohmics is biased at -150V in order to deplete the bottom screening well, but not the primary quantum well. This eliminates electrical conduction through both screening wells so that only the primary quantum well is probed in measurements. Because these gates are well separated from the gates that define the mesoscopic interference path, the screening wells are still populated in the interferometer and thus available to screen. This selective depletion technique was pioneered to isolate transport in bulk bilayer systems [@Eisenstein1990]. Here we have demonstrated the technique has utility for mesoscale electronic devices as well.
In Fig. \[SEM\] we show a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the interferometer gates. The device consists of two quantum point contacts (QPCs) that form narrow constrictions and a pair of side gates that define the interference path. The gates shown in yellow are negatively biased to deplete electrons from the quantum well and define the interference path; the central top gate (green) is grounded and does not alter the 2DEG density.
Isolation of the screening wells is tested prior to energizing the interferometer gates. In Fig \[Transport\] (a) we show the evolution of the Hall resistance $R_{xy}$ as the gates that overlay the Ohmics are biased. In the black trace, no bias is applied to the gates, so current flows through all three quantum wells. In the blue trace, the top surface gate around the Ohmic contacts (orange gate in Fig. \[Structure\] (c)) is negatively biased to deplete the top screening well; the Ohmic contacts are disconnected from the top screening well and transport is only measured through the primary quantum well and bottom screening well. In the red trace, the bottom gate around the Ohmic contacts (red gate in Fig. \[Structure\] (c)) is also negatively biased to deplete the bottom screening well so that only the primary quantum well is probed; in this case $R_{xy}$ exhibits a much steeper slope and shows clear quantum Hall plateaus and concomittant zeroes in longitudinal resistance (not shown), demonstrating that parallel conduction through the screening wells has been eliminated.
![\[SEM\] False color SEM image of the interferometer, located in the center of the Hall bar shown schematically in FIG. 1(c). The device consists of two quantum point contacts to backscatter current and a pair of side gates to define the interference path (yellow); when these gates are negatively biased, the 2DES underneath is depleted, which defines the interference path. An additional gate over the top of the area of the device (green) is grounded for these experiments. ](\ffile){width="\linewidth"}
The presence of the screening wells acts to reduce the Coulomb charging energy, characterized by measuring Coulomb blockade through the device at zero magnetic field [@Beenakker1991]. Coulomb blockade diamonds (obtained by measuring the differential conductance $\frac{\partial I}{\partial V}$ versus side gate voltage $V_{gate}$ and source drain voltage $V_{SD}$), shown in Fig \[Transport\] (b), yield a charging energy $\frac{e^2}{2C} \approx 17\mu eV$. The Coulomb blockade charging energy characterizes the incremental increase of electrostatic energy when an electron is added in the presence all of the other electrons localized in the interior of the device; therefore, this energy may be loosely identified with the bulk-edge coupling constant $K_{IL}$ in Ref.[@Halperin2011], which determines whether the device is in the Coulomb-dominated or Aharonov-Bohm regime. A similarly sized device *without* screening wells would have charging energy $\frac{e^2}{2C} \sim \frac{e^2}{\epsilon r} \approx 200 \mu eV$ (where $r$ is the radius of the dot), indicating that the screening wells are very effective at reducing Coulomb effects.
![\[Transport\] (a) Bulk Hall conductance $R_{xy}$ with the top and bottom gates around the contacts grounded (black trace), with -0.29V on the top gate to disconnect the top screening well from the contacts (blue), and with -0.29V on the top gate and -150V on the back gate around the contacts in order to disconnect both screening wells from the contacts so that transport is only measured through the primary quantum well (red). (b) Coulomb blockade measurement at zero magnetic field measured in a dilution refrigerator at base temperature $T=13mK$ showing the differential conductance $\frac{\partial I}{\partial V}$ versus gate voltage and source-drain voltage $V_{SD}$ for the device at zero field showing Coulomb blockade diamonds with charging energy $\frac{e^2}{2C} \sim 17 \mu eV$.](\ffile){width="\linewidth"}
$\nu = 1$ interference
======================
Next, we operate the device at filling factor $\nu=1$ in the integer quantum Hall regime, where the bulk of the 2DES is insulating and current is carried by chiral edge states. The interference path is shown schematically in Fig. \[Interference\] (a). Electrons incident from the source contact are backscattered by the two quantum point contacts to the opposite edge, and the two backscattered paths interfere; this is shown schematically in Fig. \[Interference\] (a). The quantum mechanical Aharonov-Bohm phase accumulated by an electron traversing the interference path is given by $\theta = 2\pi \frac{A_I B}{\Phi_0}$, where $A_I$ is the area of the interference path, B is the magnetic field, and $\Phi _0 \equiv \frac{h}{e}$ is the magnetic flux quantum. The device may be operated by changing the magnetic field B, or by changing the voltage on the side gates to change $A_I$.
At $\nu=1$ the interferometer exhibits strong conductance oscillations, probed by measuring the diagonal resistance $R_D$ across the device. $R_D$ as a function of gate voltage and magnetic field is plotted in Fig. \[Interference\] (b); the lines of constant phase exhibit negative slope, consistent with the device being in the Aharonov-Bohm regime despite its small size. The magnetic field oscillation period $\Delta B = 5.7mT$, which gives an area of the interference path $A_I = \Delta B/\phi_0 \approx 0.73 \mu m^2$. This area is smaller than the lithographic area of the device, indicating that the 2DES is depleted in a region approximately 180nm wide around the gates; this agrees with simulations of the 2DES density at the edge of the gate (see Supp. Fig. 1). The magnetic field period does not vary significantly with filling factor, consistent with a device in the Aharonov-Bohm regime [@Zhang2009; @Halperin2007; @Halperin2011]. Previous Fabry-Perot interferometry experiments utilizing conventional heterostructures have required a device area of $~20\mu m^2$ in order for Coulomb effects to be small enough for the device to be in the Aharonov-Bohm regime [@Zhang2009; @Heiblum2009]; unambiguous observation of the Aharonov-Bohm regime in a much smaller device demonstrates the effectiveness of the device design employed here.
For weak backscattering by symmetrically tuned QPCs, conductance oscillations due to interference obey $\delta G/G_0 = 1-2r^2 \eta \cos(2\pi \frac{AB}{\phi_0})$, where $G_0 \equiv \frac{e^2}{h}$ is the conductance quantum, $r^2$ is the reflection amplitude of the QPCs, and $\eta$ is the coherence factor. We characterize coherence of the interference at $\nu = 1$ by measuring conductance oscillations at different temperatures, plotted in Fig. \[Interference\] (c); we normalize by dividing by the conductance oscillations $\delta G$ by the reflection amplitude $r^2$, with each QPC tuned to approximately 97% transmission and 3% reflection. The coherence factor $\eta$ (defined as the amplitude of $\frac{\delta G}{2G_0 r^2}$) decays with temperature following an approximately exponential trend, shown in Fig. \[Interference\] (d), with a characteristic temperature $T_0 = 206$mK. For comparison, in measurements of a Fabry-Perot interferometer in [@McClureThesis] $T_0$ was found to be $< 20mK$ for magnetic fields exceeding 1.5T; in measurements of Mach-Zehnder interferometers the largest $T_0$ measured was 40mK [@Roulleau2008], with larger devices exhibiting smaller $T_0$. The significantly larger $T_0$ observed in our experiment indicates that the smaller size achieved in our device is beneficial to achieving quantum coherence.
{width="\linewidth"}
Edge mode velocity
==================
When the device is operated at lower magnetic field (higher filling factor), multiple integer edge modes are present. In our device it is possible to selectively interfere a particular edge mode by tuning the QPC voltages to partially backscatter that edge, while fully transmitting the outer edges so that only the partially backscattered edge interferes; this is shown schematically in Fig. \[Velocity\] (a) for the case of bulk filling factor $\nu _{bulk} = 3$, and a corresponding trace of the QPC conductance versus gate voltage is shown in Fig. \[Velocity\] (b) with the operating points corresponding to the selective interference of each edge state indicated with colored circles.
The interference phase may be additionally modulated by changing the energy $\epsilon$ of injected electrons, which changes the wave-vector $k$. This introduces a phase shift $\delta \theta = \delta \epsilon \frac{\partial k}{\partial \epsilon}L = \frac{\delta \epsilon L}{\hbar v_{edge}} $, where L is the path length around the interference loop and $v_{edge} \equiv \frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial k}$ is the velocity of the edge state [@Wen1997]. $\epsilon$ may be modulated by applying a finite source-drain bias $V_{SD}$ across the device; this results in oscillations in differential conductance as a function of both $V_{SD}$ and flux: $\delta G \propto \cos (2 \pi \frac{AB}{\Phi _0}) \cos (\frac{eV_{SD}L}{2\hbar v_{edge}})$ [@McClure2009]. This results in nodes in a “checkerboard” pattern when $\delta G$ is measured in the $V_{SD}$ - $V_{gate}$ plane (plotted at $\nu _{bulk} = 1$ in Fig. \[Velocity\] (c) and for the inner N = 1 mode at $\nu _{bulk} = 3$ in Fig. \[Velocity\] (d)), with nodes in the interference pattern occurring at $V_{SD} = \pm \frac{ \pi \hbar v_{edge}}{eL}$. The velocity may thus be extracted: $v_{edge} = \frac{eL \Delta V_{SD}}{2\pi \hbar}$ [@Heiblum2016], where $\Delta V_{SD}$ is the spacing between nodes, and we estimate $L$ from the interference area, $L \approx 4 \sqrt{A_I}$.
In Ref. [@McClure2009] this method was used to measure edge velocity versus filling factor, but without controlling which edge mode was being interfered; in [@Heiblum2016] edge velocity for only the $N = 0$ LL was reported. To our knowledge, measurement of edge velocity for different Landau levels as a function of filling factor has not been demonstrated previously. In Fig. \[Velocity\] (e) we plot the edge state velocity for the N = 0, N = 1, and N = 2 Landau level edge modes versus bulk filling factor $\nu _{bulk}$. The inner, higher index Landau levels generally have lower velocity and correspondingly lower coherence. At magnetic fields below approximately 1.2T ($\nu _{bulk} = 4$), the QPCs show spin-degenerate conductance plateaus, even though the bulk transport exhibits spin-split quantum Hall states down to 0.2T. This suggests that although distinct edge states exist, below 1.2T they are too close to one another to be interfered independently; therefore at filling factors $v_{bulk} > 4$ we show a single velocity measurement for each Landau level, while at lower fillings we show both spins when resolved. We also mention that we observe the same period-halving phenomenon in our device that was reported in previous interferometry experiments [@Heiblum2015; @Heiblum2018]; see Supp. Note 4 and Supp. Fig. 5.
Much of the magnetic field dependence in Fig. \[Velocity\] (e) can be understood from the fact that edge currents in the quantum Hall regime are generated by Hall drift: $\vec{v}_{Hall} = \frac{ \vec{E} \times {\vec{B}}}{B^2}$, where $\vec{E}$ is the in-plane electric field at the edge due to the confining potential and $\vec{B}$ is the perpendicular magnetic field. This implies that the edge velocity should increase with decreasing magnetic field (increasing filling factor), and this is indeed the predominant trend observed at filling factors $9<\nu _{bulk}<2$. On the other hand, it must also be considered that the electric field experienced by each edge state also depends on both magnetic field and Landau level index. It can be seen from Fig. \[Velocity\] (e) that the outer, lower index Landau levels generally have higher edge velocity than the inner, higher index ones. This behavior can be understood from the works of Chklovskii et al. [@Chklovskii1992; @Chklovskii1993], who found that the confining potential is steepest at the outer edge, resulting in a higher electric field and thus higher velocity for the outer Landau level edge modes and a smaller electric field and lower velocity for the inner ones.
Numerical simulations of edge transport in the integer quantum Hall regime for the heterostructure used in these experiments have been performed, and are plotted in Fig. \[Velocity\] (f); see Supplementary Note 1 and Ref. [@Harshad2018] for an in-depth review. In these simulations, the spatially varying in-plane electric field is self-consistently evaluated for the Landau level density of states, considering the electrostatic effects of the heterostructure, doping, surface states and gates. The velocity is obtained by solving quantum transport (non-equilibrium Green’s function) equations at the Fermi level.
The simulations show good qualitative and quantitative agreement with the experimental results over the range of filling factor $2<\nu _{bulk} <10$. At lower filling $\nu _{bulk}<2$, the edge velocity exhibits non-monotonic behavior, which may be due to the impact of electron-electron interactions which become increasingly important at high magnetic field. Non-monotonic behavior at low filling was also reported in Ref. [@Heiblum2016]. Our simulations employ a mean-field Hartree approximation that does not capture many-body effects.
Additionally, the edge velocities also exhibit non-monotonic behavior at high filling $\nu _{bulk} > 10$. A possible explanation for this is that at low fields when the magnetic length becomes comparable to the length scale of the confining potential at the edge, charge transport may occur via skipping orbits, resulting in different behavior than observed at higher fields [@Montambaux2011; @McClure2009]. It is reasonable for this to occur at $~ \nu _{bulk} = 10$; here the magnetic length is $~$39nm, and simulations indicate that the length scale of the confining potential is approximately 40nm (see supplementary Fig. 1). This effect is not captured in the simulations as the magnetic length approaches the Debye length.
{width="\linewidth"}
Fractional quantum Hall regime {#fractional-quantum-hall-regime .unnumbered}
==============================
We turn now to results in the fractional quantum Hall regime. In previous experiments with small Fabry-Perot devices Coulomb-dominated or Coulomb blockade oscillations have been observed in fractional states [@McClure2012; @Heiblum2010; @Goldman2005; @Goldman2007]. Willet et al.[@Willett2009; @Willett2013] reported oscillations at $\nu=5/2$ consistent with Aharonov-Bohm interference of charge $e/4$ and $e/2$ excitations. However, oscillations with negatively sloped lines of constant phase in the gate voltage-magnetic field plane (a sine qua non of Aharonov-Bohm regime interference) have not been previously reported. Edge states in the fractional quantum Hall regime are predicted to have remarkably different properties from those in the integer states; in particular, the current-carrying quasiparticles may carry fractional charge. In the fractional case, the Aharanov-Bohm interference phase is modified [@Halperin2011]:
$$\label{FractAB}
\theta = 2\pi \frac{e^*}{e} \frac{A_I B}{\Phi _0}$$
Eqn. \[FractAB\] indicates that quasiparticle charge may be extracted from gate voltage oscillation periods according to the relationship $\frac{e^*} {e} = \frac{\Phi_0}{B \Delta V_{gate}\frac{\partial A_I}{\partial V_{gate}}}$, where $\Delta V_{gate}$ is the gate voltage oscillation period and $\frac{\partial A_I}{\partial V_{gate}}$ is the lever arm relating change in gate voltage to the change in interference path area. $\frac{\partial A_I}{\partial V_{gate}}$ may be determined from the gate voltage period at integer states, where the interfering charge is simply $e$; a linear fit of $\Delta V_{gate}$ versus $1/B$ yields $\frac{\partial A_I}{\partial V_{gate}} = 1.8\times 10^{-13} m^2V^{-1}$ (gate and magnetic field periods are shown in Supp. Fig. 3). We mention that interference at $\nu_{bulk} = 1/3$ was found to be reproducible using a range of different gate voltages as well as after thermal cycling the device to room temperature; see Supp. Note 3 and Supp. Fig. 4.
In both the Laughlin [@Laughlin1983] and composite fermion [@Jain1989; @JainBook] theories the $\nu = 1/3$ FQHE state is predicted to support quasiparticles with charge $e^* = e/3$. At $\nu = 1/3$ ($B = 13T$), we observe conductance oscillations as a function of gate voltage and magnetic field similar to those at integer states; the oscillations have gate voltage period $\Delta V_{gate}=6.1mV$; this yields an interfering quasiparticle charge $e^* = e\frac{\Phi_0}{B \Delta V_{gate}\frac{\partial A_I}{\partial V_{gate}}} = 0.29e$, in good agreement with the theoretical predictions. This supports previous experimental results utilizing shot noise [@Heiblum1997], resonant tunneling [@Goldman1995; @Goldman1995Science], and Coulomb blockade [@McClure2012].
Next we discuss the $\nu = 2/3$ FQHE state, which is the hole-conjugate state to $\nu = 1/3$ [@Girvin1984]. Several edge structures have been proposed for the $\nu = 2/3$ state. Motivated by a picture in which the $\nu = 2/3$ consists of a $\nu = 1/3$ hole state imposed upon a $\nu = 1$ background, MacDonald proposed that the $\nu = 2/3$ edge should consist of an inner edge mode of charge $e^* = -e/3$ and an outer edge with $e^* = e$ [@Macdonald1990]. Chang [@Chang1990] and Beenakker [@Beenakker1990] constructed models consisting of two $e^* = e/3$ edge modes; a later work indicated that a transition from the MacDonald edge structure to the Chang-Beenakker edge structure should occur as the confining potential is tuned from sharp confinement to soft confinement [@Meir1993]. Yet another edge model was proposed by Kane, Fisher, and Polchinski in which the presence of disorder leads to a single $e^* = 2e/3$ charged edge mode and a counterpropogating neutral mode [@Kane1994].
We measure conductance oscillations at $\nu = 2/3$ ($B = 6.8T$) with $\Delta V_{gate}=3.7mV$, yielding a quasiparticle charge $e^* = e\frac{\Phi_0}{B \Delta V_{gate}\frac{\partial A_I}{\partial V_{gate}}} = 0.93e$, which suggests interference of an integrally charged edge mode. Presence of an integrally charged mode suggests that the Macdonald edge structure holds in our device. However, we do not find evidence for interference of a fractionally charged $e^* = -e/3$ mode at $\nu = 2/3$, even if the QPC bias is tuned to reduce backscattering. A possible explanation for this is that $e^* = -e/3$ should have a significantly smaller velocity due to being an inner mode; therefore, it will have lower phase coherence, making it very difficult to observe. Smaller device size or lower experimental temperatures might make measurement of the $-e/3$ mode possible.
It is noteworthy that our observation of an integrally charged mode differs from previous experimental findings, in which shot noise and Coulomb blockade measurements suggested a different edge structure consisting of two $e^* = e/3$ charge modes and two neutral modes [@Heiblum2009; @Heiblum2017], with no integrally charged mode observed. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that our sample may have a sharper confining potential due to the short setback of the screening wells (see Supp. Note 2 and Supp. Fig. 2), resulting in our device supporting the edge structure described in Ref.[@Macdonald1990]. We mention that a sharp confining potential may also be beneficial for measuring interference at the $\nu = 1/3$ state by preventing edge reconstruction and the proliferation of neutral edge modes [@Wan2002; @Joglekar2003; @Hu2009] which may cause dephasing [@Gefen2016; @Gefen2015]; neutral modes have been detected at $\nu = 1/3$ and numerous other fractional quantum Hall states in standard GaAs structures without screening wells [@Heiblum2014].
Finally, we remark that although we have observed Aharonov-Bohm interference of fractionally charged quasiparticles at the $\nu = 1/3$ fractional quantum Hall state, we have not observed the fractional braiding statistics predicted for these quasiparticles [@Halperin1984; @JainBook]. It has been suggested that increasing the flux through the interferometer by one flux quantum should result in the addition of one quasiparticle into the area of the device in order to keep the system charge neutral; this should result in an interference phase jump $\Delta \theta _{anyon} = 4\pi /3$ at the $\nu = 1/3$ state[@Wen1997; @Halperin2011]. We appear to measure only the Aharonov-Bohm phase when magnetic field is varied, suggesting that adding flux does not introduce quasiparticles in our device. Critically, the $\nu = 1/3$ state has a large energy gap for the creation of quasiparticles measured to be $\sim 700 \mu eV$ in a 2DES of similar density [@Stormer1993]. This energy is more than an order of magnitude larger than the measured charging energy in our device ($\frac{e^2}{2C} \sim 17 \mu V$), which suggests that when magnetic field is varied it may be energetically favorable for the primary quantum well to remain at fixed filling factor (without creating quasiparticles) rather than fixed sheet density, with the energy cost of the variations in quantum well density reduced by the screening wells. When the experiment is performed at fixed filling factor it is expected that only the Aharonov-Bohm phase of the quasiparticles will be observed when magnetic field and side gate voltage are varied [@Wen1997; @Halperin2006], consistent with our observations. An alternative method to introduce quasiparticles and measure braiding statistics would be to directly manipulate the electrostatic potential with a gate in the center of the interferometer [@Wen1997; @Halperin2006]; efforts are underway to fabricate devices with this type of gate.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
We have demonstrated a small electronic Fabry-Perot interferometer in which Coulomb effects are minimized, facilitating measurement of highly coherent Aharonov-Bohm interference of both integer and fractional quantum Hall edge modes. Selective population of inner and outer edge states in the integer quantum Hall regime allow determination of the velocity of each mode. Measurement of Aharonov-Bohm interference at the $\nu = 1/3$ and $\nu = 2/3$ fractional quantum Hall states paves the way towards direct observation of fractional braiding statistics with modest modifications to device design.
![\[Fractions\] (a) Aharonov-Bohm conductance oscillations at $\nu=1/3$. (b) Aharonov-Bohm conductance oscillations at $\nu=2/3$.](\ffile){width="\linewidth"}
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
The primary quantum well was measured to have bulk electron density $n = 1.05 \times 10^{11} cm^{-2}$ and mobility $\mu = 7 \times 10^6 cm^2 V^{-1} s^{-1}$ measured after full device fabrication and in the dark.
The device was fabricated by: (1) optical lithography and wet etching to define the mesa; (2) deposition of In/Sn Ohmic contacts; (3) electron beam lithography and electron beam evaporation (10nm Ti/15nm Au) to define the interferometer gates; (4) optical lithography and electron beam evaporation (20nm Ti/150nm Au) to define the bondpads and the surface gates around the Ohmic contacts; (5) mechanical polishing to thin the GaAs substrate; (6) optical lithography and electron beam evaporation (200nm Ti/150nm Au) to define the backgates.
The device was measured in a dilution refrigerator with base mixing chamber temperature $T=13mK$. Extensive heat sinking and filtering are used to achieve low electron temperatures. Standard 4-terminal and 2-terminal lock-in amplifier techniques were used to probe the diagonal resistance and conductance across the device.
Data Availability {#data-availability .unnumbered}
-----------------
The data that supports the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[100]{} Jain, J. K. Composite Fermions, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007). Chamon, C. de C., Freed, D. E., Kivelson, S. A., Sondhi, S. L., & Wen, X. G. Two point-contact interferometer for quantum Hall systems. *Phys. Rev. B* **55**, 2331 (1997)
Sarma, S. D., Freedman, M., & Nayak, C. Topologically Protected Qubits from a Possible Non-Abelian Fractional Quantum Hall State. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **94**, 166802 (2005)
Stern, A., & Halperin, B. I. Proposed Experiments to Probe the Non-Abelian $\nu = 5/2$ Quantum Hall State. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **96**, 016802 (2006)
Kim, E. Aharonov-Bohm Interference and Fractional Statistics in a Quantum Hall Interferometer. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **97**, 216404 (2006)
Manfra, M. J. Molecular beam epitaxy of ultra-high-quality AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures: enabling physics in low-dimensional electronic systems. *Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.* **5**, 347-373 (2014)
Gardner, G. C., Fallahi, S., Watson, J. D., & Manfra, M. J. Modified MBE Hardware and techniques and role of gallium purity for attainment of two dimensional electron gas mobility $> 35\times 10^6 cm^2 /Vs$ in AlGaAs/GaAs quantum wells grown by MBE. *Journal of Crystal Growth* **441**, 71-77 (2016)
Halperin, B. I. Statistics of Quasiparticles and the Hierarchy of Fractional Quantized Hall States. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **52**, 1583 (1984)
Eisenstein, J. P., Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Independently contacted two-dimensional elctron systems in double quantum wells. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **57**, 2324 (1990)
Peters, S., Tiemann, L., Reichl, C., Falt, S., Dietsche, W., & Wegscheider, W. Improvement of the transport properties of a high-mobility electron system by intentional parallel conduction. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **110**, 042106 (2017)
Halperin, B. I., & Rosenow, B. Influence of Interactions on Flux and Back-Gate Period of Quantum Hall Interferometers. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **98**, 106801 (2007)
Halperin, B. I., Stern, A., Neder, I., & Rosenow, B. Theory of the Fabry-Perot quantum Hall interferometer. *Phys. Rev. B* **83**, 155440 (2011)
Zhang, Y., McClure, D. T., Levenson-Falk, E. M., Marcus, C. M., Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Distinct signatures for Coulomb blockade and interference in electronic Fabry-Perot interferometers. *Phys. Rev. B* **79**, 241304 (R) (2009)
Lin, P. V. , Camino, F. E., & Goldman, V. J. Electron interferometry in the quantum Hall regime: Aharonov-Bohm effect of interacting electrons. *Phys. Rev. B* **80**, 125310 (2009)
Baer, S., Rossler, C., Ihn, T., Ensslin, K., Reichl, C., & Wegscheider, W. Cyclic depopulation of edge states in a large quantum dot. *New J. Phys* **15**, 023035 (2013)
McClure, D. T., Zhang, Y., Rosenow, B., Levenson-Falk, E. M., Marcus, C. M., Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Edge-State Velocity and Coherence in a Quantum Hall Fabry-Perot Interferometer. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **103**, 206806 (2009)
Beenakker, C. W. J. Theory of Coulomb-blockade oscillations in the conductance of a quantum dot. *Phys. Rev. B* **44**, 1646 (1991)
Ofek, N., Bid, A., Heiblum, M., Stern, A., Umansky, V., & Mahalu, D. Role of interactions in an electron Fabry-Perot interferometer operating in the quantum Hall effect regime. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* **107**, 5276 (2010)
McClure, D. T., Chang, W., Marcus, C. M., Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Fabry-Perot Interferometry with Fractional Charges. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **108**, 256804 (2012)
Hu, Z., Rezayi, E.H., Wan, X., & Yang, K. Edge-mode velocities and thermal coherence of quantum Hall interferometers. *Phys. Rev. B* **80**, 235330 (2009)
Roulleau, P., Portier, F., Roche, P., Cavanna, A., Faini, G., Gennser, U., & Mailly, D. Direct Measurement of the Coherence Length of Edge States in the Integer Quantum Hall Regime. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **100**, 126802 (2008)
McClure, D. T. Interferometer Based Studies of Quantum Hall Phenomena. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard University (2012)
Chklovskii, D. B., Shklovskii. B. I., & Glazman, L. I. Electrostatics of edge channels. *Phys. Rev. B* **46**, 4026 (1992)
Chklovskii, D. B., Matveev, K. A., & Shklovskii, B. I. Ballistic conductance of interacting electrons in the quantum Hall regime. *Phys. Rev. B* **47**, 12607 (1993)
Gurman, I., Sabo, R., Heiblum, M., Umansky, V., & Mahalu, D. Dephasing of an electronic two-path interferometer. *Phys. Rev. B* **93**, 121412 (R) (2016)
Sahasrabudhe, H., Novakovic, B., Nakamura, J., Fallahi, S., Povolotskyi, M., Klimeck, G., Rahman R., & Manfra, M. J. Optimization of edge state velocity in the integer quantum Hall regime. *Phys. Rev. B* **97**, 085302 (2018)
Montambaux, G. Semiclassical quantuization of skipping orbits. *Eur. Phys. J. B* **79**, 215) (2011)
Choi, H. K., Sivan, I., Rosenblatt, A., Heiblum, M., Umansky, V., & D. Mahalu, D. Robust electron pairing in the integer quantum hall effect. *Nature Comm.* **6**, 7435 (2015)
Sivan, I., Bhattacharyya, R., Choi, H. K., Heiblum, M., Feldman, D. E., Mahalu, D., & Umansky, V. Interaction-induced interference in the integer quantum Hall effect. *Phys. Rev. B* **97**, 125405 (2018)
Camino, F. E., Zhou, W., & Goldman, V. J. Aharonov-Bohm Superpiod in a Laughlin Quasiparticle Interferometer. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **95**, 246802 (2005)
Camino, F. E., Zhou, W., & Goldman, V. J. e/3 Laughlin Quasiparticle Primary-Filling $\nu = 1/3$ Interferometer. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **98**, 076805 (2007)
Willett, R. L, Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Measurement of filling factor 5/2 quasiparticle interference with observation of charge e/4 and e/2 period oscillations. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **106**, 8853 (2009)
Willett, R. L., Nayak, C., Shtengel, K., Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Magnetic-Field-Tuned Aharonov-Bohm Oscillations and Evidence for Non-Abelian Anyons at $\nu = 5/2$. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **111**, 186401 (2013)
Laughlin, R. B. Anomolous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with Fractionally Charged Excitation. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **50**, 1395 (1983)
Jain, J. K. Composite-fermion approach for the fractional quantum Hall effect. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **63**, 199 (1989)
de-Picciotto, R., Reznikov, M., Heiblum, M., Umansky, V., Bunin, G., & Mahalu, D. Direct observation of a fractional charge. *Nature* **389**, 162 (1997)
Goldman, V. J. Resonant tunneling in the quantum Hall regime: measurement of fractional charge. *Science* **267**, 1010 (1995)
Goldman, V. J.. Resonant tunneling in the quantum Hall regime: measurement of fractional charge. *Surface Science* **361/362**, 1 (1995)
Girvin, S. M. Particle-hole symmetry in the anomolous quantum Hall effect. *Phys. Rev. B* **29**, 6012 (1984)
MacDonald, A. H. Edge States in the Fractional-Quantum-Hall-Effect Regime. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **64**, 220 (1990)
Beenakker, C. W. J. Edge Channels for the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **64**, 216 (1990)
Chang, A. M. A Unified Transport Theory for the Integral and Fractional Quantum Hall Effects: Phase Boundaries, Edge Currents, and Transmission/Reflection Probabilities. *Solid State Comm.* **74**, 871 (1990)
Meir, Y. Composite Edge States in the $\nu = 2/3$ Fractional Quantum Hall Regime. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **72**, 2624 (1993)
Kane, C. L., Fisher, M. P. A., & Polchinski, J. Randomness at the Edge: Theory of Quantum Hall Transport at Filling $\nu$ = 2/3. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **72**, 4129 (1994)
Bid, A., Ofek, N., Heiblum, M., Umansky, V., & Mahalu, D. Shot Noise and Charge at the 2/3 Composite Fractional Quantum Hall State. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **103**, 236802 (2009)
Sabo, R. et al. Edge reconstruction in fractional quantum Hall states. *Nature Phys.* **13**, 491 (2017)
Wan, X., Yang, K., & Rezayi, E. H. Reconstruction of Fractional Quantum Hall Edges. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **88**, 056802 (2002)
Joglekar, Y. N., Nguyen, H. K., & Murthy, G. Edge reconstructions in fractional quantum Hall systems. *Phys. Rev. B* **68**, 035332 (2003)
Goldsten, M. & Gefen, Y.. Suppression of Interference in Quantum Hall Mach-Zehnder Geometry by Upstream Neutral Modes. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **117**, 276804 (2016)
Park, J., Gefen, Y., & Sim, H. Topological dephasing in the $\nu = 2/3$ fractional quantum Hall regime. *Phys. Rev. B* **92**, 245437 (2015)
Inoue, H., Grivnin, A., Ronen, Y., Heiblum, M., Umansky, V., & Mahalu, D. Proliferation of neutral modes in fractional quantum Hall states. *Nature Comm.* **5**, 4067 (2014)
Du, R. R., Stormer, H. L., Tsui, D. C., Pfeiffer, L. N., & West, K. W. Experimental Evidence for New Particles in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **70**, 2944 (1993)
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Award number DE-SC0006671. Additional support for sample growth from the W. M. Keck Foundation and Nokia Bell Labs is gratefully acknowledged.
Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
J.N. and M.M. designed the heterostructures and experiments. S.F., S.L. and G.G. conducted molecular beam epitaxy growth. J.N. fabricated the devices, performed the measurements, and analyzed the data with input from M.M. H.S. and R.R. performed numerical simulations. J.N. and M.M wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.
Competing financial interests {#competing-financial-interests .unnumbered}
=============================
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
When using complex Bayesian models to combine information, the checking for consistency of the information being combined is good statistical practice. Here a new method is developed for detecting prior-data conflicts in Bayesian models based on comparing the observed value of a prior to posterior divergence to its distribution under the prior predictive distribution for the data. The divergence measure used in our model check is a measure of how much beliefs have changed from prior to posterior, and can be thought of as a measure of the overall size of a relative belief function. It is shown that the proposed method is intuitive, has desirable properties, can be extended to hierarchical settings, and is related asymptotically to Jeffreys’ and reference prior distributions. In the case where calculations are difficult, the use of variational approximations as a way of relieving the computational burden is suggested. The methods are compared in a number of examples with an alternative but closely related approach in the literature based on the prior predictive distribution of a minimal sufficient statistic.
[**Keywords**]{}: Bayesian inference, Model checking, Prior data-conflict, Variational Bayes.
author:
- 'David J. Nott[^1]'
- Wang Xueou
- Michael Evans
- 'Berthold-Georg Englert'
bibliography:
- 'conflict-KL.bib'
title: |
Checking for prior-data conflict using prior\
to posterior divergences
---
Introduction
============
In modern applications, statisticians are often confronted with the task of either combining data and expert knowledge, or of combining information from diverse data sources using hierarchical models. In these settings, Bayesian methods are very useful. However, whenever we perform Bayesian inference combining different sources of information, it is important to check the consistency of the information being combined. This work is concerned with the problem of detecting situations in which information coming from the prior and the data are in conflict in a Bayesian analysis. Such conflicts can highlight a lack of understanding of the information put into the model, and it is only when there is no conflict between prior and data that we can expect Bayesian inferences to show robustness to the prior [@allabadi+e15]. See for a discussion of Bayesian robustness and the behaviour of Bayesian inferences in the case of prior-data conflict.
Here a new and attractive approach to measuring prior-data conflict is introduced based on a prior to posterior divergence, and the comparison of the observed value of this statistic with its prior predictive distribution. We show that this method extends easily to hierarchical settings, and has an interesting relationship asymptotically with Jeffreys’ and reference prior distributions. For the prior to posterior divergence, we consider the class of Rényi divergences [@renyi61], with the Kullback-Leibler divergence as an important special case. In the present context, the Rényi divergence can be thought of as giving an overall measure of the size of a relative belief function, which is a function describing for each possible value of a given parameter of interest how much more or less likely it has become after observing the data. and give details of some attractive solutions to many inferential problems based on the notion of relative belief. A large change in beliefs from prior to posterior (where this is calibrated by the prior predictive) may be indicative of conflict between prior and likelihood, so that a check with prior to posterior Rényi divergence as the checking discrepancy is an intuitive one for prior-data conflict detection.
Checks for prior-data conflict have usually been formulated within the broader framework of Bayesian predictive model checking, although much of this work is concerned with approaches which check the prior and model jointly (see, for example, and for entries into this literature). In general the idea is that there is a discrepancy function $D(y)$ of data $y$ (where a large value of this discrepancy might represent an unusual value) and then for some reference predictive density $m(y)$ a $p$-value is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
p & = P\Bigl(D(Y)\geq D(y_{\text{obs}})\Bigr), \label{predcheck}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y\sim m(y)$ is a draw from the reference predictive distribution and $y_{\text{obs}}$ is the observed data. A small $p$-value indicates that the observed value of the discrepancy is surprising under the assumed model, and that the model formulation might need to be re-examined. The choice of discrepancy will reflect some aspect of the model fit that we wish to check, and this is generally application specific. The reference predictive density $m(y)$ needs to be chosen, and there are many ways that this can be done. For example, $m(y)$ might be the prior predictive density $\int g(\theta)p(y|\theta) d\theta$ [@box80], where $g(\theta)$ is the prior density and $p(y|\theta)$ is the density of $y$ given $\theta$. Another common choice of reference distribution is the posterior predictive for a hypothetical replicate [@guttman67; @rubin84; @gelman+ms96]. More complex kinds of replication can also be considered, particularly in the case of hierarchical models. In some cases, the discrepancy might also be allowed to depend on the parameters, in which case the reference distribution defines a joint distribution on both the parameters and $y$. When the discrepancy is chosen in a casual way in the posterior predictive approach it may be hard to interpret checks in a similar way across different problems, and a variety of authors have suggested modifications which have better calibration properties [@bayarri+b00; @robins+vv00; @hjort+ds06]. The choice of a suitable discrepancy and reference distribution in Bayesian predictive model checking often depends on statistical goals, and this is discussed more later.
Checking for prior-data conflict is distinct from the issue of whether the likelihood component of the model is adequately specified. An incorrect likelihood specification means that there are no parameter values which provide a good fit to the data, whereas a prior-data conflict occurs when the prior puts all its mass in the tails of the likelihood. See Chapter 5 of for a discussion of different kinds of model checks. Although we focus here on prior-data conflict checks, and not on checking the adequacy of the likelihood specification, describe one method for the latter problem related to the current work. They consider checking model adequacy by defining a model expansion and then measuring the utility of the expansion. Their preferred measure of utility is the marginal prior to posterior Kullback-Leibler divergence for the expansion parameter, and they consider calibration by comparison of the Kullback-Leibler divergence with its value in some reference situations involving simple distributions. Their use of a prior to posterior divergence in a model check is related to our approach and an interesting complement to our method for prior-data conflict checking. The approach is very flexible, but the elements of their construction need to be chosen with care to avoid confounding prior-data conflict checking with assessing the adequacy of the likelihood, and their approach to calibration of the diagnostic measure is also quite different.
Henceforth we will focus exclusively on model checking with the aim of detecting prior-data conflicts. We postpone a comprehensive survey of the literature on prior-data conflict assessment to the next section, after first describing the basic idea of our own approach. However, one feature of many existing suggestions for prior-data conflict checking is that they require the definition of a non-informative prior. Among methods that don’t require such a choice our approach is closely related to that of . They modify the approach to model checking given by by considering as the checking discrepancy the prior predictive density value for a sufficient statistic, and they use the prior predictive distribution as the reference predictive distribution. They show that these choices are logical ones for the specific purpose of checking for prior-data conflict. We will use this method as a reference for comparison in our later examples.
In Section 2 we introduce the basic idea of our method and discuss its relationship with other approaches in the literature. In Section 3 a series of simple examples where calculations can be done analytically is described. In Section 4 we consider the asymptotic behaviour of the checks, and some more complex examples are considered in Section 5 where computational implementation using variational approximation methods is considered. Section 6 concludes with some discussion.
Prior-data conflict checking
============================
The basic idea and relationship with relative belief
----------------------------------------------------
Let $\theta$ be a $d$-dimensional parameter and $y$ be data to be observed. We will assume henceforth that all distributions such as the joint distribution for $(y,\theta)$ can be defined in terms of densities with respect to appropriate support measures and that in the continuous case these densities are defined uniquely in terms of limits (see, for example, Appendix A of ). We consider Bayesian inference where the prior density is $g(\theta)$ and $p(y|\theta)$ is the density of $y$ given $\theta$. The posterior density is $g(\theta|y)\propto g(\theta)p(y|\theta)$. We consider checks for prior-data conflict based on a prior to posterior Rényi divergence of order $\alpha$ [@renyi61] (sometimes referred to as an $\alpha$ divergence). $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y) & =\frac{1}{\alpha-1} \log \int \left\{\frac{g(\theta|y)}{g(\theta)}\right\}^{\alpha-1} g(\theta|y) d\theta, \label{renyi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha>0$ and the case $\alpha=1$ is defined by letting $\alpha\rightarrow 1$. This corresponds to the Kullback-Leibler divergence, and we write $$\text{KL}(y)=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1}R_\alpha(y)=\int \log \frac{g(\theta|y)}{g(\theta)} g(\theta|y)\;d\theta.$$ Also of interest is to consider $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$, which gives the maximum value of $\log \frac{g(\theta|y)}{g(\theta)}$, and we write$\text{MR}(y)=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow\infty} R_\alpha(y)$. Our proposed $p$-value for the prior-data conflict check is $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\alpha}=p_\alpha(y_{\text{obs}})=P(R_\alpha(Y)\geq R_\alpha(y_{\text{obs}})) \label{klcheck}\end{aligned}$$ where $y_{\text{obs}}$ is the observed value of $y$ and $Y\sim p(y)=\int g(\theta)p(y|\theta) d\theta$ is a draw from the prior predictive distribution. This is a measure of how surprising the observed value $R_\alpha(y_{\text{obs}})$ is in terms of its prior distribution. For if this is small then the distance between the prior and posterior is much greater than expected. The use of $p$-values in Bayesian model checking as measures of surprise is well established, but we emphasize here that these $p$-values are not measures of evidence, and it may be better to think of the tail probability (\[klcheck\]) as a calibration of the observed value of $R_\alpha(y_{\text{obs}})$. However, we will continue to use the well-established $p$-value terminology in what follows. We will use the special notation $p_{\text{KL}}$ and $p_{\text{MR}}$ for the $p$-values based on the discrepancies $\text{KL}(y)$ and $\text{MR}(y)$ respectively. In the definition (\[renyi\]) it was assumed that we want an overall conflict check for the prior. If interest centres on a particular quantity $\Psi(\theta)$, however, we can look at the marginal prior to posterior divergence for $\Psi$ instead of $\theta$ in (\[renyi\]).
The prior-data conflict check (\[klcheck\]) can be motivated from a number of points of view. First, the choice of discrepancy is intuitive, since $R_\alpha(y)$ is a measure of how much beliefs change from prior to posterior, and comparing this measure for $y_{\text{obs}}$ against what is expected under the prior predictive intuitively tells us something about how surprising the observed data and likelihood are under the prior. This point of view connects with the relative belief framework for inferences summarized in and . For a parameter of interest $\Psi=\Psi(\theta)$, the relative belief function is the ratio of the posterior density of $\Psi$ to its prior density, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{RB}(\Psi|y) & = \frac{g(\Psi|y)}{g(\Psi)}.\end{aligned}$$ $\text{RB}(\Psi|y)$ measures how much belief in $\psi$ being the true value has changed after observing data $y$. If $\text{RB}(\Psi|y)$ is bigger than $1$, this says that there is evidence for $\Psi$ being the true value, whereas if it is less than $1$ this says that there is evidence against. Use of the Rényi divergence as the discrepancy in (\[klcheck\]) is equivalent to the use of the discrepancy $$\begin{aligned}
\|\text{RB}(\theta|y)\|_s & =E\Bigl(\text{RB}(\theta|y)^s|y\Bigr)^{1/s} \label{mrbstat}\end{aligned}$$ as a test statistic, where $s=\alpha-1$, since $R_\alpha(y)=\log \|\text{RB}(\theta|y)\|_s$. (\[mrbstat\]) is a measure of the overall size of the relative belief function. The limit $s\rightarrow 0$ gives $\exp(\text{KL}(y))$, $s\rightarrow\infty$ gives $\text{RB}(\hat{\theta}|y)$ where $\hat{\theta}$ denotes the maximum relative belief estimate which maximizes the relative belief function, and $s=1$ is the posterior mean of the relative belief.
In Section 4 we also investigate the asymptotic behaviour of $p_{\alpha}$, which under appropriate conditions converges in the large data limit to $$\begin{aligned}
& P\Bigl(g(\theta^*)|I(\theta^*)|^{-1/2} \geq g(\theta)|I(\theta)|^{-1/2}\Bigr) \label{klchecklimit}\end{aligned}$$ where $I(\theta)$ is the Fisher information at $\theta$, $\theta^*$ is the true value of the parameter that generated the data, and $\theta\sim g(\theta)$. To interpret (\[klchecklimit\]), note that $g(\theta)|I(\theta)|^{-1/2}$ is just the prior density, but written with respect to the Jeffreys’ prior as the support measure rather than Lebesgue measure. So (\[klchecklimit\]) is the probability that a draw from the prior has prior density value less than the prior density value at the true parameter. It is a measure of how far out in the tails of the prior the true value $\theta^*$ lies. There is a similar limit result for the check of , but where the densities are with respect to Lebesgue measure [@evans+j11b]. Interestingly, (\[klchecklimit\]) might be thought of as giving some kind of heuristic justification for why the Jeffreys’ prior could be considered non-informative – if we were to choose $g(\theta)$ as the Jeffreys’ prior, $g(\theta)\propto |I(\theta)|^{1/2}$ then the value of the limiting $p$-value (\[klchecklimit\]) is $1$ and hence there can be no conflict asymptotically. Some similar connections with reference priors [@berger+bs09; @ghosh11] are considered in Section 4 for hierarchical versions of our checks and we discuss these in Section 2.2.
Further motivation for the approach follows from some logical principles that any prior-data conflict check should satisfy. and consider for a minimal sufficient statistic $T$ a decomposition of the joint model as $$\begin{aligned}
p(\theta,y) & = p(t)g(\theta|t)p(y|\theta,t)=p(t)g(\theta|t)p(y|t) \label{decomposition}\end{aligned}$$ where the terms in the decomposition are densities with respect to appropriate support measures, $p(t)$ is the prior predictive density for $T$, $g(\theta|t)$ is the density of $\theta$ given $T=t$ (which is the posterior density since $T$ is sufficent) and $p(y|t)$ is the density of $y$ given $T=t$ (which does not depend on $\theta$ because of the sufficiency of $T$). This decomposition generalizes a suggestion of . In the case where there is no non-trivial minimal sufficient statistic a decomposition (\[decomposition\]) can still be contemplated for some asymptotically sufficient $T$ such as the maximum likelihood estimator. The three terms in the decomposition could logically be specified separately in defining a joint model and they perform different roles in an analysis. For example, the posterior distribution $p(\theta|t)$ is used for inference, and $p(y|t)$ is useful for checking the likelihood, since it does not depend on the prior. Ideally a check of adequacy for the likelihood should not depend on the prior since the adequacy of the likelihood has nothing to do with the prior.
For checking for prior-data conflict, and argue that the relevant part of the decomposition (\[decomposition\]) is the prior predictive distribution of $T$. Since a sufficient statistic determines the likelihood, a comparison between the likelihood and prior can be done by comparing the observed value of a sufficient statistic to its prior predictive distribution. Clearly any variation in $y$ that is not a function of a sufficient statistic does not change the likelihood, and hence is irrelevant to determining whether prior and likelihood conflict. Furthermore, a minimal sufficient statistic will be best for excluding as much irrelevant variation as possible. For a minimal sufficient statistic $T$, the $p$-value for the check of is computed as $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{EM}}=p_{\text{EM}}(y_{\text{obs}})=P\Bigl(p(T)\leq p(t_{\text{obs}})\Bigr) \label{emcheck}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\text{obs}}$ is the observed value of $T$ and $T\sim p(t)$ is a draw from the prior predictive for $T$. This approach, however, does not achieve invariance to the choice of the minimal sufficient statistic, which is generally not unique; see, however, for an alternative approach which does achieve invariance. They also consider conditioning on maximal ancillary statistics when they are available. Coming back from these general principles to the check (\[klcheck\]), we notice that the statistic $R_\alpha(y)$ is automatically a function of any sufficient statistic, since it depends on the data only through the posterior distribution. Furthermore, it is the same function no matter what sufficient statistic is chosen. So our check is a function of any minimal sufficient statistic as and would require, and is invariant to the particular choice of that statistic.
Hierarchical versions of the check
----------------------------------
Next, consider implementation of the approach of Section 2.1 in a hierarchical setting. Suppose the parameter $\theta$ is partitioned as $\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2)$, where $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are of dimensions $d_1$ and $d_2$ respectively, and that the prior is decomposed as $g(\theta)=g(\theta_1|\theta_2)g(\theta_2)$ . Sometimes it is natural to consider the decomposition of the prior into marginal and conditional pieces since it may reflect how the prior is specified (such as in the case of a hierarchical model). We may wish to check the two pieces of the prior separately to understand the nature of any prior-data conflict when it occurs. Mirroring our decomposition of the prior, write $g(\theta|y)=g(\theta_1|\theta_2,y)g(\theta_2|y)$. To define a hierarchically structured check, let $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y,\theta_2) & =\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \int \left\{\frac{g(\theta_1|\theta_2,y)}{g(\theta_1|\theta_2)}\right\}^{\alpha-1}g(\theta_1|\theta_2,y)d\theta_1 \label{ralphay2}\end{aligned}$$ denote the conditional prior to conditional posterior Rényi divergence of order $\alpha$ for $\theta_1$ given $\theta_2$, and define $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\alpha 1}(y)=E_{\theta_2|y_{\text{obs}}}\Bigl(R_\alpha(y,\theta_2)\Bigr). \label{Ralpha1}\end{aligned}$$ $R_{\alpha 1}(y)$ is a function of both $y$ and $y_{\text{obs}}$ although we suppress this in the notation. Also, define $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\alpha 2}(y)=\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \int \left\{\frac{g(\theta_2|y)}{g(\theta_2)}\right\}^{\alpha-1} g(\theta_2|y)d\theta_2\end{aligned}$$ so that $R_{\alpha 2}(y)$ is the marginal prior to posterior divergence for $\theta_2$.
For hierarchical checking of the prior we consider the $p$-values $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\alpha 1}=P\Bigl(R_{\alpha 1}(Y)\geq R_{\alpha 1}(y_{\text{obs}})\Bigr) \label{klcheck1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Y\sim m(y)= & \int g(\theta_2|y_{\text{obs}})p(y|\theta)p(\theta_1|\theta_2)\;d\theta \label{refklcheck1} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\alpha 2} = & P\Bigl(R_{\alpha 2}(Y)\geq R_{\alpha 2}(y_{\text{obs}})\Bigr) \label{klcheck2}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y\sim p(y)=\int p(\theta)p(y|\theta)$. The $p$-value (\[klcheck1\]) is just measuring whether the conditional prior to posterior divergence for $\theta_1$ given $\theta_2$ is unusually large for values of $\theta_2$ and a reference distribution for $Y$ that reflects knowledge of $\theta_2$ under $y_{\text{obs}}$. The $p$-value (\[klcheck2\]) is just the non-hierarchical check (\[klcheck\]) applied to the marginal posterior and prior for $\theta_2$. We explore the behaviour of these hierarchical checks in examples later, as well as by examining their asymptotic behaviour in Section 4, where we find that these checks are related to two stage reference priors. In the above discussion we can also consider a partition of the parameters with more than two pieces and the ideas discussed can be extended without difficulty to this more general case. We can also consider functions of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, $\Psi_1(\theta_1)$ and $\Psi_2(\theta_2)$, and prior to posterior divergences involving these quantities in the definition of $R_{\alpha 1}(y)$ and $R_{\alpha 2}(y)$. Later we will also use the special notation $\text{KL}_1(y)$, $\text{KL}_2(y)$, $p_{\text{KL}1}$ and $p_{\text{KL}2}$ for $\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1} R_{\alpha 1}(y)$, $\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1}R_{\alpha 2}(y)$, $\lim_{\alpha \rightarrow 1}p_{\alpha 1}$ and $\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1} p_{\alpha 2}$. As mentioned earlier, the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 1$ in the Rényi divergence corresponds to the Kullback-Leibler divergence.
There are a number of ways that the basic approach above can be modified. One possibility is to replace the posterior distribution $g(\theta_2|y_{\text{obs}})$ in the refence distribution (\[refklcheck1\]) with an appropriate partial posterior distribution [@bayarri+b00; @bayarri+c07] $g(\theta_2|y_{\text{obs}}\backslash R_{\alpha 1}(y_{\text{obs}}))$ defined for data $y$ by $$g(\theta_2|y \backslash R_{\alpha 1}(y)) \propto g(\theta_2)\frac{p(y|\theta_2)}{p(R_{\alpha 1}(y)|\theta_2)}.$$ The partial posterior removes the information in $R_{\alpha 1}(y)$ about $\theta_2$ from the likelihood $p(y|\theta_2)$ in calculating a reference posterior for $\theta_2$ for use in (\[refklcheck1\]). We would also use the partial posterior in taking the expectation in (\[Ralpha1\]). To get some intuition, imagine receiving the information in $y$ in two pieces where we are told the value of $R_{\alpha 1}(y)$ first, followed by the remainder; if we applied Bayes’ rule sequentially, first updating the prior $g(\theta_2)$ by $p(R_{\alpha 1}(y)|\theta_2)$, then the “likelihood" term needed to update the posterior given $R_{\alpha 1}(y)$ to the full posterior $g(\theta_2|y)$ would be $\frac{p(y|\theta_2)}{p(R_{\alpha 1}(y)|\theta_2)}$. So the partial posterior just updates the prior for $g(\theta_2)$ by this second likelihood term that represents the information in the data with that from $R_{\alpha 1}(y)$ removed. This somehow avoids an inappropriate double use of the data where the same information is being used to both construct a reference distribution and assess lack of fit. Use of the partial posterior distribution makes computation of (\[klcheck1\]) more complicated, however.
There are some other ways that the basic hierarchically structured check can be modified in some problems with additional structure. In their discussion of checking hierarchical priors, consider two situations. The first situation is where the likelihood is a function $\theta_1$ only, $p(y|\theta)=p(y|\theta_1)$. In this case, suppose that $T$ is a minimal sufficient statistic for $\theta_1$ in the model $p(y|\theta_1)$ and that $V=V(T)$ is minimal sufficient for $\theta_2$ in the marginalized model $\int p(y|\theta_1)p(\theta_1|\theta_2)\;d\theta_1$. Writing $t_{\text{obs}}$ and $v_{\text{obs}}$ for the observed values of $T$ and $V$, they suggest further decomposing the term $p(t)$ in (\[decomposition\]) as $p(v)p(t|v)$ where $p(v)$ denotes the prior predictive density for $V$ and $p(t|v)$ denotes the prior predictive density for $T$ given $V=v$. In this decomposition it is suggested that $p(t|v)$ should be used for checking $g(\theta_1|\theta_2)$, by comparing $p(t_{\text{obs}}|v_{\text{obs}})$ with $p(T|v_{\text{obs}})$ for draws of $T$ from $p(t|v_{obs})$, and then if no conflict is found $p(v)$ should then be used for checking $g(\theta_2)$, by comparing $p(v_{obs})$ with $p(V)$ for $V\sim p(v)$. So checking $g(\theta_2)$ should be based on the prior predictive for $V$ and checking $g(\theta_1|\theta_2)$ should be based on a statistic that is a function of $T$ with reference distribution that of the conditional for $T|V=v_{obs}$ induced under the prior predictive for the data. Looking at our hierarchically structured check, if there exists a minimal sufficient statistic $V$ for $\theta_2$, then we see in (\[klcheck2\]) our checking statistic $R_{\alpha 2}(y)$ is a function of that statistic and it will be invariant to what minimal sufficient statistic is chosen. We are also using the prior predictive for the reference distribution so our approach fits nicely with that of . In the check (\[klcheck1\]) we can see that the model checking statistic is a function of $T$ and invariant to the choice of $T$. If we were to change the reference distribution (\[refklcheck1\]) to that of $T|V=v_{obs}$ then (\[klcheck1\]) would also fit naturally with the approach of . However, sometimes suitable non-trivial sufficient statistics are not available and the conditional prior predictive of $T$ given $V=v_{obs}$ might be difficult to work with. Our general approach of using the posterior distribution of $\theta_2$ given $v_{\text{obs}}$ to integrate out $\theta_2$ comes close to achieving the ideal considered in when there are sufficient statistics at different levels of the model. A final observation is that we could consider a cross-validatory version of the check if interest centred on a certain observation specific parameter within the vector $\theta_1$. This approach is considered further in a later example.
The other situation considered in for checking hierarchical priors is the case where $p(y|\theta)$ can depend on both $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. Here they suppose there is some minimal sufficient $T$ and a maximal ancillary statistic $U(T)$ for $\theta$, and a maximal ancillary statistic $V$ for $\theta_1$ (ancillary for $\theta_1$ means that the sampling distribution of $V$ given $\theta$ depends only on $\theta_2$). Conditioning on ancillaries is relevant since we don’t want assessment of prior-data conflict to depend on variation in the data that does not depend on the parameter. They suggest in (\[decomposition\]) decomposing $p(t)$ as $p(u)p(v|u)p(t|v,u)$ and using the second term $p(v|u)$ (the conditional distribution of $V$ given $U$ induced under the prior predictive for the data) to check $g(\theta_2)$, with the third term $p(t|v,u)$ (the conditional distribution of $T$ given $V$ and $U$ under the prior predictive for the data) used to check $g(\theta_1|\theta_2)$. Again we can modify our suggested approach where this additional structure is available. If we change $g(\theta_2|y)$ to $g(\theta_2|v)$ in the definition of $R_{\alpha 2}(y)$, then we are checking $g(\theta_2)$ using a discrepancy which is a function of $V$. If no maximal ancillary for $\theta$ were available, the suggestion of would use the prior predictive for $V$ for the reference distribution. Because $V$ is ancillary for $\theta_1$ the check does not depend in any way on $g(\theta_1|\theta_2)$, which is desirable because we would like to check for conflict with $\theta_2$ separately from checking for any conflict with $g(\theta_1|\theta_2)$. For the check (\[klcheck1\]) our discrepancy is a function of $T$ as would recommend, and if the reference predictive distribution were changed to be that of $T$ given $U$ and $V$ we could use this approach to check for conflict with $g(\theta_1|\theta_2)$. However, in complex situations identifying suitable maximal ancillary statistics may not be possible. Nevertheless consideration of problems like this provides some guidance as an ideal.
Other suggestions for prior-data conflict checking
--------------------------------------------------
Now that we have given the basic idea of our method we discuss its connections with other suggestions in the literature. Perhaps the approach to prior-data conflict detection most closely related to the one developed here has been suggested by . Similar to us, considers a test statistic based on prior to posterior (Kullback-Leibler) divergences, but uses the ratio of two such divergences. Briefly, a non-informative prior is defined and then a reference posterior distribution for this non-informative prior is constructed. Then, the prior to reference posterior divergence for the prior to be examined is computed and divided by the prior to reference posterior divergence for the non-informative prior. When the non-informative prior is improper, some modification of the basic procedure is suggested, and extensions to hierarchical settings are also discussed. The approach we consider here has similar intuitive roots but is simpler to implement because it does not require the existence of a non-informative prior. We consider the prior to posterior divergence for the prior under examination, a measure of how much beliefs have changed from prior to posterior, and compare the observed value of this statistic to its distribution under the prior predictive for the data. There is hence no need to define a non-informative prior, although as mentioned earlier there are interesting asymptotic connections between the checks we suggest and Jeffreys’ and reference non-informative priors. This will be discussed further in Section 4. Our focus here is not on deriving non-informative prior choices, however, but on detecting conflict for a given proper prior.
A quite general and practically implementable suggestion for measuring prior-data conflict has been given recently by . Their approach generalizes earlier work by and also relates closely to some previous suggestions by and . They give a general conflict diagnostic that can be applied to a node or group of nodes of a model specified as a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The conflict diagnostic is based on formulating two distributions representing independent sources of information about the separator node or nodes which are then compared. Again, in general, there is a need in this approach to specify non-informative priors for the purpose of formulating distributions representing independent sources of information. is an earlier suggestion for examining conflict at any node of a DAG that was inspirational for much later work in the area, although the specific procedure suggested has been found to suffer from conservatism in some cases. consider a graphical approach to examining conflict where the location of a marginal posterior distribution with respect to a local prior and lifted likelihood is examined, where the local prior and lifted likelihood are representing different sources of information coming from above and below the node in a chain graph model. examine prior-data conflict by considering the difference in information in a likelihood function that is needed to obtain the same posterior uncertainty for a given proper prior compared to a baseline prior. Again, some definition of a non-informative prior for the baseline is needed for this approach to be implemented. Finally the model checking approach considered in can also be used for checking for prior-data conflict. There is some similarity with our approach in that they use quantities associated with the posterior itself in the test. Specifically they consider Monte Carlo tests based on vectors of posterior quantiles and the prior predictive with a Euclidean distance measure used to measure similarity between the vectors of quantiles.
First examples
==============
To begin exploring the properties of the conflict check (\[klcheck\]), we consider a series of simple examples where calculations can be done analytically. These examples were also given in , and we compare with their check (\[emcheck\]) in each case.
[*Normal location model*]{}.
Suppose $y_1,\dots,y_n\sim N(\mu,\sigma^2)$ where $\mu$ is an unknown mean and $\sigma^2>0$ is a known variance. In this normal location model the sample mean is sufficient for $\mu$ and normally distributed so without loss of generality we may consider $n=1$ and write the observed data point as $y_{\text{obs}}$. The prior density $g(\mu)$ for $\mu$ will be assumed normal, $N(\mu_0,\sigma_0^2)$ where $\mu_0$ and $\sigma_0^2$ are known.
To implement the conflict check of we need $p(y)$ which is normal, $N(\mu_0,\sigma^2+\sigma_0^2)$ (the sufficient statistic in this case of a single observation is just $y$). Here and in later examples we use the notation $A(y)\doteq B(y)$ to mean that $A(y)$ and $B(y)$ are related (as a function of $y$) by a monotone transformation. When conducting a Bayesian model check with discrepancies $D_1(y)$ and $D_2(y)$ then they will result in the same predictive $p$-values if $D_1(y)\doteq D_2(y)$ (although care must be taken to compute the appropriate left or right tail area, since in our definition of the $\doteq$ notation the relationship between $A(y)$ and $B(y)$ can be either monotone increasing or decreasing). Now we can write $\log p(y)\doteq (y-\mu_0)^2$ and we see that the check of compares $(y_{\text{obs}}-\mu_0)^2$ to the distribution of $(Y-\mu_0)^2$ for $Y\sim p(y)$. Following the similar example of , p. 897, the $p$-value is $$p_{\text{EM}}=2\left(1-\Phi\left(\frac{|y_{\text{obs}}-\mu_0|}{\sqrt{\sigma^2+\sigma_0^2}}\right)\right).$$ Next, consider the prior-data conflict check based on the Rényi divergence statistic. The posterior density for $\mu$ is $N(\tau^2 \gamma, \tau^2)$ where $\tau^2=(1/\sigma_0^2+1/\sigma^2)^{-1}$ and $\gamma=(\mu_0/\sigma_0^2+y/\sigma^2)$ and the prior to posterior Rényi divergence of order $\alpha$ is (using, for example, the formula in ), $$R_\alpha(y)=\log \frac{\sigma_0}{\tau}+\frac{1}{2(\alpha-1)}\log \frac{\sigma_0^2}{\sigma_\alpha^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha (\tau^2\gamma-\mu_0)^2}{\sigma_\alpha^2},$$ where $\sigma_\alpha^2=\alpha\sigma_0^2+(1-\alpha)\tau^2$. Here only $\gamma$ depends on $y$, so that $$R_\alpha(y)\doteq (\tau^2\gamma-\mu_0)^2\doteq (\gamma-\mu_0/\tau^2)^2=(y-\mu_0)^2/\sigma^2 \doteq (y-\mu_0)^2$$ and the divergence based check is equivalent to the check of in this example for every value of $\alpha$.
[*Binomial model*]{}
Suppose that $y\sim \text{Binomial}(n,\theta)$ and write $y_{\text{obs}}$ for the observed value. The prior density $g(\theta)$ of $\theta$ is Beta$(a,b)$, which for data $y$ results in the posterior density $g(\theta|y)$ being Beta$(a+y,b+n-y)$. Using the expression for the Rényi divergence between two beta distributions [@gil+al13] $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y) = & \log \frac{B(a,b)}{B(a+y,b+n-y)}+\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \frac{B\Bigl(a+\alpha y, b+\alpha (n-y)\Bigr)}{B(a+y,b+n-y)} \nonumber \\
= & T_1+T_2 \label{ralphay}\end{aligned}$$ where $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the beta function. Now consider the check of . $y$ is minimal sufficient and the prior predictive for $y$ is beta-binomial, $$\begin{aligned}
p(y) = & \binom{n}{y}\frac{B(a+y,b+n-y)}{B(a,b)}, \;\;\;\;\;y=0,\dots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Hence a suitable discrepancy for the check of , which we denote by $\text{EM}(y)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\text{EM}(y) & = \log p(y) \nonumber \\
& = \log \binom{n}{y}+\log \frac{B(a+y,b+n-y)}{B(a,b)} \nonumber \\
& \doteq \log\Gamma(a+y)+\log\Gamma(b+n-y)-\log\Gamma(y+1)-\log\Gamma(n-y+1). \label{emstat}\end{aligned}$$ The check of and the divergence based check are not equivalent in this example. However, they can be related to each other when $y$ and $n-y$ are both large. Using Stirling’s approximation for the beta function $$B(x,z)\approx \sqrt{2\pi}\frac{x^{x-\frac{1}{2}}z^{z-\frac{1}{2}}}{(x+z)^{x+z-\frac{1}{2}}},$$ for $x$ and $z$ large, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_1 \doteq & \log B(a,b)-(a+b+n)\hat{\theta}_n\log \hat{\theta}_n+\frac{1}{2}\log \hat{\theta}_n \nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\;-(a+b+n)(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)+\frac{1}{2}\log (1-\hat{\theta}_n)+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right), \label{term1}\end{aligned}$$ where some constants not depending on $y$ have been ignored on the right hand side and $\hat{\theta}_n=(a+y)/(a+b+n)$ is the posterior mean of $\theta$. Another application of Stirling’s approximation to to $T_2$ in (\[ralphay\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
T_2 = & \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \frac{B\Bigl(a+\alpha y, b+\alpha (n-y)\Bigr)}{B(a+y,b+n-y)} \\
= & \frac{1}{\alpha-1} \left\{\left(a+b+\alpha n\right)\tilde{\theta}_n \log\tilde{\theta}_n+\left(a+b+\alpha n\right)(1-\tilde{\theta}_n)\log (1-\tilde{\theta}_n) \right. \\
& \left. -\left(a+b+n\right)\hat{\theta}_n \log \hat{\theta}_n-\left(a+b+n\right)(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\right\}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\theta}_n=(a+\alpha y)/\Bigl(b+n+\alpha n\Bigr)$. Making the Taylor series approximations $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\theta}_n\log \tilde{\theta}_n = & \hat{\theta}_n\log \hat{\theta}_n+(\tilde{\theta}_n-\hat{\theta}_n)(1+\log \hat{\theta}_n)+O\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right), \\
(1-\tilde{\theta}_n)\log (1-\tilde{\theta}_n) = & (1-\hat{\theta}_n)\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)-(\tilde{\theta}_n-\hat{\theta}_n)\Bigl(1+\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\Bigr)+O\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right) \end{aligned}$$ and also observing that $n(\tilde{\theta}_n-\hat{\theta}_n)=\frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha}\left\{(a+b)\hat{\theta}_n-a\right\}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
T_2 = & n\hat{\theta_n}\log\hat{\theta}_n+n(1-\hat{\theta}_n)\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)+\Bigl((a+b)\hat{\theta}_n-a\Bigr)\log\hat{\theta}_n \nonumber \\
& \;\;\;\;\;+\Bigl((a+b)\hat{\theta}_n-b\Bigr)\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right). \label{term2}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[term1\]) and (\[term2\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y) \doteq & \log B(a,b)-\frac{1}{2}\log \hat{\theta}_n-\frac{1}{2}\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)-(a-1)\log\hat{\theta}_n-(b-1)\log(1-\hat{\theta}_n)+O(1/n) \\
\doteq & -\log g(\hat{\theta}_n)+\frac{1}{2}\log |I(\hat{\theta}_n)|+O(1/n)\end{aligned}$$ where $I(\theta)=n/(\theta(1-\theta))$ is the Fisher information and $g(\hat{\theta}_n)$ is the prior density evaluated at $\hat{\theta}_n$. The posterior mean can be replaced by any other estimator differing from it by $O(1/n)$ such as the maximum likelihood estimator. We explain in Section 4 why the form of the result above is expected much more generally.
Turning now to the check of , appropriate Taylor expansions in (\[emstat\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\log \Gamma (a+y) & = \log \Gamma(y+1)+(a-1)\psi(a+y) \\
& = \log\Gamma(y+1)+(a-1)\log(a+y)+O(1/n), \\
\log \Gamma(b+n-y) & = \log \Gamma(n-y+1)+(b-1)\psi(b+n-y) \\
& = \log \Gamma(n-y+1)+(b-1)\log(b+n-y)+O(1/n)\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\log p(y)\doteq & \log \Gamma(y+1)+(a-1)\log (a+y)+\log\Gamma(n-y+1)+(b-1)\log (b+n-y) \\
& \;\;\; -\log \Gamma(y+1)-\log\Gamma(n-y+1)+O(1/n) \\
\doteq & (a-1)\log (a+y)+(b-1)\log (b+n-y)+O(1/n) \\
\doteq & \log g(\hat{\theta}_n)+O(1/n),\end{aligned}$$ where as before $\hat{\theta}_n$ is the posterior mean for $\theta$. A general result about the check of explaining the limiting form of the check above is given in . So the two checks differ asymptotically according to the presence of the term $-0.5 \log I(\hat{\theta}_n(y))$. See the next Section for further discussion.
It is helpful to consider finite sample behaviour in some particular cases. We see that for $R_\alpha(y)$ if we consider $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\text{MR}(y) = & \log \frac{B(a,b)}{B(a+y,b+n-y)}+\frac{y}{n}\log \frac{y}{n}+\left(1-\frac{y}{n}\right)\log (n-y).\end{aligned}$$ If $a=b=1$ so that the prior is uniform, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{MR}} = & \frac{\# \left\{ y: \binom{n}{y}\left(\frac{y}{n}\right)^{y}\left(1-\frac{y}{n}\right)^{n-y}\geq \binom{n}{y_{\text{obs}}}\left(\frac{y_{\text{obs}}}{n}\right)^{y_{\text{obs}}} \left(1-\frac{y_{\text{obs}}}{n}\right)^{n-y_{\text{obs}}}\right\}}{n+1}\end{aligned}$$ and plotting $\binom{n}{y}\left(\frac{y}{n}\right)^{y}\left(1-\frac{y}{n}\right)^{n-y}$ reveals that it is symmetric with an antimode at $n/2$ when $n$ is even and at $\{(n+1)/2,1+(n+1)/2\}$ when $n$ is odd. So prior-data conflict is detected whenever $y_{\text{obs}}$ is near $0$ or $n$. This does seem strange when the prior is uniform but is perhaps not surprising given the asymptotic connection between our checks and the Jeffreys’ prior, which is also not uniform in this example. On the other hand note that, letting $p(m)$ denote the prior predictive density of $\text{MR}(y)$, then $p(m)=2/(n+1)$ when $n$ is even for all $m$ except when $m$ is the antimode and when $n$ is odd then $p(m)=1/(n+1)$ for all $m$. So if we were to check the prior using $p(m)$ as the discrepancy rather than $\text{MR}(y)$ the $p$-value would never be small and any conflict would be avoided.
[*Normal location-scale model, hierarchically structured check*]{}
Extending our previous location normal example, suppose $y_1,\dots,y_n$ are independent $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$ where now both $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ are unknown. Write $y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$. We consider a normal inverse gamma prior for $\theta=(\mu,\sigma^2)$, $\text{NIG}(\mu_0,\lambda_0,a,b)$ say, having density of the form $$g(\theta)=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_0}}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{b^a}{\Gamma(a)}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma^2}\right)^{a+1}\exp\left(-\frac{2b+\lambda_0(\mu-\mu_0)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).$$ This prior is equivalent to $g(\theta)=g(\theta_2)g(\theta_1|\theta_2)=g(\sigma^2)g(\mu|\sigma^2)$ with $g(\sigma^2)$ inverse gamma, $\text{IG}(a,b)$ and $g(\mu|\sigma^2)$ normal, $N(\mu_0,\sigma^2/\lambda_0)$. In this model a sufficient statistic is $T=(\bar{y},s^2)$ where $\bar{y}$ denotes the sample mean and $s^2$ the sample variance and we write $t_{\text{obs}}=(\bar{y}_{\text{obs}},s^2_{\text{obs}})$ for its observed value. The normal inverse gamma prior is conjugate, and the posterior is $\text{NIG}(\mu_0'(y),\lambda_0',a',b'(y))$ where $\mu_0'(y)=(n+\lambda_0)^{-1}(\mu_0\lambda_0+n\bar{y})$, $\lambda_0'=n+\lambda_0$, $a'=(a+n/2)$ and $b'=b'(y)=b+(n-1)s^2/2+n(\bar{y}-\mu_0)^2/(2(n/\lambda_0+1))$. It is natural to consider the hierarchical checks we discussed earlier for testing the two components of $g(\theta)$. First, let’s consider the check for conflict with $g(\mu|\sigma^2)$. Using the expression for the Rényi divergence between normal densities we get $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y,\sigma^2)=& \log \frac{\lambda_0'}{\lambda_0}+\frac{1}{2(\alpha-1)} \log \frac{{\lambda_0'}^2}{\lambda_0^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha(\mu_0'(y)-\mu_0)^2}{\sigma_\alpha^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_\alpha^2=\alpha\sigma_0^2/\lambda_0+(1-\alpha)\sigma^2/{\lambda_0'}^2$ and we note that $$R_{\alpha 1}(y)\doteq \Bigl(\mu_0'(y)-\mu_0\Bigr)^2\doteq (\bar{y}-\mu_0)^2.$$ Our suggested hierarchical check compares $R_{\alpha 1}(y_{\text{obs}})$ to a reference distribution based on $Y\sim m(y)=\int p(\sigma^2|y_{obs})\int p(y|\mu,\sigma^2)p(\mu|\sigma^2)\;d\mu\;d\sigma^2$ Noting that the distribution of $\bar{y}$ under $m(y)$ is $t_{2a'}\left(\mu_0,\sqrt{\frac{b'(y_{\text{obs}})}{a'}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_0}+\frac{1}{n}\right)}\right)$ we see that the divergence based check just computes whether $$\frac{\bar{y}_{\text{obs}}-\mu_0}{\sigma^*}=\frac{\bar{y}_{\text{obs}}-\mu_0}{\sqrt{b'(y_{\text{obs}})/a'(1/\lambda_0+1/n)}}$$ is larger in magnitude than a $t_{2a'}(0,1)$ variate. The hierarchical check of , p. 909, on the other hand calculates the probability that $(\bar{y}_{\text{obs}}-\mu_0)/\tilde{\sigma}$ is larger in magnitude than a $t_{2a'-1}(0,1)$ variate, where $\tilde{\sigma}^2=(1/\lambda_0(n/\lambda_0+1)(2b+(n-1)s_{\text{obs}}^2))/(n/\lambda_0(n+2a-1))$. Clearly these checks are very similar, since both $\sigma^*$ and $\tilde{\sigma}$ are approximately $s/\sqrt{\lambda_0}$ for large $n$ and there is only one degree of freedom difference in the reference $t$-distribution. We also note that in our check if we change the reference distribution to be that of $y$ given $s^2$ (noting that $s^2$ is ancillary for $\mu$ and following the discussion of Section 2.2) then our check would then coincide with that of .
Consider next the check on $p(\sigma^2)$. For two inverse gamma distributions, $p_1(\sigma^2)$ and $p_2(\sigma_2)$, being $\text{IG}(a',b')$ and $\text{IG}(a,b)$ respectively, the Rényi divergence between them is $$\begin{aligned}
& \log \left\{\frac{\Gamma(a) {b'}^{a'}}{\Gamma(a') b^a}\right\}+\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \left\{\frac{\Gamma(a_\alpha)}{\Gamma(a')}\frac{{b'}^{a'}}{{b_\alpha}^{a_\alpha}}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ where $a_\alpha=a'\alpha+(1-\alpha) a$ and $b_\alpha=\alpha b'+(1-\alpha)b$. Since $a$, $b$ and $a'$ don’t depend on the data, this gives $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\alpha 2}(y) \doteq & a' \log b'+\frac{1}{\alpha-1}a'\log b'-\frac{1}{\alpha-1}a_\alpha \log b_\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Using $\log b_\alpha=\log (\alpha b'+(1-\alpha)b)= \log \alpha b'+(1-\alpha)b/(\alpha b')+O(1/n)$ and collecting terms $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\alpha 2}(y) \doteq & \frac{a}{a'}\log b'+\frac{a_\alpha}{a' \alpha} \frac{b}{b'}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) \\
\doteq & \log \frac{b'/a'}{b/a}+\frac{b/a}{b'/a'}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Note also that $s^2\approx b'/a'$ for large $n$, so that for large $n$ using $R_{\alpha 2}(y)$ as discrepancy is approximately the same as using $$\begin{aligned}
& \log \frac{s^2}{b/a}+\frac{b/a}{s^2}. \label{divergencecheck}\end{aligned}$$
The check described in , p. 910, compares $s^2/(b/a)$ to an $F_{n-1,2a}$ density. Plugging in $s^2/(b/a)$ to the expression for the log of the $F$ density, we have the statistic $$\begin{aligned}
\text{EM}(y) \doteq & \frac{n-3}{2}\log \frac{s^2}{b/a}-\frac{n+2a-1}{2}\log \left(1+\frac{n-1}{2a}\frac{s^2}{b/a}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and then using the approximation $\log(1+x)\approx \log x + 1/x$ for large $x$ gives approximately $$\begin{aligned}
\text{EM}(y) \doteq & \frac{n-3}{2} \log \frac{s^2}{b/a}-\frac{n+2a-1}{2} \log \left(\frac{s^2}{b/a}\right) -\frac{n+2a-1}{2}\frac{2a}{n-1}\frac{b/a}{s^2}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right) \\
\doteq & -\frac{a-1}{2}\log \frac{s^2}{b/a} -\frac{n+2a-1}{n-1}\frac{b}{s^2}+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ So for large $n$, we have approximately $$\begin{aligned}
\text{EM}(y) \doteq & \frac{a-1}{2a} \log \frac{s^2}{b/a}+\frac{b/a}{s^2},\end{aligned}$$ which, comparing with (\[divergencecheck\]), clarifies the relationship to the divergence based check .
[*A non-regular example*]{}
The following example is adapted from and . Suppose we observe $y_1,\dots,y_n\sim f(y|\theta)$ where $f(y|\theta)=r\exp\Bigl(-r(y-\theta)\Bigr)I(y>\theta)$ where $r$ is a known parameter, $\theta>0$ is unknown and $I(\cdot)$ denotes the indicator function. We consider an exponential prior on $\theta$, $g(\theta)=\kappa \exp(-\kappa \theta)I(\theta>0)$. Note that this is a non-regular example when inference about $\theta$ is considered, due to the way that the support of the density for the data depends on $\theta$. This means, for example, that the MLE as well as the posterior distribution are not asymptotically normal.
The likelihood function is $$\begin{aligned}
p(y|\theta)=c(y)\exp\Bigl(-nr(y_{\text{min}}-\theta)\Bigr)I(0<\theta<y_{min}),\end{aligned}$$ where $y_{\text{min}}$ denotes the minimum of $y_1,\dots,y_n$ and $c(y)=r^n\exp\Bigl(-nr(\bar{y}-y_{\text{min}})\Bigr)$ where $\bar{y}$ denotes the sample mean. A sufficient statistic is $y_{\text{min}}$, and its sampling distribution has density $$\begin{aligned}
p(y_{\text{min}}|\theta) & = nr\exp\Bigl(-nr(y_{\text{min}}-\theta)\Bigr)I(0<\theta<y_{\text{min}}).\end{aligned}$$ The prior predictive of $y_{\text{min}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
p(y_{\text{min}})= & nr\kappa \exp\left(-nry_{\text{min}}\right)\int_0^{y_{\text{min}}} \exp\left((nr-\kappa)\theta\right) d\theta \nonumber \\
= & \frac{nr\kappa}{nr-\kappa} \Bigl(\exp(-\kappa y_{\text{min}})-\exp(-nry_{\text{min}})\Bigr), \label{ppymin}\end{aligned}$$ and this is the discrepancy for the test of . Consider now the statistic $R_\alpha(y)$. We have $g(\theta|y)\propto \exp\Bigl((nr-\kappa)\theta\Bigr)I(0<\theta<y_{\text{min}})$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
g(\theta|y) & = \frac{(nr-\kappa)}{\exp(t)-1}\exp\Bigl((nr-\kappa)\theta\Bigr)I(0<\theta<y_{\text{min}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $t=(nr-\kappa)y_{\text{min}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{y_{\text{min}}} \left(\frac{g(\theta|y)}{g(\theta)}\right)^{\alpha-1}g(\theta|y)d\theta & =
\frac{\kappa}{\alpha nr-\kappa}\left(\frac{(nr-\kappa)}{\kappa (\exp(t)-1)}\right)^{\alpha}\left[\exp\Bigl((\alpha nr-\kappa)y_{\text{min}}\Bigr)-1\right],\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y) & = \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log \frac{\kappa}{\alpha nr-\kappa}+\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\log \left(\frac{(nr-\kappa)}{\kappa (\exp(t)-1)}\right) \\
& \hspace{0.5in} +\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log\Bigl(\exp\Bigl((\alpha nr-\kappa)y_{\text{min}}\Bigr)-1\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ To simplify notation, we write $t=(nr-\kappa)y_{\text{min}}$ as $\kappa (\nu-1)y_{\text{min}}$, where $\nu=nr/\kappa$. We write $t_{\text{obs}}$ for the observed value. Then the prior predictive for $t$ obtained by a change of variables in (\[ppymin\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
p(t) = & \frac{\nu}{(\nu-1)^2}\left[\exp\left(-\frac{t}{\nu-1}\right)-\exp\left(-\frac{\nu t}{\nu-1}\right)\right]I(t>0).\end{aligned}$$ The $p$-value $p_\alpha$ is $$\begin{aligned}
p_\alpha=p_\alpha(y) = 1-\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\frac{\nu}{(\nu-1)^2} \left[\exp\left(-\frac{t}{\nu+1}\right)-\exp\left(-\frac{\nu t}{\nu-1}\right)\right] \;dt,\end{aligned}$$ where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are such that $R_\alpha(t_1)=R_\alpha(t_2)=R_\alpha(t_{\text{obs}})$ with $t_1<t_0<t_2$ and $t_0$ is the value of $t$ at which $R_\alpha(y)=R_\alpha(t)$ is minimal. There is a single global minimum with $R_\alpha (t)$ decreasing for $t<t_0$ and increasing for $t>t_0$. Either $t_1$ or $t_2$ will be equal to $t_{\text{obs}}$. We can easily see that if $t_{\text{obs}}=t_0$ then $p_\alpha=1$, and if $t_{\text{obs}}\rightarrow\infty$ then $p_\alpha\rightarrow 0$. Figure \[fig1\] considers the special case of the KL divergence and shows some plots of how $p_{\text{KL}}$ varies with $t_{\text{obs}}$ for a few different values of $\nu=nr/\kappa$.
[cc]{} ![\[fig1\]Plots of $p_{\text{KL}}$ versus $t_{\text{obs}}$ for $\nu=2,8$ and $50$.](jex2.pdf "fig:"){width="70mm"} & ![\[fig1\]Plots of $p_{\text{KL}}$ versus $t_{\text{obs}}$ for $\nu=2,8$ and $50$.](jex8.pdf "fig:"){width="70mm"}\
Limiting behaviour of the checks
================================
We now give derivations of some of the limit results stated in Section 2. We will consider the special case of the Kullback-Leibler divergence first. Let $y_1,\dots,y_n$ be independent and identically distributed from $p(y|\theta)$ and denote the true value of $\theta$ by $\theta^*$. Write $n I(\theta)$ for the Fisher information and $n\hat{I}_n$ for the observed information. Then under suitable regularity conditions (see for example Theorem 1 of , which summarizes the discussion in ; see also ) an asymptotic expansion of the posterior distribution gives $$\begin{aligned}
\log g(\theta|y)+\frac{d}{2}\log\frac{2\pi}{n}-\frac{1}{2}\log |\hat{I}_n|+\frac{n(\theta-\hat{\theta}_n)^T \hat{I}_n(\theta-\hat{\theta}_n)}{2} & = O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ almost surely $P_{\theta^*}$. Adding and subtracting $\log g(\theta)$ from the left hand side and taking expectation with respect to $g(\theta|y)$ gives [$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{KL}(y)+\int \log g(\theta) g(\theta|y)+\frac{d}{2}\log \frac{2\pi}{n}-\frac{1}{2}\log |\hat{I}_n|+\int \frac{n(\theta-\hat{\theta}_n)^T \hat{I}_n (\theta-\hat{\theta}_n)}{2}g(\theta|y)d\theta & = O_p\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\end{aligned}$$]{} and using the asymptotic normality of the posterior and noting that $\hat{I}_n-I(\theta)$ converges to zero almost surely, and $\hat{\theta}_n$ converges to $\theta^*$ almost surely under the assumed regularity conditions, gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{KL}(y)+\log g(\theta^*)+\frac{d}{2}\log 2\pi e-\frac{1}{2}\log |I(\theta^*)| & = O_p\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Hence the $p$-value (\[klcheck\]) converges as $n\rightarrow \infty$ to $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\frac{1}{2}\log |I(\theta)|-\log g(\theta)\geq \frac{1}{2}\log |I(\theta^*)|-\log g(\theta^*)\right) & = P\Bigl(g(\theta^*)|I(\theta^*)|^{-1/2} \geq g(\theta)|I(\theta)|^{-1/2}\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$
Next, consider our hierarchical checks and the conflict $p$-values (\[klcheck1\]) and (\[klcheck2\]). The check (\[klcheck2\]) is really just the same check as in the non-hierarchical case, but applied to the model and prior with $\theta_1$ integrated out so the limit is the same as in the non-hierarchical case with the Fisher information being that for the marginalized model $p(y|\theta_1)=\int p(y|\theta)p(\theta_2|\theta_1)$, provided that an appropriate asymptotic expansion of the marginal posterior is available. For the check (\[klcheck1\]), the reference predictive distribution $m(y)$ converges to $p(y|\theta_2^*)=\int p(y|\theta)p(\theta_1|\theta_2^*)d\theta_1$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and in this model with $\theta_2=\theta_2^*$ fixed we will get the limiting $p$-value $$\begin{aligned}
& P\Bigl(g(\theta_1^*|\theta_2^*)|I_{11}(\theta_1^*,\theta_2^*)|^{-1/2} \geq g(\theta_1|\theta_2^*) |I_{11}(\theta_1,\theta_2^*)|^{-1/2}\Bigr) \end{aligned}$$ where $I_{11}(\theta)$ denotes the submatrix of $I(\theta)$ formed by the first $d_1$ rows and $d_1$ columns and $\theta_1\sim g(\theta_1|\theta_2^*)$. Just as the choice of $g(\theta)$ as the Jeffreys’ prior results in a limiting $p$-value of $1$ in the non-hierarchical case, choosing $g(\theta)$ according to the two stage reference prior [@berger+bs09; @ghosh11] results in both the limiting $p$-values corresponding to (\[klcheck1\]) and (\[klcheck2\]) being $1$. This provides at least some heuristic reason why, from the point of view of avoidance of conflict, a reference prior might be considered desirable. It is not our intention here however to develop methodology for default non-subjective prior choice or even to justify existing choices, but rather to develop methods for checking for conflict with given proper priors.
Regarding the extension of the above ideas to the more general case of the Rényi divergence, using a Laplace approximation to the integral $$\int \left\{\frac{g(\theta|y)}{g(\theta)}\right\}^{\alpha-1} g(\theta|y)d\theta=\int g(\theta)^{-(\alpha-1)}g(\theta|y)^\alpha d\theta,$$ expanding about the mode $\hat{\theta}$ of $g(\theta|y)$ and replacing the Hessian of $\log g(\theta|y)$ at the mode with $n\hat{I}_n$, gives $$\begin{aligned}
& (2\pi)^{d/2}g(\hat{\theta}|y)^\alpha g(\hat{\theta})^{-(\alpha-1)} | \alpha n \hat{I}_n |^{-1/2}, \label{laplace}\end{aligned}$$ and using the asymptotic normal approximation to $g(\theta|y)$, $N(\hat{\theta},n^{-1}\hat{I}_n^{-1})$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
g(\hat{\theta}|y) \approx & (2\pi)^{-d/2} | n \hat{I}_n|^{1/2}, \label{densmode}\end{aligned}$$ and combining (\[laplace\]) and (\[densmode\]), gives $$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(y) \approx & \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\left(-\frac{d}{2}\log 2\pi -\frac{\alpha d}{2}\log 2\pi+\frac{\alpha d}{2}\log n +\frac{\alpha}{2}\log |\hat{I}_n| \right. \\
& \;\;\left.-(\alpha-1)\log g(\hat{\theta})-\frac{\alpha nd}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\log |\hat{I}_n|\right) \\
\doteq & -\log g(\hat{\theta})+\frac{1}{2}\log |\hat{I}_n|,\end{aligned}$$ which converges to $-\log g(\theta)+\frac{1}{2}\log |I(\theta)|$ and hence we expect a similar limit will hold for the $p$-value as for the Kullback-Leibler case, under suitable conditions.
More complex examples and variational Bayes approximations
==========================================================
To calculate the check (\[klcheck\]) or its hierarchical extensions may seem difficult. Computation of $R_\alpha(y)$ involves an integral which is usually intractable, and an expensive Monte Carlo procedure may be needed to approximate it. Furthermore, the integrand involves the posterior distribution. Even worse, as well as computing $R_\alpha(y_{\text{obs}})$, we need to compute a reference distribution for it, and this may involve calculating $R_\alpha(y^{(i)})$ for $y^{(i)}$, $i=1,\dots,m$, independently drawn from the prior predictive distribution. So a straightforward Monte Carlo computation of $p_{\alpha}$ may involve calculating $R_\alpha(y)$ for $m+1$ different datasets where $m$ might be large and with each of these calculations itself being expensive. Here we suggest a way to make the computations easier using variational approximation methods. also considered the use of variational approximations for computation of conflict diagnostics in hierarchical models and they show a relationship between the diagnostics they consider and the mixed predictive checks of . Their use of variational approximations for conflict detection is very different to that considered here, however.
In the variational approximation literature there are quite general methods for learning approximations to the posterior that are in the exponential family (). If the prior distribution for a certain block of parameters is also in the same exponential family as its variational approximation, it is possible to compute the Rényi divergence in closed form (). Furthermore, because variational approximations are fast to compute, they are ideally suited to the repeated posterior computations for samples under a reference predictive distribution that we need to compute $p_{\alpha}$.
More generally there are also useful methods for learning approximations which are mixtures of Gaussians () and if the prior can also be approximated by a mixture of Gaussians then useful closed from approximations to Kullback-Leibler divergences are available (). We illustrate the use of variational methods for computing approximations of our conflict $p$-values in two examples. In these examples we use the Kullback-Leibler divergence as the divergence measure. In the first example we use a variational mixture approximation, and in the second a Gaussian approximation in a hierarchically structured check for a logistic random effects model.
[*Beta-binomial example*]{}\
We consider the example in . This example estimates the rates of death from stomach cancer for males at risk aged $45-64$ for the $20$ largest cities in Missouri. The data set cancer mortality is available in the [R]{} package [LearnBayes]{} (). It contains 20 observations denoted by $(n_i, y_i), i = 1, \ldots, 20$, where $n_i$ is the number of people at risk and $y_i$ is the number of deaths in the $i$th city. An interesting model for these data is a beta-binomial with mean $\eta$ and precision $K$, where the probability function for the $i$th observation is $$\begin{aligned}
p(y_i|\eta, K) &= \binom{n_i}{y_i} \frac{B\Bigl(K\eta + y_i, K(1-\eta)+n_i-y_i\Bigr)}{B\Bigl(K\eta,K(1-\eta)\Bigr)}.\end{aligned}$$ considers the prior $g(\eta, K) \propto \frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle \eta (1 - \eta)}\frac{\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle (1+K)^2}$ and then reparametrizes to $\theta=(\theta_1,\theta_2)$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_1 &= \mathrm{logit}(\eta) = \log \left(\frac{\eta}{1 - \eta}\right),\;\;\;\;\; \theta_2 = \log(K).\end{aligned}$$ We use this parametrization, but since Albert’s prior on $(\eta,K)$ is improper we consider a Gaussian prior for $\theta$, $g(\theta)=N(\mu_0,\Sigma_0)$, where $\mu_0$ is the mean and $\Sigma_0$ the covariance matrix. The posterior distribution $g(\theta|y)$ has a non-standard form, and we approximate it using a Gaussian mixture model (GMM). Variational computations are done using the algorithm in where the same dataset was also considered but with Albert’s original prior. We consider a two component mixture approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
g(\theta|y) &\approx q(\theta) = \omega_1 q_1(\theta) + \omega_2 q_2(\theta),\end{aligned}$$ where $q(\theta)$ denotes the variational approximation, $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are mixing weights with $\omega_1 + \omega_2 = 1$, and $q_1(\theta)$ and $q_2(\theta)$ are the normal mixture component densities with means and covariance matrices $\mu_1,\Sigma_1$ and $\mu_2,\Sigma_2$ respectively. In our check, we replace $$\begin{aligned}
\text{KL}(y) & = \int \log \frac{g(\theta|y)}{g(\theta)}g(\theta|y) d\theta\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\text{KL}}(y) & = \int \log \frac{q(\theta)}{g(\theta)}g(\theta|y)d\theta. \label{statapprox1}\end{aligned}$$ $\widetilde{\text{KL}}(y)$ replaces the true posterior $g(\theta|y)$ with its variational approximation. Then we replace the exact computation of (\[statapprox1\]) with the closed form approximation of , which here takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_1 \cdot \log \frac{ \omega_1 + \omega_2 \cdot \exp\Bigl(-D(q_1||q_2)\Bigr)}{ \exp\Bigl(-D(q_1||g)\Bigr)} + \omega_2 \cdot \log \frac{ \omega_1 \cdot \exp\Bigl(-D(q_2||q_1)\Bigr) + \omega_2}{ \exp\Bigl(-D(q_2||g)\Bigr)},\end{aligned}$$ where $D(q_1||q_2)$, $D(q_1||g)$, $D(q_2||g)$ are the Kullback-Leibler divergences between $q_1$ and $q_2$, $q_1$ and $g$ and $q_2$ and $g$ respectively where $g$ is the prior. There are closed form expressions for these Kullback-Leibler divergences since they are between pairs of multivariate Gaussian densities. After application of the Hershey-Olsen bound, we have an approximating statistic $\text{KL}^*(y)$ to $\text{KL}(y)$. Then we can approximate $p_{\text{KL}}$ by simulating datasets $y^{(i)}$, $i=1,\dots,M$ under the prior predictive, computing $\text{KL}^*(y^{(i)})$ and $\text{KL}^*(y_{\text{obs}})$ and then $$p_{\text{KL}}\approx \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^M I\Bigl(\text{KL}^*(y^{(i)})\geq \text{KL}^*(y_{\text{obs}})\Bigr).$$ For illustration, consider three different normal priors, all with prior covariance matrix $\Sigma_0$ diagonal with diagonal entries $0.25$, but with prior means representing a lack of conflict, moderate conflict and a clear conflict ($\mu_0 = (-7.1, 7.9)$, $\mu_0=(-7.4, 7.9)$ and $\mu_0 = (-7.7, 7.9)$ respectively). Figure \[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] shows for the three cases contour plots of the prior and likelihood (left column) and the true posterior together with its two component variational posterior approximation computed using the algorithm of . The three rows from top to bottom show the cases of lack of conflict, moderate conflict and a clear conflict. The $p$-values approximated by the variational method and Hershey-Olsen bound with $M=1000$ are $0.58$, $0.25$ and $0.03$ for the three cases. We can see that the variational posterior approximation is excellent even with just two mixture components and the $p$-values behave as we would expect.\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] Contour plots of log-likelihood and prior (left) and true posterior together with Gaussian mixture approximation (right) for priors centered at $(-7.1, 7.9), (-7.4, 7.9)$ and $(-7.7, 7.9)$ (from top to bottom). ](neg71llkhdprior.pdf "fig:"){height="66mm" width="63mm"} ![\[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] Contour plots of log-likelihood and prior (left) and true posterior together with Gaussian mixture approximation (right) for priors centered at $(-7.1, 7.9), (-7.4, 7.9)$ and $(-7.7, 7.9)$ (from top to bottom). ](neg71posterior.pdf "fig:"){height="66mm" width="63mm"}
![\[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] Contour plots of log-likelihood and prior (left) and true posterior together with Gaussian mixture approximation (right) for priors centered at $(-7.1, 7.9), (-7.4, 7.9)$ and $(-7.7, 7.9)$ (from top to bottom). ](neg74llkhdprior.pdf "fig:"){height="66mm" width="63mm"} ![\[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] Contour plots of log-likelihood and prior (left) and true posterior together with Gaussian mixture approximation (right) for priors centered at $(-7.1, 7.9), (-7.4, 7.9)$ and $(-7.7, 7.9)$ (from top to bottom). ](neg74posterior.pdf "fig:"){height="66mm" width="63mm"}
![\[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] Contour plots of log-likelihood and prior (left) and true posterior together with Gaussian mixture approximation (right) for priors centered at $(-7.1, 7.9), (-7.4, 7.9)$ and $(-7.7, 7.9)$ (from top to bottom). ](neg77llkhdprior.pdf "fig:"){height="66mm" width="63mm"} ![\[fig:lkhdpriorposterior\] Contour plots of log-likelihood and prior (left) and true posterior together with Gaussian mixture approximation (right) for priors centered at $(-7.1, 7.9), (-7.4, 7.9)$ and $(-7.7, 7.9)$ (from top to bottom). ](neg77posterior.pdf "fig:"){height="66mm" width="63mm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry data*]{}\
We illustrate the computation of our conflict checks in a hierarchical setting using a logistic random effects model. Here the data are part of that presented to a public enquiry into excess mortality at the Bristol Royal Infirmary in complex paediatric surgeries prior to 1995. The data are given in and a comprehensive discussion is given in . The data consists of pairs $(y_i,n_i)$, $i=1,\dots,12$ where $i$ indexes different hospitals, $y_i$ is the number of deaths in hospital $i$ and $n_i$ is the number of operations. The first hopsital ($i=1$) is the Bristol Royal Infirmary. consider a random effects model of the form $y_i\sim \text{Binomial}(n_i,p_i)$ where $\log (p_i/(1-p_i))=\beta+u_i$ and $u_i\sim N(0,D)$ so that $u_i$ are hospital specific random effects, and they consider formal measures of conflict involving the prior for $u_i$ given $D$. Particular interest is in whether there is a prior data conflict for $i=1$ (Bristol) which would indicate that this hospital is unusual compared to the others. In our analysis here we consider priors on $\beta$ and $D$ where $\beta\sim N(0,1000)$ and $\log D\sim N(-3.5,1)$ which were chosen to be roughly similar to priors chosen in for this example. So we have a hierarchical prior, $g(\theta)=g(u,\beta,D)=g(u|D)g(\beta,D)$ and we can use our methods for checking hierarchical priors to check for conflict involving each of the $u_i$.
We will use a multivariate normal variational approximation to $g(\theta|y)$ (but with $D$ transformed by taking logs) and computed using the method described in . The conditional prior $p(u|D)$ is normal, and in the variational posterior the conditional for $u$ given $\beta,D$ is also normal, so that conditional prior to (variational) posterior divergences can be computed in closed form. For checking for conflict for the $u_i$s we will use the statisic $\text{KL}_1(y)=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1}R_{\alpha 1}(y)$, except that we replace the conditional posterior and prior for $u$ given $\beta,D$ in the definition (\[ralphay2\]) with that of $u_i$ given $\beta, D$ when checking $u_i$. This is because we are intersted in checking for conflicts for individual hospital specific effects. We will approximate $\text{KL}_1(y)$ by $\text{KL}_1^*(y)$ obtained by replacing all computations involving the true posterior with the equivalent calculations for the variational Gaussian posterior.
Figure \[posteriors\] shows for the observed data the variational posterior distribution, together with the true posterior approximated by MCMC. Table \[Table:Bristol\] also shows our conflict $p$-values for the different hospitals. Also listed are cross-validated mixed predictive $p$-values obtained by the method of by MCMC and given in , as well as a cross-validated version of our divergence based $p$-values. The cross-validated divergence based $p$-values use the posterior distribution for $(\beta,D)$ obtained when leaving out the $i$th observation, $g(\theta_2|y_{\text{obs,-i}})$, instead of $g(\theta_2|y_{\text{obs}})$ in the definition of the reference distribution (\[klcheck1\]) and in taking the expectation in (\[Ralpha1\]). We can see that the $p$-values are similar although the priors on the parameters $(\beta,D)$ were not exactly the same in Tan and Nott’s analysis. For comparison with previous analyses of the data, we have computed a one-sided version of our conflict $p$-value here, which makes sense because excess mortality is of interest. We have modified our $p$-value measuring surprise to $p_{\text{KL}1}=P\Bigl(\text{KL}_1(Y)\geq \text{KL}_1(y_{\text{obs}})\mbox{ and } E_q(u_i|Y)>0\Bigr)$ for clusters $i$ with $E_q(u_i|y_{\text{obs}})>0$, and to $p_{\text{KL}1}=P\Bigl(\text{KL}_1(Y)\leq \text{KL}_1(y_{\text{obs}})\Bigr)+P\Bigl(\text{KL}_1(Y)\geq KL_1(y_{\text{obs}})\mbox{ and }E_q(u_i|Y)>0\Bigr)$ for clusters $i$ with $E(u_i|y_{\text{obs}})<0$, where in these expressions $E_q(\cdot)$ denotes expectation with respect to the appropriate variational posterior distribution. Although it is not expected that these conflict $p$-values should be exactly the same, it is seen that they give a similar picture about the degree of consistency of the data for each hospital with the hierarchical prior.
[cc]{}\
![\[posteriors\] Marginal posterior distributions computed by MCMC (red) and Gaussian variational posteriors (blue) for $u$ (top) and $(\beta,D)$ (bottom). ](betaposterior.pdf "fig:"){width="60mm"} & ![\[posteriors\] Marginal posterior distributions computed by MCMC (red) and Gaussian variational posteriors (blue) for $u$ (top) and $(\beta,D)$ (bottom). ](Dposterior.pdf "fig:"){width="60mm"}
Hospital $p_{\text{MS,CV}}$ $p_{\text{KL}}$ $p_{\text{KL,CV}}$
----------------- -------------------- ----------------- --------------------
Bristol 0.001 0.010 0.002
Leicester 0.436 0.527 0.516
Leeds 0.935 0.912 0.947
Oxford 0.125 0.173 0.123
Guys 0.298 0.398 0.383
Liverpool 0.720 0.690 0.745
Southampton 0.737 0.680 0.715
Great Ormond St 0.661 0.595 0.628
Newcastle 0.440 0.455 0.430
Harefield 0.380 0.474 0.452
Birmingham 0.763 0.761 0.787
Brompton 0.721 0.591 0.631
: \[Table:Bristol\] Cross-validatory conflict $p$-values using the method of Marshall and Spiegelhalter ($p_{\text{MS,CV}}$), KL divergence conflict $p$-values ($p_{\text{KL}}$), and cross-validated KL divergence $p$-values ($p_{\text{KL,CV}}$) for hospital specific random effects
Discussion
==========
We have proposed a new approach for prior-data conflict assessment based on comparing the prior to posterior Rényi divergence to its distribution under the prior predictive for the data. The method can be extended to hierarchical settings where it is desired to check different components of a prior distribution, and has some interesting connections with the methodology of and with Jeffreys’ and reference prior distributions. It works well in the examples we have examined, and we have suggested the use of variational approximations for making the methodology implementable in complex settings.
There are a number of ways that this work could be further developed. One line of future development concerns the computational approximations developed in Section 5, which can no doubt be improved. On the more statistical side, define a notion of weak informativity of a prior with respect to a given base prior, inspired by ideas of , and their particular formulation of this concept makes use of the notion of prior-data conflict checks. It will be interesting to examine how the prior-data conflict checks we have developed here perform in relation to this application.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
David Nott was supported by a Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 2 grant (R-155-000-143-112). Bergthold-Georg Englert’s work is funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education (partly through the Academic Research Fund Tier 3 MOE2012-T3-1-009) and the National Research Foundation of Singapore. Michael Evans’s work was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant Number 10671.
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Oleg Ogievetsky[^1]\
\
[*Aix Marseille Université, Université de Toulon, CNRS,*]{}\
[*CPT UMR 7332, 13288, Marseille, France*]{}\
[&]{}\
[*I.E.Tamm Department of Theoretical Physics, P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute,*]{}\
[*Leninsky prospekt 53, 119991 Moscow, Russia*]{}\
\
\
Pavel Pyatov[^2]\
\
[*National Research University Higher School of Economics*]{}\
[*20 Myasnitskaya street, Moscow 101000, Russia*]{}\
[&]{}\
[*Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics*]{}\
[*JINR, 141980 Dubna, Moscow region, Russia*]{}
title: |
Quantum Matrix Algebras of BMW type:\
Structure of the Characteristic Subalgebra
---
A notion of quantum matrix (QM-) algebra generalizes and unifies two famous families of algebras from the theory of quantum groups: the RTT-algebras and the reflection equation (RE-) algebras. These algebras being generated by the components of a ‘quantum’ matrix $M$ possess certain properties which resemble structure theorems of the ordinary matrix theory. It turns out that such structure results are naturally derived in a more general framework of the QM-algebras. In this work we consider a family of Birman-Murakami-Wenzl (BMW) type QM-algebras. These algebras are defined with the use of R-matrix representations of the BMW algebras. Particular series of such algebras include orthogonal and symplectic types RTT- and RE- algebras, as well as their super-partners.
For a family of BMW type QM-algebras, we investigate the structure of their ‘characteristic subalgebras’ — the subalgebras where the coefficients of characteristic polynomials take values. We define three sets of generating elements of the characteristic subalgebra and derive recursive Newton and Wronski relations between them. We also define an associative $\star$-product for the matrix $M$ of generators of the QM-algebra which is a proper generalization of the classical matrix multiplication. We determine the set of all matrix ‘descendants’ of the quantum matrix $M$, and prove the $\star$-commutativity of this set in the BMW type.
Introduction
============
A notion of a quantum matrix group, also called the RTT-algebra, is implicit in the quantum inverse scattering method. A formal definition has been given in the works of V. Drinfel’d, L. Faddeev, N. Reshetikhin and L. Takhtajan [@D1; @FRT]. Since then, various aspects of the quantum matrix group theory have been elaborated, especially in attempts to define differential geometric structures on non-commutative spaces (see, e.g., [@Man; @SchWZ]). In particular, a different family of algebras generated by matrix components, the so-called reflection equation (RE-) algebras [@C; @KS], has been brought into consideration. Soon it was realized that, for both the RTT- and the RE-algebras, some of the basic concepts of the classical matrix algebra, like the notion of the spectral invariants and the characteristic identity (the Cayley-Hamilton theorem) can be properly generalized (see [@EOW; @NT; @PS; @Zh]). So, it comes out that the matrix notation used for the definition of the RTT- and the RE-algebras is not only technically convenient, but it dictates certain structure properties for the algebras themselves. It is then natural to search for a possibly most general algebraic setting for the matrix-type objects. Such family of algebras was introduced in refs.[@Hl] and [@IOP1], and in the latter case the definition was dictated by a condition that the standard matrix theory statements should have their appropriate generalizations. These algebras were called quantum matrix (QM-) algebras although one should have in mind that the QM-algebras are generated by the matrix components rather than by the matrix itself.
The RTT- and the RE-algebras are probably the most important subfamilies in the variety of QM-algebras. They are distinguished both from the algebraic point of view (the presence of additional non-braided bi-algebra and bi-comodule structures) and from the geometric point of view (their interpretation as, respectively, the algebras of quantized functions and of quantized invariant differential operators on a group); also, the RE-algebras naturally appear in the representation theory, in the description of the diagonal reduction algebras [@KhO]. However, for the generalization of the basic matrix algebra statements, it is not only possible but often more clarifying to use a weaker structure settings of the QM-algebras.
So far, the program of generalizing the Cayley-Hamilton theorem was fully accomplished for the ’linear’ (or Iwahori-Hecke) type QM-algebras. For the $GL(m)$-type algebras, the results were described in [@GPS1; @IOPS; @IOP1] and for the $GL(m|n)$-type algebras in [@GPS2; @GPS3]. These works generalize earlier results on characteristic identities by A.J. Bracken, H.S. Green, et. al., in the Lie (super)algebra case [@BGr; @Gr; @BCC; @Gou; @JGr] (for a review see [@IWG]) and in the quantized universal enveloping algebra case [@GZB], and by I. Kantor and I. Trishin in the matrix superalgebra case [@KT1; @KT2].
The similar investigation program for the QM-algebras of Birman-Murakami-Wenzl (BMW) type (for their definition see section \[subsec4.1\]) was initiated in [@OP]. In the present and forthconimng works we continue and complement this program. The family of BMW type QM-algebras serves as a unifying set-up for the description of the orthogonal and symplectic QM-algebras as well as for their supersymmetric partners. Some partial results about specific examples of such algebras and their limiting cases were already derived. In particular, the characteristic identities for the generators of the orthogonal and symplectic Lie algebras have been considered at the representation theoretical and at the abstract algebraic levels in [@BGr; @Gr] and in [@BCC; @Gou; @Mol]. The characteristic identities for the canonical Drinfeld-Jimbo quantizations of the orthogonal and symplectic universal enveloping algebras were obtained in [@MRS] and their images in the series of highest weight representations were discussed in details in [@Mudr]. So, it is pretty clear that proper generalizations of the Cayley-Hamilton theorems do exist for the families of orthogonal and symplectic QM-algebras. However, in a derivation of these results one meets serious technical complications. The reason is that the structure of the Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras is substantially more sophisticated then that of the Iwahori-Hecke algebras (Iwahori-Hecke and Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras play similar roles in the construction of the QM-algebras of linear and BMW types). In the present work we develop an appropriate techniques to deal with these complications.
In sections \[sec2\] and \[sec3\] we collect necessary results concerning the Birman-Murakami-Wenzl (BMW) algebras and their R-matrix representations. In the beginning of section \[sec2\] we define the BMW algebras in terms of generators and relations, describe few helpful morphisms between these algebras, and introduce the baxterized elements. These elements are used in subsection \[subsec2.2\] for the definition of three sets of idempotents called antisymmetrizers, symmetrizers and contractors. Necessary properties of these idempotents are proved in proposition \[proposition2.2\]. All the material of this section, except the construction and properties of the contractors is fairly well known and we present it to make the presentation self-contained.
In section \[sec3\] we consider the R-matrix representations of the BMW algebras. We define standard notions of the R-trace [^3], skew-invertibility, compatible pair of R-matrices and R-matrix twist (subsection \[subsec3.1\]). In subsection \[subsec3.2\] we collect necessary formulas and statements relating the notions introduced before. To investigate the skew-invertibility of the R-matrix after a twist, in subsection \[subsec3.2a\] we derive an expression for the twisted R-matrix, which is different from the standard one. Next we describe the BMW type R-matrices (subsection \[subsec3.3\]). The major part of a technical preparatory work is done in subsections \[subsec3.2\]—\[subsec3.3\], and \[operatorG\], \[Twolinearmaps\]. Here we develop the R-matrix technique, which is later used in the main sections \[sec4\], \[sec5\].
In the beginning of section \[sec4\] we introduce the QM-algebras of general and BMW types. We then define the characteristic subalgebra of the QM-algebra. In the Iwahori-Hecke case, it is the subalgebra where the coefficients of the Cayley-Hamilton identity take their values. As it was shown in [@IOP1], the characteristic subalgebra is abelian. In subsection \[subsec4.2\] we describe three generating sets for the characteristic subalgebra of the BMW type QM-algebra. As compared to the linear QM-algebras, all these generating sets contain a single additional element — the 2-contraction $g$ — which at the classical level gives rise to bilinear invariant 2-forms for the orthogonal and symplectic groups.
Next, in subsection \[subsec4.4\], we construct a proper analogue of the matrix multiplication for the quantum matrices. We call it the quantum matrix product ‘$\star $’. In general, the $\star \, $-product is different from the usual matrix product. It is worth noting that for the family of RE-algebras, the $\star \, $-product coincides with the matrix product. The $\star \, $-product is proven to be associative and hence the $\star \,$-powers of the same quantum matrix $M$ commute. We determine then the set of all ‘descendants’ of the quantum matrix $M$ in the BMW case and prove that this set is $\star \, $-commutative. It turns out that, unlike the linear QM-algebra case, it is not possible to express all these descendants in terms of the $\star \, $-powers of $M$ only. The expressions include also a new operation ‘’, which can be treated as a ‘matrix multiplication with a transposition’. In subsection \[subsec4.5\] we define an extension of the BMW type QM-algebra by the element $g^{-1}$ which is the inverse to the 2-contraction. Then we construct in the extended algebra the inverse $\star \, $-power of the quantum matrix $M$.
The last section \[sec5\] contains the principal result of the present work, theorem \[theorem6.1\], which establishes, for the BMW type QM-algebras, recursive relations between the elements of the three generating sets of their characteristic subalgebras. These formulas generalize the classical Newton and Wronsky relations for the sets of the power sums, elementary and complete symmetric polynomials (see [@Mac]) to the case of quantum matrices and simultaneously, to the situation where additional element of the characteristic subalgebra, the 2-contraction, is present. To prove this result we first derive the matrix relations among the descendants of the BMW type quantum matrix $M$ (see lemma \[lemma5.1\]). These relations can be viewed as the matrix counterparts of the Newton relations, and they are expected to be important ingredients in a future derivation of the characteristic identities for the QM-algebras of the BMW type.
Some auxilliary results, which are interesting in themselves, although not necessary for considerations in the main text, are collected in the appendices. In appendix \[primcontr\] we prove the primitivity of the contractors from subsection \[subsec2.4\]. In appendix \[fuproco\] their further properties are discussed. Appendix \[append1\] is devoted to a discussion of universal counterparts of the matrix relations given in subsections \[subsec3.2\], \[subsec3.2a\].
In forthcoming papers we are going to construct the Cayley-Hamilton identities, and, more generally Cayley-Hamilton-Newton identities in the spirit of [@IOP], for the series of orthogonal and symplectic QM-algebras and, further on, for their super-partners.
Some facts about Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras
===============================================
In this preparatory section we collect definitions and derive few results on the Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras. We give a minimal information, which is required for the main part of the paper. In particular, in sec.\[subsec2.2\] we describe series of morphisms of the braid groups and their quotient BMW algebras; in sec.\[subsec2.3\] we introduce baxterized elements which are then used in the sec.\[subsec2.4\] to define three series of idempotents in the BMW algerbas, the so called symmetrizers, antisymmetrizers and contractors.
The reader will find a more detailed presentation of the Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras in, e.g., papers [@W] and [@LR].
Definition
----------
The braid group ${\cal B}_{n}$, $n\geq 2$, in Artin presentation, is defined by generators $\{\sigma_i\}_{i=1}^{n-1}$ and relations \_i \_[i+1]{} \_i & =& \_[i+1]{} \_i \_[i+1]{} i=1,2,…,n-1,\
\_i \_j & =& \_j \_i i,j: |i-j|>1 . We put, by definition, ${\cal B}_{1}:=\{1\}$.
The [*Birman-Murakami-Wenzl (BMW) algebra*]{} ${\cal W}_{n}(q,\mu)$ [@BW; @M1] is a finite dimensional quotient algebra of the group algebra ${\Bbb C}{\cal B}_{n}$. It depends on two complex parameters $q$ and $\mu$. Let \_[i]{} := [(q1-\_i)(q\^[-1]{} 1 +\_i)(q-q\^[-1]{})]{} , i=1,2,…,n-1 . The quotient algebra ${\cal W}_{n}(q,\mu)$ is specified by conditions \_i \_i = \_i \_i &=& \_i ,\
\_i \_[i+1]{}\^ \_i &=& \^[-]{} \_i , where $\epsilon$ is the sign [^4], $\epsilon =\pm 1$.
Eqs.(\[kappa\]) and (\[bmw2a\]) imply that the characteristic polynomial for the generator $\sigma_i$ has degree three, (\_i -q1)(\_i +q\^[-1]{}1)(\_i -1)=0 .
The relations (\[bmw2a\]) – (\[bmw2b\]) imply also ’\_i\_[i+1]{}’\_i &=& ’\_[i+1]{} \_i’\_[i+1]{} , ’ =-1 ,\
\_i \_[i+]{}\^ &=&\_i \_[i+]{}\_i\^[-]{}, \_[i+]{}\^ \_[i]{} = \_[i]{}\^[-]{} \_[i+]{} \_[i]{} ,\
\_i \_[i+]{} \_i &=& \_i ,\
\_i\^2 &=& \_i , := . Here $\epsilon$ and $\pi$ are the signs: $\epsilon =\pm 1$ and $\pi =\pm 1$.
The parameters $q$ and $\mu$ of the BMW algebra are taken in domains[^5] q\\{0,1}, \\{0,q,-q\^[-1]{}}, so that the elements $\kappa_i$ are well defined and non-nilpotent. Further restrictions on $q$ and $\mu$ will be imposed in subsection \[subsec2.3\].
Natural morphisms
-----------------
The braid groups and their quotient BMW algebras admit a chain of monomophisms
[l]{} [B]{}\_2…\_n\_[n+1]{}… ,\
[W]{}\_2…\_n\_[n+1]{}…
defined on the generators as \_[n]{} ([or]{} [W]{}\_[n]{})\_i \_[i+1]{}\_[n+1]{} ([or]{} [W]{}\_[n+1]{}) i=1,…,n-1.We denote by $\alpha^{(n)\uparrow i}\in {\cal B}_{n+i}\ ({\mathrm{or}}\ \ {\cal W}_{n+i})$ an image of an element $\alpha^{(n)}\in {\cal B}_n\ ({\mathrm{or}}\ \ {\cal W}_{n})$ under a composition of the mappings (\[h-emb\])–(\[h-emb2\]). Conversely, if for some $j<(n-1)$, an element $\alpha^{(n)}$ belongs to the image of ${\cal B}_{n-j}\ ({\mathrm{or}}\
\ {\cal W}_{n-j})$ in ${\cal B}_n\ ({\mathrm{or}}\ \ {\cal W}_{n})$ then by $\alpha^{(n)\downarrow j}$ we denote the preimage of $\alpha^{(n)}$ in ${\cal B}_{n-j}\ ({\mathrm{or}}\ \ {\cal W}_{n-j})$.
This notation will be helpful in subsection \[subsec2.4\] where we discuss three distinguished sequences of idempotents in the BMW algebras.
[**$\bullet$**]{} Consider series of elements $\tau^{(n)}\in{\cal B}_n$ defined inductively \^[(1)]{}:=1, \^[(j+1)]{}:=\^[(j)]{}\_j\_[j-1]{}…\_1 . $\tau^{(n)}$ is the lift of the longest element of the symmetric group $S_n$. The inner ${\cal B}_n$ (and, hence, ${\cal W}_n$) automorphism : \_i\^[(n)]{} \_i (\^[(n)]{})\^[-1]{}=\_[n-i]{} , will be used below in derivations in sections \[subsec2.4\] and \[sec4\].
[**$\bullet$**]{} One has three algebra isomorphisms: $$\iota :\ {\cal W}_n (q,\mu) \rightarrow {\cal W}_n (-q^{-1},\mu)\; \mbox{,}\quad
\iota' :\ {\cal W}_n (q,\mu) \rightarrow {\cal W}_n (q^{-1},\mu^{-1})\quad \mbox{and}\quad
\iota'' :\ {\cal W}_n (q,\mu) \rightarrow {\cal W}_n (-q,-\mu)$$ defined on generators by : && \_i\_i ,\
’ : && \_i\_i\^[-1]{} ,\
” : && \_i-\_i . The map $\iota$ interchanges the two sets of baxterized elements $\sigma^\pm(x)$ and the series of symmetrizers $a^{(n)}$ and antysimmetrizers $s^{(n)}$: $\iota(a^{(n)})=s^{(n)}$ (see subsections \[subsec2.3\] and \[subsec2.4\] below). For the maps $\iota'$, $\iota''$ one has: $\iota'(\sigma^\pm(x))=x\sigma^\pm(x^{-1})$, $\iota''(\sigma^\pm(x))=\sigma^\pm(x)$. The series of (anti)symmetrizers are stable under maps $\iota'$ and $\iota''$. One also has $\iota(\kappa_i)=\iota' (\kappa_i)=\iota'' (\kappa_i)=\kappa_i$.
[**$\bullet$.**]{} There exists an algebra antiautomorphism $\varsigma :\ {\cal W}_n (q,\mu) \rightarrow {\cal W}_n (q,\mu)$ ($\varsigma (xy)=\varsigma (y)\varsigma (x)$), defined on generators as :\_i\_i . This morphism will be used later in the proofs of Propositions \[proposition2.2\] and \[proposition4.14\].
Baxterized elements
-------------------
A set of elements $\sigma_i(x)$, $i=1,2,\dots, n-1,$ depending on a complex parameter $x$, in a quotient of the group algebra ${\Bbb C}{\cal B}_{n}$ is called a set of [*baxterized elements*]{} if \_i(x) \_[i+1]{}(xy) \_i(y) = \_[i+1]{}(y) \_i(xy) \_[i+1]{}(x) for $i=1,2,\dots, n-1$ and \_i(x) \_j(y) =\_j(y) \_i(x) if $|i-j|>1$.
For the algebra ${\cal W}_{n}(q,\mu)$, the baxterized elements exist. There are two sets of the baxterized elements $\{\sigma^{\varepsilon}_i\}$, $\varepsilon =\pm 1$, given by \_i\^(x) := 1 + [x-1q-q\^[-1]{}]{} \_i + [x-1\_ x+1]{} \_i , where $\alpha_{\varepsilon}\, :=\, -\varepsilon q^{-\varepsilon} \mu^{-1}$.
The complex argument $x$, traditionally called [*the spectral parameter*]{}, is chosen in a domain $\ $ ${\Bbb C}\setminus\{-\alpha_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\}$.
Symmetrizers, antisymmetrizers and contractors
----------------------------------------------
In terms of the baxterized generators we construct two series of elements $a^{(i)}$ and $s^{(i)}$, $i=1,2,\dots ,n$, in the algebra ${\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$. They are defined iteratively in two ways: a\^[(1)]{} := 1 s\^[(1)]{} := 1 , &&\
a\^[(i+1)]{} :=[q\^i(i+1)\_q]{} a\^[(i)]{} \^[-]{}\_i(q\^[-2i]{}) a\^[(i)]{} && a\^[(i+1)]{}:= [q\^i(i+1)\_q]{} a\^[(i)1]{} \^[-]{}\_1(q\^[-2i]{}) a\^[(i)1]{} ,\
s\^[(i+1)]{} :=[q\^[-i]{}(i+1)\_q]{} s\^[(i)]{} \^[+]{}\_i(q\^[2i]{}) s\^[(i)]{} && s\^[(i+1)]{}:= [q\^[-i]{}(i+1)\_q]{} s\^[(i)1]{} \^[+]{}\_1(q\^[2i]{}) s\^[(i)1]{} , where $i_q$ are usual $q$-numbers, $i_q\, :=\, (q^i - q^{-i})/(q-q^{-1})$. Below we show that in each of eqs. (\[a\^k\]), (\[s\^k\]) the two definitions coincide. We note that the factorized formula for the (anti)symmetrizers, in the spirit of the fusion procedure for the BMW algebra [@IMO], follows from the eqs. (\[a\^k\]), (\[s\^k\]).
To avoid singularities in the definition of $a^{(i)}$ (respectively, $s^{(i)}$), $i=1,2,\dots ,n$, we impose further restrictions on the parameters of ${\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$: j\_q 0 , -q\^[-2j+3]{} (q\^[2j-3]{}) j = 2,3,…, n .
The elements $a^{(i)}$ and $s^{(i)}$ are called an [*$i$-th order antisymmetrizer*]{} and an [*$i$-th order symmetrizer*]{}, respectively.
The second order antisymmetrizer and symmetrizer a\^[(2)]{}=[q2\_q]{}\_1\^[-]{}(q\^[-2]{})=[(q1-\_1)(1-\_1)2\_q (+q\^[-1]{})]{} , s\^[(2)]{}=[q\^[-1]{}2\_q]{}\_1\^[+]{}(q\^2)=[(q\^[-1]{}1+\_1)(1-\_1)2\_q (-q)]{} are the idempotents participating in a resolution of unity in the algebra ${\cal W}_2(q,\mu)$ (c.f. with the property (\[deg3-a\])$\,$), 1 = a\^[(2)]{} + s\^[(2)]{} + \^[-1]{}\_1 .
Likewise for $a^{(2)}$ and $s^{(2)}$, one can introduce higher order analogues for the third idempotent entering the resolution. Namely, define iteratively c\^[(2)]{} := \^[-1]{}\_1 , c\^[(2i+2)]{} := c\^[(2i)1]{} \_1 \_[2i+1]{} c\^[(2i)1]{} . The element $c^{(2i)}$ is called an [*$(2i)$-th order contractor*]{}. Main properties of the (anti)symmetrizers and contractors are summarized below.
Two expressions given for the antisymmetrizers and symmetrizers in eqs.(\[a\^k\]) and (\[s\^k\]) are identical. The elements $a^{(n)}$ and $s^{(n)}$ are central primitive idempotents in the algebra ${\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$. One has a\^[(n)]{}\_i =\_i a\^[(n)]{} = -q\^[-1]{} a\^[(n)]{},&& s\^[(n)]{}\_i = \_i s\^[(n)]{} = q s\^[(n)]{} i=1,2,…,n-1\
&&\
a\^[(n)]{} a\^[(m)i]{} = a\^[(m)i]{} a\^[(n)]{} = a\^[(n)]{} ,&& s\^[(n)]{} s\^[(m)i]{} = s\^[(m)i]{} s\^[(n)]{} = s\^[(n)]{} m+in . The antisymmetrizers $a^{(n)}$, for all $n=2,3,\dots$, are orthogonal to the symmetrizers $s^{(m)}$, for all $m=2,3,\dots$ , a\^[(n)]{}s\^[(m)]{}=0 .
The element $c^{(2n)}$ is a primitive idempotent in the algebra ${\cal W}_{2n}(q,\mu)$ and in the algebra ${\cal W}_{2n+1}(q,\mu)$. One has c\^[(2n)]{} c\^[(2i)n-i]{}= c\^[(2i)n-i]{} c\^[(2n)]{} = c\^[(2n)]{} && i=1,2,…, n ;\
c\^[(2n)]{} \_i = c\^[(2n)]{} \_[2n-i]{} , \_i c\^[(2n)]{} = \_[2n-i]{} c\^[(2n)]{} && i=1,2,…,n-1 ,\
&&\
c\^[(2n)]{}\_n = \_n c\^[(2n)]{} =c\^[(2n)]{} . && The contractors $c^{(2n)}$ are orthogonal to the antisymmetrizers $a^{(m)}$ and to the symmetrizers $s^{(m)}$ for all $m>n$.
The explicit formula (\[a\^k\]) for idempotents, which we call antisymmetrizers here, appears in [@TW], although without referring to the baxterized elements (see the proof of the lemma 7.6 in [@TW]).[^6] Our proof of the formulas (\[idemp-1\]) and (\[idemp-2\]) relies on the relations (\[bYBE\]) for the baxterized generators.
We first check that the elements $a^{(i)}$ defined iteratively by the first formula in (\[a\^k\]) satisfy the relations (\[idemp-1\]) and (\[idemp-2\]). The equalities (\[idemp-1\]) for the antisymmetrizers are equivalent to $$a^{(n)}s^{(2)\uparrow i-1}=s^{(2)\uparrow i-1}a^{(n)}=
a^{(n)}c^{(2)\uparrow i-1}=c^{(2)\uparrow i-1}a^{(n)}=0\ ,
\quad \forall\; i=1,2,\dots n-1\ ,$$ which, in turn, are equivalent to a\^[(n)]{} \_i\^[-]{}(q\^2) = \_i\^[-]{}(q\^2) a\^[(n)]{} = 0 . Indeed, the spectral decomposition of $\sigma^{-}_i(q^2)$ contains (with nonzero coefficients) only two idempotents, $s^{(2)\uparrow i-1}$ and $c^{(2)\uparrow i-1}$: $$\sigma^{-}_i(q^2)=\, q\, 2_q\,
(s^{(2)\uparrow i-1}+\frac{1+q\mu}{q^3+\mu}\, c^{(2)\uparrow i-1})\ .$$ To avoid a singularity in the expression for $\sigma_i^-(q^2)$, we have to assume additionally $\mu \neq -q^3$ for the rest of the proof. However, the expressions entering the relations (\[idemp-1\]) and (\[idemp-2\]) are well defined and continuous at the point $\mu=-q^3$ (unless $-q^3$ coincides with one of the forbidden by eq.(\[mu\]) values of $\mu$), so the validity of the relations (\[idemp-1\]) and (\[idemp-2\]) at the point $\mu=-q^3$ follows by the continuity.
Notice that the equalities $a^{(n)} \sigma_i=-q^{-1} a^{(n)}$ are equivalent to the equalities $\sigma_i a^{(n)} =-q^{-1} a^{(n)}$ due to the antiautomorphism (\[antvs\]) since $\varsigma(a^{(n)})=a^{(n)}$ by construction.
We now prove the equalities (\[idemp-1\]) and (\[idemp-2\]) by induction on $n$.
For $n=2$, $a^{(2)} \sigma_1 = -q^{-1} a^{(2)}$, by (\[as-2\]) and (\[deg3-a\]).
Let us check the equalities for some fixed $n>2$ assuming that they are valid for all smaller values of $n$. Notice that as a byproduct of the definition (\[a\^k\]) (the first equality) and the induction assumption, the relations (\[divide\]) and (\[idemp-2\]) are satisfied, respectively, for all $i=1,2,\dots ,n-2$ and for all $m,i:\; m+i\leq n-1$. It remains to check the relation (\[divide\]) for $i=n-1$ and the relation (\[idemp-2\]) for $m=n-i$. Respectively, we calculate a\^[(n)]{}\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^2) &\~&a\^[(n-1)]{}\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^[-2n+2]{}) a\^[(n-1)]{}\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^2)\
&\~&(a\^[(n-1)]{}a\^[(n-2)]{})\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^[-2n+2]{}) \^[-]{}\_[n-2]{}(q\^[-2n+4]{})\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^2) a\^[(n-2)]{}\
&=& (a\^[(n-1)]{}\^[-]{}\_[n-2]{}(q\^2))\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^[-2n+4]{}) \^[-]{}\_[n-2]{}(q\^[-2n+2]{}) a\^[(n-2)]{} = 0 , (‘$\sim$’ means ‘proportional’) and a\^[(n)]{} a\^[(n-i)i]{}&=& [q\^[n-i-1]{}(n-i)\_q]{} (a\^[(n)]{} a\^[(n-i-1)i]{})\^[-]{}\_[n-1]{}(q\^[-2(n-i-1)]{})a\^[(n-i-1)i]{}\
&=&[q\^[n-i-1]{}(n-i)\_q]{}a\^[(n)]{} (1 + q\^[i-n]{}(n-i-1)\_q ) a\^[(n-i-1)i]{} = a\^[(n)]{} . Here in both cases, the definition of antisymmetrizers (\[a\^k\]) (the first equality), induction assumption and relation (\[bYBE\]) were used. The centrality and primitivity of the idempotents $a^{(n)}\in {\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$ follow then from the relations (\[idemp-1\]).
To prove equivalence of the two expressions for the antisymmetrizers given in the formulas (\[a\^k\]), notice that under conjugation by $\tau^{(i+1)}$ (\[tau-n\]) the first expression in the formulas (\[a\^k\]) gets transformed into the second one. However, the elements $a^{(i+1)}$ are central in ${\cal W}_{i+1}$, so they do not change under the conjugation which proves the consistency of the equalities (\[a\^k\]).
All the assertions concerning the symmetrizers follow from the relations for the antisymmetrizers by an application of the map $\iota$ (\[homS-A\]) $$\iota(a^{(n)})=s^{(n)},\qquad
\iota(s^{(n)})=a^{(n)},\qquad \iota(c^{(2n)})=c^{(2n)}\, .
$$ the latter formulas are direct consequences of the definitions.
The orthogonality of the antisymmetrizers and the symmetrizers is a byproduct of the relations (\[idemp-1\]): $$-q^{-1}a^{(n)}s^{(m)}= (a^{(n)}\sigma_1) s^{(m)}=a^{(n)}(\sigma_1 s^{(m)})=qa^{(n)}s^{(m)}\ .$$
The equalities (\[idemp-c1\]) can be proved by induction on $n$. They are obvious in the case $n=1$. Let us check them for some fixed $n\geq 2$, assuming they are valid for all smaller values of $n$. Notice that the iterative definition (\[kappa-i\]) together with the induction assumption approve the relations (\[idemp-c1\]) for all values of index $i$, except $i=n$. Checking the case $i=n$ splits in two subcases: $n=2$ and $n>2$. In the subcase $i=n=2$, we have $c^{(4)}=\eta^{-2}\kappa_2\kappa_3\kappa_1
\kappa_2$ and $$\left(c^{(4)}\right)^2 =\eta^{-4} \kappa_2\kappa_3\kappa_1\kappa_2^2\kappa_3\kappa_1\kappa_2 =
\eta^{-3}\kappa_2\kappa_3(\kappa_1\kappa_2\kappa_1)\kappa_3\kappa_2 =
\eta^{-3}\kappa_2\kappa_3\kappa_1\kappa_3\kappa_2 =\eta^{-2}\kappa_2\kappa_3\kappa_1\kappa_2 = c^{(4)}\, ,$$ while in the subcase $i=n>2$, the calculation is carried out as follows (c\^[(2n)]{})\^2 &=&c\^[(2n-2)1]{}\_1\_[2n-1]{}c\^[(2n-2)1]{} \_1\_[2n-1]{}c\^[(2n-2)1]{}\
&=& (c\^[(2n-2)1]{}c\^[(2n-4)2]{}) (\_1\_2\_1) (\_[2n-1]{}\_[2n-2]{}\_[2n-1]{}) (c\^[(2n-4)2]{}c\^[(2n-2)1]{})\
&=&c\^[(2n-2)1]{}\_1\_[2n-1]{}c\^[(2n-2)1]{}= c\^[(2n)]{} . Here in both calculations we used the definition (\[kappa-i\]), the induction assumption and the relations (\[bmw5a\]) and (\[bmw5b\]).
Taking into account the relations (\[idemp-c1\]), one can derive an alternative expression for the contractors
[ccl]{} c\^[(2i)]{}&=&c\^[(2i-2)1]{}\_1\_[2i-1]{}c\^[(2i-2)1]{} = c\^[(2i-2)1]{}\_1\_[2i-1]{}c\^[(2i-4)2]{}\_2\_[2i-2]{}c\^[(2i-4)2]{}\
&=& (c\^[(2i-2)1]{}c\^[(2i-4)2]{})\_1\_[2i-1]{}\_2\_[2i-2]{}c\^[(2i-4)2]{} = c\^[(2i-2)1]{}\_[2i-1]{}\_[2i-2]{}\_1\_2c\^[(2i-4)2]{}\
&=&… = c\^[(2i-2)1]{}(\_[2i-1]{}\_[2i-2]{}…\_[i+1]{}) (\_1\_2…\_[i-1]{})c\^[(2)i-1]{}\
&=& \^[-1]{} c\^[(2i-2)1]{}(\_[2i-1]{}\_[2i-2]{}…\_[i+1]{}) (\_1\_2…\_i) .
Now, using this expression and noticing that, by the relations (\[bmw3\]), $$\kappa_{i+1} \kappa_{i-1} \kappa_i \sigma_{i-1} =\kappa_{i+1} \kappa_{i-1} \sigma^{-1}_i =
\kappa_{i-1} \kappa_{i+1} \sigma^{-1}_i =\kappa_{i+1} \kappa_{i-1} \kappa_i \sigma_{i+1}\ ,$$ we conclude that the equality (\[idemp-c2\]) is satisfied for $i=n-1$. In particular, the relations (\[idemp-c2\]) hold for $n=2$ and $i=1$. It is enough (by induction on $n$) to prove the relations (\[idemp-c2\]) for $i=1$. Then observe, again by the relation (\[bmw3\]), that $$\kappa_i\kappa_{i\pm 1}\kappa_{i\pm 2}\,\sigma_i=\kappa_i\kappa_{i\pm 1}\sigma_i\,
\kappa_{i\pm 2}=\kappa_i\sigma^{-1}_{i\pm 1}\kappa_{i\pm 2}=\sigma_{i\pm 2}\, \kappa_i\kappa_{i\pm 1}
\kappa_{i\pm 2} \ .$$ Now, for $n>2$, c\^[(2n)]{}\_1&=&\^[-1]{} c\^[(2n-2)1]{} (\_[2n-1]{}\_[2n-2]{}…\_[n+1]{})(\_1\_2…\_n)\_1\
&=&\^[-1]{} c\^[(2n-2)1]{}(\_[2n-1]{}\_[2n-2]{}…\_[n+1]{}) \_3(\_1\_2…\_n)\
&=&\^[-1]{} c\^[(2n-2)1]{}\_3(\_[2n-1]{}\_[2n-2]{}…\_[n+1]{}) (\_1\_2…\_n)\
&=&\^[-1]{} c\^[(2n-2)1]{}\_[2n-3]{} (\_[2n-1]{}\_[2n-2]{}…\_[n+1]{})(\_1\_2…\_n)\
&=&\^[-1]{} c\^[(2n-2)1]{} (\_[2n-1]{}\_[2n-2]{}…\_[n+1]{})\_[2n-1]{} (\_1\_2…\_n) =c\^[(2n)]{}\_[2n-1]{} .
The relation (\[idemp-c3\]) follows from the property (\[bmw2a\]) and the expression (\[kappa-i2\]) (with $i=n$) for the contractor. Then, orthogonality of the contractors $c^{(2n)}$ with the antisymmetrizers and the symmetrizers $a^{(m)}$, $s^{(m)}$, $m>n$ is a corollary of the relations (\[idemp-1\]) and (\[idemp-c3\]).
A statement of the primitivity of the idempotent $c^{(2n)}\in{\cal W}_i(q,\mu)$, $i=2n,2n+1$, goes beyond the needs of the present paper, we mention it for a sake of completeness and postpone a purely algebraic proof till the appendix \[primcontr\].$\blacksquare$
Since the family of higher contractors does not appear to have been previously discussed in the literature, we include Appendix B, which contains their additional properties.
R-matrices
==========
Let $V$ denote a finite dimensional ${\Bbb C}$-linear space, $\dim V = \mbox{\sc n}$. Fixing some basis $\{v_i\}_{i=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize \sc n}}$ in $V$ we identify elements $X\in
{\rm End}(V^{\otimes n})$ with matrices $X_{i_1 i_2 \dots i_n}^{j_1 j_2 \dots j_n}$.
In this section we investigate properties of certain elements in ${\rm Aut}(V^{\otimes 2})$ generating representations of the braid groups ${\cal B}_n$ or, more specifically, of the Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras ${\cal W}_{n}(q,\mu)$ on the spaces $V^{\otimes n}$. Traditionally such operators are called R-matrices.
R-matrices and compatible pairs of R-matrices are introduced in subsection \[subsec3.1\]. We aslo discuss there the notions of the skew-invertibility and the R-trace. Some basic technique, useful in the work with the R-matrices, is presented in subsection \[subsec3.2\].
A twist operation which associates a new R-matrix to a compatible pair of R-matrices, is discussed in subsection \[subsec3.2a\]. We derive there an alternative expression for the twisted R-matrix and study its skew-invertibility.
Starting from subsection \[subsec3.3\], we concentrate on the R-matrices of the BMW type. In subsections \[operatorG\], \[Twolinearmaps\] important ingredients appear: a matrix $G$ and the linear maps $\phi$ and $\xi$. As it will be explained in section \[sec4\], the matrix $G$ is responsible for the commutation relation of the quantum matrix with a special element, called 2-contraction, of the quantum matrix algebra. The two maps $\phi$ and $\xi$, in turn, are necessary for the definition of the $\star\,$-product of the BMW type quantum matrices, which is a proper generalization of the usual matrix multiplication to the case of matrices with noncommuting entries.
Definition and notation
-----------------------
Let $X\in {\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$. For any $n=2,3,\dots$ and $1\leq m \leq n-1$, denote by $X_m$ an operator whose action on the space $V^{\otimes n}$ is given by the matrix $$(X_m)_{i_1 \dots i_n}^{j_1 \dots j_n}\ :=\ I_{i_1\dots i_{m-1}}^{j_1\dots j_{m-1}}\
X_{i_m i_{m+1}}^{j_m j_{m+1}}\ I_{i_{m+2}\dots i_n}^{j_{m+2}\dots j_n}\ .
$$ Here $I$ denotes the identity operator. In some formulas below (see, for instance, the equations (\[s-inv\])$\,$) we will also use a notation $X_{mr}\in {\rm End}(V^{\otimes n})$, $1\leq m<r\leq n-1$, referring to an operator given by a matrix $$(X_{mr})_{i_1 \dots i_n}^{j_1 \dots j_n}\ :=\ X_{i_m i_r}^{j_m j_r}\
I_{i_1\dots i_{m-1}i_{m+1}\dots i_{r-1} i_{r+1}\dots i_n}^{j_1\dots j_{m-1}
j_{m+1}\dots j_{r-1} j_{r+1}\dots j_n}\ .
$$ Clearly, $X_m= X_{m\, m+1}$.
We reserve the symbol $P$ for the permutation operator: $P(u\otimes v)= v\otimes u \;\;\; \forall\; u, v\in V\,$. Below we repeatedly make use of relations $$P^2 = I\, ;\quad P_{12} X_{12} = X_{21} P_{12}\, \ \;\; \forall\;\ X\in {\rm End}(V\otimes V)\, ;\quad
\tr_{(1)} P_{12} = \tr_{(3)} P_{23} = I_2\, ,$$ where the symbol ${\rm Tr}_{(i)}$ stands for the trace over an $i$-th component space in the tensor power of the space $V$.
An operator $X\in {\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$ is called [*skew invertible*]{} if there exists an operator ${\Psi_X}\in {\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$ such that \_[(2)]{} X\_[12]{} [\_X]{}\_[23]{} =\_[(2)]{} [\_X]{}\_[12]{} X\_[23]{} = P\_[13]{} .Define two elements of $\mbox{End}(V)$ C\_X:=[Tr]{}\_[(1)]{}[\_X]{}\_[12]{} ,D\_X:=[Tr]{}\_[(2)]{}[\_X]{}\_[12]{} .By (\[s-inv\]), \_[(1)]{} [C\_X]{}\_1 X\_[12]{} = I\_2 ,\_[(2)]{} [D\_X]{}\_2 X\_[12]{} = I\_1 .A skew invertible operator $X$ is called [*strict skew invertible*]{} if one of the matrices, $C_X$ or $D_X$, is invertible (by lemma \[lemma3.5\] below, if one of the matrices, $C_X$ or $D_X$, is invertible then they are both invertible).
An equation $$R_{1}\, R_{2}\, R_{1}\, = \, R_{2}\, R_{1}\, R_{2}\ .
$$ for an element $R\in {\rm Aut}(V^{\otimes 2})$ is called the [*Yang-Baxter equation*]{}.
An element $R\in {\rm Aut}(V^{\otimes 2})$ that fulfills the Yang-Baxter equation is called an [*R-matrix*]{}.
All R-matrices in this text are assumed to be invertible.
Clearly, the permutation operator $P$ is the R-matrix; $R^{-1}$ is the R-matrix iff $R$ is. Any R-matrix $R$ generates representations $\rho_R$ of the series of braid groups ${\cal B}_n$, $n=2,3,\dots$ \_R: [B]{}\_n(V\^[n]{}) ,\_i \_R(\_i) = R\_i, 1in-1 . If additionally the R-matrix $R$ satisfies a third order [*minimal*]{} characteristic polynomial (c.f. with the relation (\[deg3-a\])$\,$) (qI-R)(q\^[-1]{}I+R)(I-R)=0 ,and an element K := \^[-1]{} (q-q\^[-1]{})\^[-1]{} (qI-R)(q\^[-1]{}I+R)fulfills conditions K\_2 K\_1 = R\_1\^[1]{} R\_2\^[1]{} K\_1 and K\_1 K\_2 K\_1 = K\_1 ,then we call $R$ an R-matrix of a [*BMW type*]{} (c.f. with eqs.(\[kappa\])–(\[bmw5b\]); we make a different but equivalent choice of defining relations).
For an R-matrix of the BMWtype, the formulas (\[rhoR\]) define representations of the algebras ${\cal W}_n(q,\mu)
\rightarrow {\rm End}(V^{\otimes n})$, $n=2,3,\dots $ . In particular, $\rho_R(\kappa_i)=K_i$.
An ordered pair $\{ R, F\}$ of two operators $R$ and $F$ from ${\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$ is called [*a compatible pair*]{} if conditions R\_1 F\_2 F\_1 = F\_2 F\_1 R\_2 ,R\_2 F\_1 F\_2 = F\_1 F\_2 R\_1 ,are satisfied. If, in addition, $R$ and $F$ are R-matrices, the pair $\{ R, F\}$ is called a compatible pair of R-matrices. The equalities (\[sovm\]) are called [*twist relations*]{} (on the notion of the twist see [@D2; @Resh2; @IOP2]). Clearly, $\{ R,P\}$ and $\{ R,R\}$ are compatible pairs of R-matrices; pairs $\{ R^{-1},F\}$ and $\{ R,F^{-1}\}$ are compatible iff the pair $\{R,F\}$ is.
Consider a space of $\mbox{\sc n}\times \mbox{\sc n}$ matrices ${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$, whose entries belong to some $\Bbb C$-linear space $W$. Let $R$ be a skew invertible R-matrix. A linear map $${\rm Tr\str{-1.3}}_R:\; {\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)\,\rightarrow \, W ,\qquad
{\rm Tr\str{-1.3}}_R(M) =\sum_{i,j=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}{(D_R)}_i^jM_j^i\, , \qquad
M\in{\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)\,,
$$ is called an R-trace.
The relation (\[traceCD-X\]) in this notation reads R\_[12]{} = I\_1 .
R-technique
-----------
In this and the next subsections we develop a technique for dealing with the R-matrices, their compatible pairs and the R-trace. Most of results reported here, like lemma \[lemma3.5\] and, in a particular case of a compatible pair $\{ R,R\}$ – lemmas \[lemma3.2\] and \[lemma3.3\] and the corollary \[corollary3.4\] – are rather well known (see, e.g., [@I; @O]). However, we often use them in a more general setting and so, when necessary, we present sketches of proofs.
Proposition \[proposition3.6\] contains new results. Here we derive an expression, different from the standard one, for the twisted R-matrix, which helps to investigate its skew-invertibility.
A universal (i.e., quasi-triangular Hopf algebraic) content of the matrix relations derived in this and the next subsections is discussed in the appendix \[append1\].
Let $\{X,F\}$ be a compatible pair, where $X$ is skew invertible. Let ${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$ be as in the definition \[definition3.1\]. For any $M\in {\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$, one has \_[(1)]{} ( [C\_X]{}\_1 F\_[12]{}\^ M\_2 F\_[12]{}\^[-]{}) &=& I\_2 (C\_X M) ,\
\_[(2)]{} ([D\_X]{}\_2 F\_[12]{}\^[-]{} M\_1 F\_[12]{}\^) &=& I\_1 (D\_X M) for $\varepsilon =\pm 1$.
We use the twist relations (\[sovm\]) in a form $$F_{23}^{\varepsilon}\, X_{34}\, F_{23}^{-\varepsilon}\, =\, F_{34}^{-\varepsilon}\,
X_{23}\, F_{34}^{\varepsilon}\, ,\quad \varepsilon=\pm 1\, .$$ Multiplying it by $({\Psi_X}_{12}{\Psi_X}_{45})$ and taking the traces in the spaces 2 and 4, we get \_[(2)]{}([\_X]{}\_[12]{} F\_[23]{}\^ P\_[35]{} F\_[23]{}\^[-]{}) =\_[(4)]{}([\_X]{}\_[45]{} F\_[34]{}\^[-]{} P\_[13]{} F\_[34]{}\^) .Here the relation (\[s-inv\]), defining the operator $\Psi_X$, was applied to calculate the traces. Now taking the trace in the space number 1 or number 5, we obtain (after relabeling) \_[(1)]{}([C\_X]{}\_1 F\_[12]{}\^ P\_[23]{} F\_[12]{}\^[-]{})&=& [C\_X]{}\_3 I\_2 ,\
\_[(3)]{}([D\_X]{}\_3 F\_[23]{}\^[-]{}P\_[12]{} F\_[23]{}\^) &=& [D\_X]{}\_1 I\_2 . These two relations are equivalent forms of the relations (\[inv-trC\]) and (\[inv-trD\]). For example, the formula (\[inv-trC\]) is obtained by multiplying the relation (\[tr-0\]) by the operator $M_3$ and taking the trace in the space 3. $\blacksquare$
Let $\{X,F\}$ be a compatible pair of skew invertible operators $X$ and $F$. Then the following relations \_1 [\_F]{}\_[12]{} = F\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} [C\_X]{}\_2 , && [\_F]{}\_[12]{} [C\_X]{}\_1 = [C\_X]{}\_2 F\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} ,\
\_[12]{} [D\_X]{}\_2 = [D\_X]{}\_1 F\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} , && [D\_X]{}\_2 [\_F]{}\_[12]{} = F\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} [D\_X]{}\_1 hold.
For a skew invertible operator $F$, the relations (\[psi-C\]) and (\[psi-D\]) are equivalent to the relations (\[tr-0\]) and (\[tr-4\]). Let us demonstrate how the left one of the relations (\[psi-C\]) is derived from the relation (\[tr-0\]) with $\varepsilon = 1$.
Multiply the relation (\[tr-0\]) by a combination $(P_{23}{\Psi_F}_{24})$ from the right, take the trace in the space 2 and simplify the result using the relation (\[s-inv\]) for $X=F$ and the properties of the permutation $$\tr_{(1)}({C_X}_1\, P_{14}\, F_{13}^{-1})\, =\,
{C_X}_3\, \tr_{(2)}(P_{23}\, {\Psi_F}_{24})\, =\, {C_X}_3\, {\Psi_F}_{34}\, .$$ Then simplify the left hand side of the equality using the cyclic property of the trace $$\tr_{(1)}({C_X}_1\, P_{14}\, F_{13}^{-1})\, =\, \tr_{(1)}( P_{14}\, F_{13}^{-1}\, {C_X}_1)\,
=\, F_{43}^{-1}\, {C_X}_4\, \tr_{(1)}P_{14}\, =\, F_{43}^{-1}\, {C_X}_4\, .$$ This proves the left relation in (\[psi-C\]).$\blacksquare$
Let $\{X,F\}$ and $\{Y,F\}$ be compatible pairs of skew invertible operators $X$, $Y$ and $F$. Then the following relations &F\_[12]{} [C\_X]{}\_1 [C\_Y]{}\_2 = [C\_Y]{}\_1 [C\_X]{}\_2 F\_[12]{} , F\_[12]{} [D\_X]{}\_1 [D\_Y]{}\_2 = [D\_Y]{}\_1 [D\_X]{}\_2 F\_[12]{} ,&\
&F\_[12]{} (C\_X D\_Y)\_2 = (C\_X D\_Y)\_1 F\_[12]{} ,F\_[12]{} (D\_Y C\_X)\_1 = (D\_Y C\_X)\_2 F\_[12]{} ,& &\_[(1)]{}([C\_X]{}\_1 F\_[12]{}\^[-1]{}) = (C\_X D\_F)\_2 = (D\_F C\_X)\_2 ,&\
&\_[(2)]{}([D\_X]{}\_2 F\_[12]{}\^[-1]{}) = (C\_F D\_X)\_1 = (D\_X C\_F)\_1 &hold.
A calculation $( F_{12}^{-1} {C_Y}_1) {C_X}_2 ={C_Y}_2 ( {\Psi_F}_{21} {C_X}_2) =
{C_Y}_2 {C_X}_1 F_{12}^{-1}={C_X}_1 {C_Y}_2 F_{12}^{-1}$ proves the left one of the relations (\[FCC\]). Here the relations (\[psi-C\]) were applied.
A calculation $(F_{12}^{-1} {C_X}_1) {D_Y}_1 = {C_X}_2 (\Psi^F_{21} {D_Y}_1) =
{C_X}_2 {D_Y}_2 F_{12}^{-1}$ proves the left one of the relations (\[FCD\]). Here one uses subsequently the left equations from (\[psi-C\]) and (\[psi-D\]).
The relations (\[CxDf\]) follow by taking $\tr_{(2)}$ of the equations (\[psi-C\]).
The rest of the relations in (\[FCC\])–(\[DxCf\]) are derived in a similar way.$\blacksquare$
Let $X$ be a skew invertible R-matrix. Then statements
a\) the R-matrix $X^{-1}$ is skew invertible;
b\) the R-matrix $X$ is strict skew invertible,
are equivalent.
Provided these statements are satisfied, both $C_X$ and $D_X$ are invertible and one has &&C\_[X\^[-1]{}]{} = D\_X\^[-1]{} , D\_[X\^[-1]{}]{} = C\_X\^[-1]{} .
See [@O], section 4.1, statements after eq.(4.1.77), or [@I], proposition 2 in section 3.1. $\blacksquare$
Under an assumption of an existence, for an R-matrix $X$, of the operators $X^{-1}$, ${\Psi_{\! X\,}}$ and ${\Psi_{\! X^{-1}\,}}$, the relations (\[CDinv\]) were proved in [@Resh].
Since, for a compatible pair $\{ X,F\}$, the pair $\{ X,F^{-1}\}$ is also compatible, the formulas (\[CDinv\]) together with the relations (\[CxDf\]-\[DxCf\]) imply that $C_XC_F=C_FC_X$ and $D_XD_F=D_FD_X$.
Twists
------
Let $\{R,F\}$ be a compatible pair of R-matrices. Define a [*twisted*]{} operator R\_f := F\^[-1]{} R F . It is well known that $R_f$ is an R-matrix and the pair $\{ R_f , F\}$ is compatible. Therefore, one can twist again; in [@IOP1] it was shown that if $F$ is skew invertible then \_1 [D\_F]{}\_2 ((R\_f)\_f)\_[12]{} = R\_[12]{} [D\_F]{}\_1 [D\_F]{}\_2 \_1 [C\_F]{}\_2 ((R\_f)\_f)\_[12]{} =R\_[12]{} [C\_F]{}\_1 [C\_F]{}\_2 . A comparison of two equalities in eq.(\[rcdm\]) shows that \[ R\_[12]{} , (C\^[-1]{}\_F D\_F)\_1 (C\^[-1]{}\_F D\_F)\_2 \] =0 .
Let $\{R,F\}$ be a compatible pair of R-matrices. The following statements hold:
- if $F$ is strict skew invertible then the twisted R-matrix $R_f$, defined by the formula (\[R\_f\]), can be expressed in a form \_[12]{} = \_[(34)]{}( F\_[32]{}\^[-1]{} [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_3 R\_[34]{} [D\_F]{}\_4 F\_[14]{}) ;
- if $R$ is skew invertible and $F$ is strict skew invertible then $R_f$ is skew invertible; its skew inverse is \_[12]{} = [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 \_[(34)]{}( F\_[23]{}\^[-1]{} [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[34]{} F\_[41]{}) [D\_F]{}\_1 ; moreover, $\Psi_{\! R_f}$ can be expressed in a form \_[12]{} = [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 F\_[21]{}[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[12]{}[C\_F]{}\_1 F\^[-1]{}\_[21]{}[D\_F]{}\_1 ;
- under the conditions in [*b)*]{}, C\_[R\_f]{} = C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{} D\_R C\_F , D\_[R\_f]{} = D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{} C\_R D\_F (thus, if, in addition to the conditions in [*b)*]{}, $R$ is strict skew invertible then $R_f$ is strict skew invertible as well).
To verify the assertion a) we calculate
[ccl]{} [R\_f]{}\_[12]{}&=& (F\^[-1]{} R F)\_[12]{} = F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{}(\_[(4)]{} F\^[-1]{}\_[41]{} [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_4)(R F)\_[12]{}\
&=&\_[(4)]{} ( (R F)\_[41]{} F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} F\^[-1]{}\_[41]{} [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_4) = (\_[(3)]{}P\_[13]{})\_[(4)]{} ( (R F)\_[41]{} F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1 [\_F]{}\_[14]{})\
&=&\_[(34)]{} ( (R F)\_[43]{} F\^[-1]{}\_[32]{} [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_3 P\_[13]{} [\_F]{}\_[14]{}) =\_[(3)]{}( F\^[-1]{}\_[32]{} [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_3 ) ,
where in the second equality we used the relation (\[traceCD-X\]) for $X=F^{-1}$; in the third equality we applied the twist relations for the compatible pairs $\{ R,F\}$ and $\{ F,F\}$; in the fourth equality we applied the relations (\[psi-C\]) for $X=F^{-1}$ and inserted the identity operator $\tr_{(3)}P_{13}$; in the fifth equality we permuted the operator $P_{13}$ rightwards and then, in the sixth equality, used the cyclic property of the trace to move the combination $(RF)_{43}$ to the right.
To complete the transformation, we derive an alternative form for the underlined expression in the last line in eq.(\[R\_f-alt\]). Multiplying the twist relation $R_2 F_3 F_2 = F_3 F_2 R_3$ by a combination $({\Psi_F}_{12}{D_F}_4)$ and taking the traces in the spaces 2 and 4, we obtain (using the formulas (\[s-inv\]) and (\[traceCD-X\]) for $X=F$) $$\tr_{(2)}\left( {\Psi_F}_{12}(R F)_{23}\right) \, =\,
\tr_{(4)} \left( {D_F}_4 F_{34} P_{13} R_{34}\right) \, ,$$ which is equivalent (multiply by $P_{13}$ from the left and use the cyclic property of the trace) to P\_[13]{}\_[(2)]{}( [\_F]{}\_[12]{}(R F)\_[23]{}) = \_[(4)]{}( R\_[34]{} [D\_F]{}\_4 F\_[14]{}) .Now, substituting the equality (\[alternative\]) into the last line of the calculation (\[R\_f-alt\]), we finish the transformation and obtain the formula (\[R\_f-fin\]).
Given the formula for $R_f$, the calculation of ${\Psi_{R_f}}$ becomes straightforward and one finds the formula (\[Psi\_R\_f\]).
Thus, the skew invertibility of $R_f$ is established.
Now we derive the expression (\[Psi\_R\_f-another\]) for $\Psi_{\! R_f}$. Multiplying the equality (\[trpsifpf\]) with $\varepsilon =1$ by a combination $P_{35}{D_{F^{-1}}}_5$ from the right and taking the trace in the space 5, we obtain $$\begin{array}{rcl}\tr_{(2)}({\Psi_R}_{12}F_{23})&=&\tr_{(45)}({\Psi_R}_{45}F^{-1}_{34}P_{13}F_{34}
P_{35}{D_{F^{-1}}}_5)\\[1em] &=&\tr_{(4)}(F^{-1}_{34}P_{13}F_{34}{D_{F^{-1}}}_3{\Psi_R}_{43})\ .
\end{array}$$ Substituting this into the expression (\[Psi\_R\_f\]), we find
[rcl]{} [\_[ R\_f]{}]{}\_[12]{} &=& [C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 \_[(34)]{}( F\_[23]{}\^[-1]{}F\_[14]{}\^[-1]{}P\_[13]{} F\_[14]{}[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1 [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[41]{} ) [D\_F]{}\_1\
&=&[C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 \_[(4)]{}(F\_[14]{}\^[-1]{}\_[(3)]{}(F\_[23]{}\^[-1]{}P\_[13]{}) F\_[14]{}[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1 [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[41]{}) [D\_F]{}\_1\
&=&[C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 \_[(4)]{}(F\_[14]{}\^[-1]{}F\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} F\_[14]{}[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1 [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[41]{}) [D\_F]{}\_1\
&=&[C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 F\_[21]{} \_[(4)]{}(F\_[14]{}\^[-1]{}F\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} [D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1 [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[41]{}) [D\_F]{}\_1\
&=&[C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 F\_[21]{} [D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2\_[(4)]{}(F\_[14]{}\^[-1]{}[\_F]{}\_[12]{} [\_[ R]{}]{}\_[41]{}) [D\_F]{}\_1 .
We used the Yang-Baxter equation for the operator $F$ in the fourth equality and the relations (\[psi-C\]) in the fifth equality.
Multiplying eq.(\[trpsifpf\]) with $\varepsilon =-1$ by ${\Psi_F}_{01}P_{13}$ from the left and by $P_{35}{\Psi_F}_{56}$ from the right and taking the traces in the spaces 1 and 5, we find $$F_{14}^{-1}{\Psi_F}_{12}{\Psi_{\! R\,}}_{41}={\Psi_{\! R\,}}_{12}{\Psi_F}_{41} F_{21}^{-1}\ .$$ Substituting this into the last line of the calculation (\[lexfpsif\]), we obtain the equality (\[Psi\_R\_f-another\]).
Finally, the expressions (\[CDtwist\]) for the operators $C_{R_f}$ and $D_{R_f}$ are obtained by taking the trace in the space 1 or the space 2 of the expression (\[Psi\_R\_f\]) for the skew inverse of the twisted R-matrix and the subsequent use of the relations (\[traceCD-X\]) for $X=F^{\pm 1}$ and the relations (\[CandD\]), (\[CxDf\]) and (\[DxCf\]) for $X=R$. $\blacksquare$
[If one uses the expression (\[R\_f-fin\]) for the twisted R-matrix then the relation (\[rcdm\]) becomes straightforward: $$\begin{array}{l} ((R_f)_f)_{12} =
\tr_{(3456)}\left( F_{32}^{-1} (D_F^{-1})_3 F_{54}^{-1} (D_F^{-1})_5 R_{56}
{D_F}_6 F_{36} {D_F}_4 F_{14}\right)
\\[1em]
\ \ \
= \tr_{(3456)}\left(
\underline{\underline{F_{54}^{-1}{D_F}_4F_{14}}}(D_F^{-1})_5 R_{56}{D_F}_6 \underline{F_{32}^{-1}(D_F^{-1})_3F_{36}}\right)
\\[1em]
\ \ \
=\tr_{(56)}\left( P_{15}{D_F}_1(D_F^{-1})_5 R_{56}{D_F}_6 (D_F^{-1})_2 P_{26}\right)
\\[1em]
\ \ \ =(D_F^{-1})_2\tr_{(56)}\left( P_{15}(D_F^{-1})_5 R_{56}{D_F}_6 P_{26}\right)
{D_F}_1\\[1em]
=(D_F^{-1})_1(D_F^{-1})_2 R_{12}{D_F}_1{D_F}_2\ .
\end{array}
$$ In the first equality we applied the formula (\[R\_f-fin\]) twice and replaced the operators $C_{F^{-1}}$ by $D_F^{-1}$ by the relation (\[CDinv\]); in the second equality we collected together the terms involving the space number 3 (they are underlined) and the terms involving the space number 4 (they are underlined twice); in the third equality we evaluated the traces in the spaces 3 and 4 using the relations from lemma \[lemma3.3\]; in the fourth equality we moved the operator $(D_F^{-1})_2$ leftwards out of the trace and the operator ${D_F}_1$ rightwards out of the trace; in the fifth equality we transported the operator $P_{15}$ rightwards and the operator $P_{26}$ leftwards under the trace and then evaluated the remaining traces in the spaces 5 and 6.]{}
BMW type R-matrices
-------------------
In this subsection we discuss the R-matrices of the BMW type in more detail.
In lemma \[lemma3.7\] we collect additional relations specific to the BMW type R-matrices. Based on these formulas, we will introduce later, in subsections \[operatorG\] and \[Twolinearmaps\], an invertible operator $G\in {\rm Aut}(V)$ and linear maps $\phi$ and $\xi$, which will be used in section \[sec4\] for a definition of a product of quantum matrices and for a quantum matrix inversion.
Let $R$ be a skew invertible R-matrix of the BMW type. Then
- the operator $R$ is strict skew invertible;
- the rank of the operator $K$ equals one, ${\rm rk}\, K = 1$;
- the following relations \_[(2)]{} K\_[12]{} = \^[-1]{} [D\_R]{}\_1 , \_[(1)]{} K\_[12]{} = \^[-1]{} [C\_R]{}\_2 , K\_[12]{} = I\_1 ,\_[ R]{} I = , C\_R D\_R = \^2 I , K\_[12]{} [D\_R]{}\_1 [D\_R]{}\_2 = [D\_R]{}\_1 [D\_R]{}\_2 K\_[12]{}= \^2 K\_[12]{} hold.
The proof of all the statements in the lemma but the last one is given in [@IOP3].
The last relation (\[KDD\]) (which, in another form, figures in [@IOP3], in proposition 2) can be established in the following way.
The first equality in (\[KDD\]) is a consequence of a relation R\_[12]{}[D\_R]{}\_1 [D\_R]{}\_2 = [D\_R]{}\_1 [D\_R]{}\_2 R\_[12]{} ,which is just the equality (\[FCC\]) written for the pair $\{R,R\}$. Then the conditions $K^2 \sim K$ and ${\rm rk}\, K = 1$ together imply $K_{12} {D_R}_1 {D_R}_2 \sim K_{12} {D_R}_1 {D_R}_2 K_{12} \sim K_{12}\,$. A coefficient of proportionality in this relation is recovered by taking the trace of it in the space 2 and the subsequent use of the relations (\[traceK\]) and (\[traceDK\]). $\blacksquare$
In [@IOP3], a pair of mutually inverse matrices \_2 :=\_[(1)]{} (K\_[12]{}P\_[12]{}) E\^[-1]{}\_1 :=\_[(2)]{} (K\_[12]{}P\_[12]{}) was introduced (see eqs.(32) and (33) and proposition 2 in [@IOP3]).
We shall now collect several useful identities involving the operators $K$ and $E$.
The following relations K\_[12]{}K\_[23]{}=E\_3 K\_[12]{}P\_[23]{}P\_[12]{}& ,& K\_[23]{}K\_[12]{}=E\^[-1]{}\_1 K\_[23]{}P\_[12]{}P\_[23]{} ,\
K\_[13]{}K\_[23]{}=\^[-1]{}[D\_R]{}\_2 K\_[13]{}P\_[12]{}& ,& K\_[12]{}K\_[13]{}=\^[-1]{}[C\_R]{}\_3 K\_[12]{}P\_[23]{} ,\
K\_[23]{}K\_[14]{}P\_[12]{}P\_[34]{}=K\_[23]{}K\_[14]{}& ,& K\_[23]{}K\_[14]{}P\_[13]{}P\_[24]{}=K\_[23]{}K\_[14]{}P\_[23]{}P\_[14]{} ,\
K\_[12]{}E\_1\^[-1]{}=\^[-1]{}K\_[12]{}P\_[12]{}[D\_R]{}\_1 & ,& E\_1 K\_[12]{}=\^[-1]{}[D\_R]{}\_1P\_[12]{} K\_[12]{}hold.
We have $$K_{12}E_1 E_2= E_1 E_2K_{12}=K_{12}\ .
$$
The operator $K$ is skew invertible, its skew inverse is $${\Psi_K}_{12}=E_1 K_{12} E_2=\mu^{-2}{D_R}_1 K_{21}{D_R}_1\ .
$$
\(a) All these identities follow from the rank one property of the operator $K$ (written explicitly, with indices, they become evident).
\(b) To verify, for instance, that $K_{12}E_1^{-1} E_2^{-1}=K_{12}$, use the definition (\[defcaxy\]) of the matrix $E_2^{-1}$, $E_2^{-1}=\tr_{(3)} (K_{23}P_{23})$, and then the relation (\[k12k23\]) to remove the trace.
\(c) This follows from the identities in (a) in the lemma.$\blacksquare$
[The relations (\[k12k23\]) admit the following generalizations: $$K_1K_2\dots K_j\, =\, E_3E_4\dots E_{j+1}\cdot (P_1P_2\dots P_j)^2 K_j\ ,
$$ $$K_j\dots K_2K_1\, =\, E_1^{-1}E_2^{-1}\dots E_{j-1}^{-1}K_j\cdot (P_j\dots P_2P_1)^2\ .
\lb{strk2}
$$ The relations (\[k13k23\]) admit the following generalizations: $$K_{10}K_{20}\dots K_{j0}\, =\, \mu^{1-j}({D_R}_2{D_R}_3\dots {D_R}_j)\cdot
(P_1P_2\dots P_{j-1})\ K_{j0}\ ,
$$ $$K_{01}K_{02}\dots K_{0j}\, =\, \mu^{1-j}({C_R}_2{C_R}_3\dots {C_R}_j)\cdot
(P_1P_2\dots P_{j-1})\ K_{0j}\ .
$$ In all four formulas above $j$ is an arbitrary positive integer. These relations can be proved by induction on $j$. ]{}
Operator $G$ {#operatorG}
------------
In the following lemma, we define analogues of the matrices $E$ and $E^{-1}$ for a compatible pair $\{R,F\}$ of R-matrices. When the operator $F$ is the permutation operator, $F=P$, the matrix $G$ of the definition-lemma \[lemma3.8\] coincides with the matrix $E$.
Let $\{R,F\}$ be a compatible pair of R-matrices, where $R$ is skew-invertible of the BMW type and $F$ is strict skew-invertible. Define an element $G\in {\rm End}(V)$ by G\_1 := \_[(23)]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_[2]{}\^[-1]{} .The operator $G$ is invertible, the inverse operator reads G\_1\^[-1]{} = \_[(23)]{} F\_2 F\_1 K\_2 .
The following relations &&R\_[12]{} G\_1 G\_2 = G\_1 G\_2 R\_[12]{} ,\
&&F\_[12]{}\^ G\_1 = G\_2 F\_[12]{}\^ =1 ,\
&&\[D\_R, G\] = 0 ,\
&&\[ C\_F, G\] = \[D\_F, G\] = 0 ,\
&&\[E, G\] = 0 ,\
&&\[ C\_F, E\] = \[D\_F, E\] = 0 are satisfied.
A check of the invertibility of $G$ is a direct calculation
[ccc]{} G\_1 G\_1\^[-1]{} &=& (\_[(23)]{}K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}) (\_[(23)]{}F\_2 F\_1 K\_2) =\_[(23)]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2 F\_2 F\_1\
&=& \_[(23)]{}K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{}[K\_f]{}\_2 F\_1 =\_[(23)]{} K\_2 F\_2 [K\_f]{}\_1 F\_2\^[-1]{} = \_[(23)]{} [K\_f]{}\_2 [K\_f]{}\_1 = I .
Here in the first line we used the formulas (\[G\]) and (\[G-inv\]) and the property ${\rm rk}\, K=1$: if $\Pi =|\zeta\rangle\langle\psi |$ is a rank one projector then $\tr (\Pi A)=\langle\psi |A|\zeta\rangle$ for any operator $A$ and $$\tr (\Pi A)\,\tr (\Pi B)= \langle\psi |A|\zeta\rangle\, \langle\psi |B|\zeta\rangle=
\langle\psi |A\Pi B|\zeta\rangle =\tr (\Pi A\Pi B)$$ for any $A$ and $B$; in the second line of the calculation (\[gginvpr\]) we passed from $K$ to $K_f = F^{-1} K F$ and applied the twist relations (for the operators $K_f$ and $F$) and the cyclic property of the trace. In the last equality of (\[gginvpr\]) we evaluated the traces using the relations (\[traceK\]) and then the relation (\[traceDK\]) for the operator $K_f$ (we are allowed to use these relations because the operator $R_f$ is skew-invertible by proposition \[proposition3.6\]).
Notice that, in view of the relation (\[KDD\]), we can rewrite the formula for the operator $G$ using the R-traces instead of the ordinary ones G\_1 = \^[-2]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_[2]{}\^[-1]{} .Applying the formula (\[inv-trD\]) (written for $F^{\varepsilon}=X=R$) twice to this equality, we begin our next calculation
[ccl]{} G\_1 I\_2 &=& \^[-2]{} (R\_2 R\_3) K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} (R\_3\^[-1]{} R\_2\^[-1]{}) = \^[-2]{} K\_3 K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} R\_3\^[-1]{} R\_2\^[-1]{}\
&=& \^[-2]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2 K\_3 = \^[-1]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2 .
Here we used the relation (\[bmwRa\]) in the last equality of the first line. In the second line we again applied the relation (\[bmwRa\]) after moving the operator $K_3$ to the right (for that we need the relation (\[KDD\]) and the cyclicity of the trace) and then we evaluated one R-trace with the help of the relation (\[traceDK\]).
Now we use the formula (\[GI\]) for the product $G_1 G_2$ in a transformation && G\_1 G\_2 R\_1 = \^[-2]{} (K\_3 F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} K\_3) (K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2) R\_1\
&& = \^[-2]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} K\_2 K\_3 K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2 R\_1 = \^[-2]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_1 K\_2 R\_1\
&& = \^[-2]{}F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_1 R\_2\^[-1]{} = \^[-2]{} K\_3 F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} R\_2\^[-1]{}\
&& = \^[-2]{}F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} R\_3 K\_2 K\_3 = \^[-2]{} R\_1 F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2 K\_3\
&& = \^[-2]{} R\_1 K\_3 F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} K\_2 = R\_1 G\_1 G\_2 , which demonstrates the relation (\[R-G\]). While doing the above calculation, we repeatedly used the twist relations for the pairs $\{K,F^{-1}\}$ and $\{R,F^{-1}\}$, applied the formulas (\[bmwRa\]) and (\[bmwRa\]) and exploited the cyclic property of the trace to move the operator $K_3$ to the right/left in the fourth/fifth line, respectively.
Due to the expression (\[RG\]) for the operator $G$, we can write $$G_1 I_2\, =\,\mu^{-2}\,\Tr{34}\left( (F_2^{-\varepsilon}F_3^{-\varepsilon})
K_2 F_1^{-1}F_2^{-1}(F_3^{\varepsilon} F_2^{\varepsilon})\right)\
$$ by the formula (\[inv-trD\]).
The relation (\[F-G\]) is now proved as follows
[l]{} G\_1 F\_1\^ =\^[-2]{}( (F\_2\^[-]{}F\_3\^[-]{}) K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{}F\_2\^[-1]{}(F\_3\^ F\_2\^)) F\_1\^\
=\^[-2]{} (F\_2\^[-]{}F\_3\^[-]{}) F\_3\^ F\_2\^F\_1\^ K\_3 F\_2\^[-1]{} F\_3\^[-1]{} = F\_1\^\^[-2]{} K\_3F\_2\^[-1]{}F\_3\^[-1]{} = F\_1\^ G\_2 .
Here we subsequently used the twist relations for the pair $\{K,F^{\varepsilon}\}$, the Yang-Baxter equations for $F$ and again the expression (\[RG\]) for the operator $G$.
Vanishing of the commutators $[ C_F, G]$ and $[ D_F, G]$ in eq.(\[comm-Gb\]) follow from the above proved equality. To find these commutators, transform eq.(\[FG\]) to $$G_1 {\Psi_F}_{12} \, =\, {\Psi_F}_{12} G_2\, , \qquad
G_2 {\Psi_F}_{12} \, =\, {\Psi_F}_{12} G_1\, ,
$$ (multiply the relation (\[FG\]) by a combination ${\Psi_F}_{41}{\Psi_F}_{23}$ and take $\tr_{(12)}$) and then apply the trace in the space 1 or the space 2 to these relations and compare results.
The relation (\[comm-Ga\]) is approved by a calculation G\_1 [D\_R]{}\_1 &=& \^[-2]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} [D\_R]{}\_1 = \^[-2]{} \_[(23)]{} K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} [D\_R]{}\_1[D\_R]{}\_2[D\_R]{}\_3\
&=& \^[-2]{} \_[(23)]{} [D\_R]{}\_1[D\_R]{}\_2[D\_R]{}\_3 K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} = [D\_R]{}\_1 G\_1 . Here the expression (\[RG\]) for the operator $G$, the relations (\[FCC\]) for $X=Y=R$ and the relation (\[KDD\]) were used.
To prove the relation $[ E, G] =0$, we rewrite the expression for $G$:
[l]{} G\_1=\_[(23)]{}(K\_2F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{})=\^[-1]{} \_[(23)]{}(K\_2K\_2F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{})= \^[-1]{} \_[(23)]{}(K\_2F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}K\_1)\
=\^[-1]{} \_[(23)]{}(F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}K\_1K\_2)=\^[-1]{} \_[(23)]{}(F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}K\_1P\_[23]{}P\_[12]{}) E\_1 .
In the second equality we used the relation $K^2=\eta K$; in the third equality we used the twist relation; in the fourth equality we moved the operator $K_2$ cyclically under the trace; in the fifth equality we used the first of the relations (\[k12k23\]).
Due to the relation (\[F-G\]), the combination $\tr_{(23)}(F_1^{-1} F_2^{-1}K_1P_{23}P_{12})$ commutes with the operator $G_1$. Therefore the operators $G$ and $E$ commute.
We have already shown that the operators $C_F$ and $D_F$ commute with the operator $G$. It follows then from the expression (\[GcomE\]) for the operator $G$ that to prove that the operators $C_F$ and $D_F$ commute with the operator $E$ it is enough to prove that the operators $C_F$ and $D_F$ commute with the combination $\Xi_1 :=\tr_{(23)}(F_1^{-1} F_2^{-1}K_1P_{23}P_{12})$. We have
[l]{} \_1[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1=\_[(23)]{}(F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_3 K\_1P\_[23]{}P\_[12]{}) =\_[(23)]{}(F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_3 [C\_R]{}\_3[C\_R]{}\_3\^[-1]{} K\_1P\_[23]{}P\_[12]{})\
=\_[(23)]{}(F\_1\^[-1]{} [D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 [C\_R]{}\_2F\_2\^[-1]{}K\_1P\_[23]{}P\_[12]{}) [C\_R]{}\_1\^[-1]{} =[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1 [C\_R]{}\_1\_1[C\_R]{}\_1\^[-1]{} =[D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_1\_1 .
In the first equality we moved the operator $D_{F^{-1}}$ leftwards through the permutation operators; in the second equality we inserted ${C_R}_3{C_R}_3^{-1}$; in the third equlity we used the relations (\[FCD\]) and moved the operator ${C_R}_1^{-1}$ rightwards out of the trace; in the fourth equality we used again the relations (\[FCD\]). The operator $C_R$ commutes with the operators $G$ and $E$ by the already proved relation (\[comm-Ga\]) for the compatible pairs $\{ R,F\}$ and $\{ R,P\}$; therefore, due to the expression (\[GcomE\]) for the operator $G$, the operator $C_R$ commutes with the operator $\Xi$, which is used in the fifth equality.
The calculation (\[oves\]) establishes the relation $[ C_F,E]=0$; the proof of the relation $[ D_F,E]=0$ is similar, we do not repeat details. $\blacksquare$
One can rewrite further the expression (\[RG\]) for $G$: G\_1&=&\^[-2]{}F\_1\^[-1]{}F\_[2]{}\^[-1]{}K\_1=\^[-2]{}F\_1\^[-1]{}[C\_F]{}\_2[D\_R]{}\_2K\_1\
&=&F\_1\^[-1]{}[C\_F]{}\_2[D\^[-1]{}\_R]{}\_1K\_1=\^[-2]{}F\_1\^[-1]{}[C\_F]{}\_2[C\_R]{}\_1K\_1\
&=&\^[-2]{}[C\_F]{}\_1\_2F\_1\^[-1]{}K\_1=[C\_F]{}\_1\_[(2)]{}F\_1\^[-1]{}K\_1 . Here we used subsequently: the twist relation, the relations (\[DxCf\]), (\[KDD\]), (\[C\*D\]), (\[FCC\]) and then again (\[C\*D\]).
Similarly, $$G^{-1}_1=\tr_{(2)}(K_1F_1){D^{-1}_F}_1\ .
$$
Two linear maps {#Twolinearmaps}
---------------
The next lemma introduces two linear maps which will be important in the study of the matrix $\star$-product.
Let $\{R,F\}$ be a compatible pair of skew invertible R-matrices, where the operator $R$ is of the BMW type and the operator $F$ is strict skew invertible. Define two endomorphisms $\phi$ and $\xi$ of the space ${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$: (M)\_1 &:=& ( F\_[12]{}M\_1 F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} R\_[12]{}), M\_(W),and (M)\_1 &:=& ( F\_[12]{} M\_1 F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} K\_[12]{}), M\_(W) .The mappings $\phi$ and $\xi$ are invertible; their inverse mappings read \^[-1]{}(M)\_1 &=& \^[-2]{} ( F\_[12]{}\^[-1]{} M\_1 R\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} F\_[12]{}) and \^[-1]{}(M)\_1 &=& \^[-2]{} ( F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} M\_1 K\_[12]{} F\_[12]{}) .The following relations for the R-traces \_
R\_f\^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(M) = [Tr]{}\_
R\^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M , \_
R\_f\^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(M) = [Tr]{}\_
R\^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M .are satisfied.
The expressions in the right hand sides of the formulas (\[phi-inv\]) and (\[xi-inv\]) are well defined, since, by proposition \[proposition3.6\] b), the R-matrix $R_f$ is skew invertible.
Let us check the relation $\phi^{-1}(\phi(M))=M$ directly.
Using the formulas (\[phi\]) and (\[phi-inv\]) and applying the relation (\[inv-trD\]) for the pair $\{R,F\}$ we begin a calculation \_1 &=& \^[-2]{} ( F\_[12]{}\^[-1]{} ( F\_[12’]{} M\_1 F\^[-1]{}\_[12’]{} R\_[12’]{}) R\^[-1]{}\_[12]{} F\_[12]{})\
&=& \^[-2]{} ( F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{} M\_1 F\_1\^[-1]{} R\_1 F\_2 R\_1\^[-1]{} F\_1) .In the next step we move the element $F_1$, underlined in the expression above, to the left and it becomes $F_2$ due to the Yang-Baxter equation; then we transport the operator to the right using the cyclic property of the trace (when $F_2$ moves cyclically, $\TR{2}{R_f}\Tr{3}$ becomes $\Tr{2}\TR{3}{R_f}$ due to the relations (\[FCC\])$\,$). Applying the Yang-Baxter equation for the operator $F$ and the relations (\[FCC\]) in the case $X=R$ and $Y=R_f$, we continue the calculation
[ccl]{} [\^[-1]{}((M))]{}\_1&=& \^[-2]{} ( F\^[-1]{}\_1 F\^[-1]{}\_2 M\_1 F\_2 F\_2)\
&=&\^[-2]{} ( F\^[-1]{}\_1M\_1F\_2\^[-1]{} [R\_f]{}\_1 \^[-1]{}\_1 F\_2)\
&=& \^[-2]{} ( F\^[-1]{}\_1M\_1 F\_1)\
&=&\^[-2]{} ( F\^[-1]{}\_1 M\_1 F\_1 F\_1\^[-1]{}) .
Here we consequently transformed the underlined expressions using the definition of the twisted R-matrix $R_f$, the Yang-Baxter equation for the operator $F$ and the twist relations for the compatible pair $\{R_f,F\}$. To calculate the trace underlined in the last line of eq.(\[step\]), we apply the relation (\[inv-trD\]) for the compatible pair $\{R_f, R_f\}$ and then use the relation (\[DxCf\]) written for the compatible pair $\{R_f,F^{-1}\}$. The result reads \_1&=& \^[-2]{} ( F\^[-1]{}\_1 M\_1 F\_1 ) .Now, using the relations (\[FCD\]), written for the compatible pairs $\{R_f, F\}$ and $\{F^{-1},F\}$, the relations (\[CDtwist\]) and (\[CDinv\]) for $X=F$, the relations (\[C\*D\]) and the (\[traceCD-X\]) for $X=F^{-1}$, we complete the calculation &&\_1 = \^[-2]{} \_[(2)]{}((D\_[R\_f]{} C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{} D\_R)\_2 F\^[-1]{}\_1) M\_1\
&&= \^[-2]{} \_[(2)]{}((D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{} C\_R D\_F C\_[F\^[-1]{}]{} D\_R)\_2 F\^[-1]{}\_1) M\_1 = \_[(2)]{}([D\_[F\^[-1]{}]{}]{}\_2 F\^[-1]{}\_[12]{})M\_1 = M\_1 .
A proof of the equality $\xi^{-1}(\xi(M))=M$ proceeds quite similarly until the line (\[step\]), where one has to use a relation $$\Tr{2}(K_1 M_1 K_1) = (\tr_{\!\! R} M) I_1\, \quad \forall\;
M\in {\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)\,
$$ instead of the relation (\[inv-trD\]). This in turn follows from the relations (\[traceK\]) and (\[traceDK\]) and the property ${\rm rk}\, K=1$.
The relations (\[phi-xi-traces\]) can be directly checked starting from the definitions (\[phi\]) and (\[xi\]), applying the relation (\[FCC\]) in the case $X=R$ and $Y=R_f$ and then using the formulas (\[traceR\]) and (\[traceDK\]). $\blacksquare$
Quantum matrix algebra
======================
In this section we deal with the main objects of our study, the quantum matrix algebras, and construct the $\star$-product for them. We mainly discuss the quantum matrix algebras of the type BMW.
In subsection \[subsec4.2\] we introduce a [*characteristic*]{} subalgebra of the quantum matrix algebra. In the theory of the polynomial identities, a ring, generated by the traces of products of generic matrices, is known as the ring of matrix invariants (see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@F]). The characteristic subalgebra can be understood as a generalization of the ring of matrix invariants (in the simplest case of a single matrix) to the setting of the quantum matrix algebras and, simultaneously, to a situation when the invariants can be formed not only by taking a trace (on the quantum level, the invariants can be conveniently formed by taking the R-trace of a product of a ‘string’ $M_{\overline{1}}M_{\overline{2}}\dots M_{\overline{n}}$ by a matrix image of a word in the braid group ${\cal B}_n$).
In propositions \[proposition4.7\], \[proposition4.8\] we exhibit three generating sets of the characteristic subalgebra in the BMW case. Explicit relations between the generators of these sets will be constructed in section \[sec5\]. Some preparatory work for this constructions is performed in the rest of section \[sec4\].
In subsection \[subsec4.4\] we introduce an algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$ for the quantum matrix algebras of the general type. The algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$ has the same relationship to the characteristic subalgebra as the trace ring (see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@F]) to the ring of matrix invariants.
In subsection \[subsec4.4a\] we prove the commutativity of the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$ in the case of the quantum matrix algebras of the BMW type.
In subsection \[subsec4.5\] we define an extended quantum matrix algebra of the BMW type by adding an inverse of the quantum matrix.
Definition
----------
Consider a linear space ${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$, introduced in the definition \[definition3.1\]. For a fixed element $F\in {\rm Aut}(V\otimes V)$, we consider series of ‘copies’ $M_{\overline{i}}$, $i=1,2,\dots ,n,$ of a matrix $M\in {\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$. They are defined recursively by M\_[1]{}:=M\_1, M\_:= F\^\_[i-1]{}M\_F\_[i-1]{}\^[-1]{} . For $F=P$, these are usual copies, $M_{\overline{i}}=M_i$, but, in general, $M_{\overline{i}}$ can be nontrivial in all the spaces $1,\dots ,i$.
We shall, slightly abusing notation, denote by the same symbol $M_{\overline{i}}$ an element in ${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)^{\otimes k}$ for any $k\geq i$, which is defined by an inclusion of the spaces $${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)^{\otimes j}\hookrightarrow
{\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)^{\otimes (j+1)}:\quad
{\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)^{\otimes j}\ni X\mapsto
X\otimes I\in{\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)^{\otimes (j+1)}\, .
$$
From now on we specify $W$ to be the associative $\Bbb C$-algebra freely generated by the unity and by $\mbox{\sc n}^2$ elements $M_a^b$, $W := {\Bbb C}\langle 1,M_a^b\rangle$, $1\le a,b\le \mbox{\sc n}$.
Let $\{R,F\}$ be a compatible pair of strict skew invertible R-matrices (see section \[subsec3.1\]). A quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ is a quotient algebra of the algebra $W={\Bbb C}\langle 1,M_a^b\rangle$ by a two-sided ideal generated by entries of the matrix relation R\_1M\_[1]{}M\_[2]{} = M\_[1]{}M\_[2]{}R\_1 ,\[qma\]where $M = \|M_a^b\|_{a,b=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}$ is a matrix of the generators of ${\cal M}(R,F)$ and the matrix copies $M_{\overline i}$ are constructed with the help of the R-matrix $F$ as in eq.(\[kopii\]).
If $R$ is an R-matrix of the BMW type (see eqs.(\[charR\])–(\[bmwRb\])$\,$) then ${\cal M}(R,F)$ is called a BMW type quantum matrix algebra.
[**[@IOP1]**]{} The matrix copies of the matrix $M= \|M_a^b\|_{a,b=1}^{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}$ of the generators of the algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ satisfy relations F\_i M\_[j]{} &=& M\_[j]{} F\_i ji,i+1,\
R\_i M\_[j]{} &=&M\_[j]{} R\_i ji,i+1,\
R\_jM\_[j]{}M\_ &=& M\_[j]{} M\_ R\_j j=1,2,… ,\
F\_i F\_[i+1]{}…F\_kM\_[i]{} M\_…M\_[k]{} &=& M\_ M\_…M\_F\_i F\_[i+1]{}…F\_k ik .
Characteristic subalgebra
-------------------------
From now on we assume that $M$ is the matrix of generators of the quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ and its copies $M_{\overline n}$ are calculated by the rule (\[kopii\]).
Denote by ${\cal C}(R,F)$ a vector subspace of the quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ linearly spanned by the unity and elements ch(\^[(n)]{}) := (M\_[1]{}…M\_[n]{} \_R(\^[(n)]{})) ,n =1,2,… , where $\alpha^{(n)}$ is an arbitrary element of the braid group ${\cal B}_n$.
Notice that elements of the space ${\cal C}(R,F)$ satisfy a [*cyclic property*]{} ch(\^[(n)]{}\^[(n)]{}) = ch(\^[(n)]{}\^[(n)]{}) \^[(n)]{}, \^[(n)]{}[B]{}\_[n]{} ,n=1,2,… , which is a direct consequence of the relations (\[rm-k\]), (\[rmm-k\]) and (\[RDD\]) and the cyclic property of the trace.
[**[@IOP1]**]{} The space ${\cal C}(R,F)$ is a commutative subalgebra of the quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$: ch(\^[(n)]{}) ch(\^[(i)]{}) =ch(\^[(n)]{} \^[(i)n]{}) = ch(\^[(n)i]{} \^[(i)]{}) . Recall that $\alpha^{(n)\uparrow i}$ denotes the image of an element $\alpha^{(n)}$ under the embedding ${\cal B}_n \hookrightarrow {\cal B}_{n+i}$ defined in (\[h-emb2\]). We shall call ${\cal C}(R,F)$ the characteristic subalgebra of ${\cal M}(R,F)$.
A proof of the proposition given in [@IOP1] is based in particular on the following lemma:
[**[@IOP1]**]{} Consider an arbitrary element $\alpha^{(n)}$ of the braid group ${\cal B}_n$. Let $\{R,F\}$ be a compatible pair of R-matrices, where $R$ is skew invertible. Then relations (M\_…M\_ \_R(\^[(n)i]{})) = I\_[1,2,…,i]{} ch(\^[(n)]{})hold for any matrix $M\in {\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}(W)$[^7].
We will make use of lemma \[lemma4.5\] several times below.
Let us introduce a shorthand notation for certain elements of ${\cal C}(R,F)$ p\_0& :=& \_[ R]{} I (=) ,p\_1 := \_[ R]{} M ,\
p\_i& := & ch(\_[i-1]{}…\_2\_1) = ch(\_1\_2…\_[i-1]{}) , i=2,3,….The last equality in eq.(\[P\_k\]) is due to the inner automorphism (\[innalis\]) and the cyclic property (\[cyclic\])$\,$.
The elements $p_i$ are called [*traces of powers of $M$*]{} or, shortly, [*power sums*]{}.
From now on in this subsection we assume the R-matrix $R$ and, hence, the algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ to be of the BMW type. Denote g := ch(c\^[(2)]{}) \^[-1]{} ch(\_1) \^[-1]{} ( M\_M\_ K\_1) .The notation used here was introduced in the formulas (\[kappa\]), (\[bmw5b\]), (\[kappa-i\]) and (\[K\]). We call the element $g$ a [*contraction of two matrices*]{} $M$ or, simply, a [*2-contraction*]{}.
Let $M$ be the matrix of generators of the BMW type quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$. Then its copies, defined in eq.(\[kopii\]), fulfill relations K\_[n]{} M\_M\_ = M\_M\_ K\_[n]{} =\^[-2]{} K\_[n]{} g n1 .
We employ induction on $n$. Due to the property ${\rm rk}\, K=1$, one has $$K_1\, M_{\overline{1}}M_{\overline{2}}\, =\, M_{\overline{1}}M_{\overline{2}}\, K_1\, =\,
K_1\, t\, ,
$$ where $t\in {\cal M}(R,F)$ is a scalar. Evaluating the R-trace of this equality in the spaces 1 and 2 and using the relations (\[traceDK\]) and (\[traceD\]), one finds $t=\mu^{-2} g$, which proves the relation (\[tau2\]) in the case $i=1$. It remains to check the induction step $n\rightarrow (n+1)$: $$\begin{array}{ccl} K_{n+1}M_{\overline{n+1}}M_{\overline{n+2}}&=&
K_{n+1}(F_n M_{\overline{n}}
{}F^{-1}_{n})M_{\overline{n+2}}\, =\, K_{n+1} F_n M_{\overline{n}} (F_{n+1}M_{\overline{n+1}}F^{-1}_{n+1})
{}F^{-1}_{n} \\[1em] &=&(K_{n+1}F_n F_{n+1}) M_{\overline{n}} M_{\overline{n+1}}F^{-1}_{n+1}F^{-1}_{n}\, =\,
{}F_n F_{n+1} (K_{n}M_{\overline{n}} M_{\overline{n+1}})F^{-1}_{n+1}F^{-1}_{n}\\[1em] &=& \mu^{-2} F_n
{}F_{n+1} K_n F^{-1}_{n+1}F^{-1}_{n} g\, =\, \mu^{-2} K_{n+1}\, g\, .\end{array}$$ Here eqs.(\[kopii\]) and (\[fm-k\]), the twist relation (\[sovm\]) for the pair $\{K,F\}$ and the induction assumption were used for the transformation. $\blacksquare$
Let ${\cal M}(R,F)$ be the quantum matrix algebra of the BMW type. Its characteristic subalgebra ${\cal C}(R,F)$ is generated by the set $\{g,p_i\}_{i\geq 0}$.
Consider the chain of the BMW algebras monomorphisms (\[h-emb\])–(\[h-emb2\]). We adapt, for $n\geq 3$, the following presentation for an element $\alpha^{(n)}\in {\cal W}_n$ \^[(n)]{} = \_1 ’ + \_1 ’ + , where $\beta,\beta',\gamma,\gamma',\delta\in {\rm Im}({\cal W}_{n-1})\subset {\cal W}_n$. For $n=3$, the formula (\[char8\]) follows from the relations (\[braid\])–(\[bmw7\]). For $n>3$, it can be proved by induction on $n$ (one has to prove that the expressions of the form (\[char8\]) form an algebra, for which it is enough to show that the products $\sigma_1\beta\sigma_1$, $\sigma_1\beta\kappa_1$, $\kappa_1\beta\sigma_1$ and $\kappa_1\beta\kappa_1$ with $\beta\in
{\rm Im}({\cal W}_{n-1})\subset {\cal W}_n$ can be rewritten in the form (\[char8\]); this is done by further decomposing $\beta$, using the induction assumption, $\beta = \tilde{\beta}\sigma_2\tilde{\beta}'+\tilde{\gamma}
\kappa_2\tilde{\gamma}' +\tilde{\delta}$, where $\tilde{\beta},\tilde{\beta}',\tilde{\gamma},\tilde{\gamma}',
\tilde{\delta}\in {\rm Im}({\cal W}_{n-2})\subset {\cal W}_n$).
Using the expression (\[char8\]) for $\alpha^{(n)}$ and the cyclic property (\[cyclic\]), we conclude that, in the BMW case, any element (\[char\]) of the characteristic subalgebra can be expressed as a linear combination of terms ch(\_1\_2…\_[n-1]{}) , \_i{1,\_i,\_i} .
Let us analyze the expressions (\[char8a\]) for different choices of $\alpha_i$.
i) If $\alpha_i=1$ for some value of $i$, then, applying the relation (\[char1\]), we get ch(\_1…\_[i-1]{}\_[i+1]{}…\_[n-1]{}) = ch(\_1…\_[i-1]{}) ch((\_[i+1]{}…\_[n-1]{})\^[i]{}) , where $(\alpha_{i+1}\dots\alpha_{n-1})^{\downarrow i}\in {\cal W}_{n-i}$ is the preimage of $(\alpha_{i+1}\dots\alpha_{n-1})\in {\cal W}_n$.
ii) In the case when $\alpha_{n-1}=\kappa_{n-1}$, we apply the relation (\[tau2\]) and then the relations (\[traceR\]), (\[traceDK\]) or (\[traceD\]) to reduce the expression (\[char8a\]) to ch(\_1…\_[n-2]{}\_[n-1]{}) =f(\_[n-2]{}) ch(\_1…\_[n-3]{}) g , where $f(\sigma_{n-2})=\mu^{-1}$, $f(\kappa_{n-2})=1$ and $f(1)=\eta$.
iii) In the case when $\alpha_i=\kappa_i$ for some $i$, and $\alpha_j=\sigma_j$ for all $j=i+1,\dots ,n-1$, we perform the following transformations
[ccl]{} ch(\_1…\_[i-1]{}\_[i+2]{}…\_[n-1]{}) = ch(\_1…\_[i-2]{}\_i\^[-1]{}\_[i-1]{}\_i…\_[n-1]{}) &&\
=…=ch(\_1…\_[i-2]{} (\_[n-2]{}\^[-1]{}…\_i\^[-1]{}) \_[i-1]{}\_i\_[i+1]{}…\_[n-1]{}) .&&
Here the relations (\[bmw3\]) and the cyclic property (\[cyclic\]) are repeatedly used; expressions suffering a transformation are underlined.
Now, depending on a value of $\alpha_{i-1}$, we proceed in different ways.
If $\alpha_{i-1}=\kappa_{i-1}$ then by eqs.(\[bmw3\]) and (\[char8c\]) we have $$\begin{array}{ccl}
(\ref{char10}) &=& ch(\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{i-2}\,
\sigma_{i-1} \sigma_i\dots \sigma_{n-3} \kappa_{n-2}\kappa_{n-1})
\\[1em]
&=&
ch(\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{i-2}\,\sigma_{i-1} \sigma_i\dots \sigma_{n-3})\, g\, .
\end{array}
$$ If $\alpha_{i-1}=\sigma_{i-1} = \sigma_{i-1}^{-1}+(q-q^{-1})(1-\kappa_{i-1})$ then, using the relations $\sigma_i^{-1}\sigma_{i-1}^{-1}\kappa_i=\kappa_{i-1}\kappa_i$ and applying the previous results (\[char8c\]) and (\[char8b\]), we obtain $$\begin{array}{ccl}
(\ref{char10}) &=&ch(\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{i-2}\, \kappa_{i-1}\sigma_i\dots \sigma_{n-3})\, g
\\[1em]\nonumber &&+\, (q-q^{-1})\, \mu^{-1}\, ch(\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{i-2})\, p_{n-i-1}\, g\\[1em]
&&-\, (q-q^{-1})\, ch(\alpha_1\dots\alpha_{i-2}\,
\sigma_{i-1} \sigma_i\dots \sigma_{n-3})\, g\, .
\end{array}
$$ Iterating transformations i)—iii) finitely many times, we eventually prove the assertion of the proposition. $\blacksquare$
We keep considering the BMW type quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ with the R-matrix $R$ generating representations of the algebras ${\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$, $n=1,2,\dots$. Assume that the antisymmetrizers $a^{(i)}$ and symmetrizers $s^{(i)}$ in these latter algebras are consistently defined (see eqs.(\[a\^k\]), (\[s\^k\]) and (\[mu\])$\,$). In this case, we can introduce two following sets of elements in the characteristic subalgebra ${\cal C}(R,F)$ a\_0& :=&1 s\_0 := 1 ;\
a\_i &:=& ch(a\^[(i)]{}) s\_i := ch(s\^[(i)]{}) ,i=1,2,….
Let ${\cal M}(R,F)$ be the quantum matrix algebra of the BMW type. Assume that $j_q\neq 0 ,\;\; \mu\neq -q^{-2j+3}$ (respectively, $j_q\neq 0,$ $\mu\neq q^{2j-3}$) for all $j=2,3,\dots\; .$ Then the characteristic subalgebra ${\cal C}(R,F)$ is generated by the set $\{g,a_i\}_{i\geq 0}$ (respectively, $\{g,s_i\}_{i\geq 0}$).
These statements are byproducts of the previous proposition and the Newton relations, which are proved in section \[sec5\], theorem \[theorem6.1\]. $\blacksquare$
Matrix $\star\,$-product, general case {#subsec4.4}
--------------------------------------
Consider the quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ of the general type (no additional conditions on an R-matrix $R$).
Denote by ${\cal P}(R,F)$ a linear subspace of ${\rm Mat}_{\mbox{\footnotesize\sc n}}({\cal M}(R,F))$ spanned by ${\cal C}(R,F)$-multiples of the identity matrix, $I\, ch$ $\forall\, ch\in {\cal C}(R,F)$, and by elements M\^1 := M , (M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{})\_[1]{} := (M\_[1]{} …M\_[n]{}\_R(\^[(n)]{})) ,n =2,3,… , where $\alpha^{(n)}$ belongs to the braid group ${\cal B}_n$. The space ${\cal P}(R,F)$ inherits a structure of a right ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{} ch(\^[(i)]{}) =M\^[(\^[(n)]{}\^[(i)n]{})]{} \^[(n)]{}\_n, \^[(i)]{}\_i ,n,i=1,2,… , which is just a component-wise multiplication of the matrix $M^{\alpha^{(n)}}$ by the element $ch(\beta^{(i)})$ (use the relation (\[char1\]) to check this). The ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module structure agrees with an R-trace map $\tr_{\!\! R}$ (which means that $\tr_{\!\! R} (Xa)=\tr_{\!\! R} (X)a\ \ \forall\ X\in{\cal P}(R,F)$ and $\forall\ a\in {\cal C}(R,F)$) (R,F)(R,F) : {
[rcl]{} M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{}&& ch(\^[(n)]{}) ,\
I ch(\^[(n)]{})&& (\_[ R]{} I) ch(\^[(n)]{}) ,
. where $\alpha^{(n)}\in {\cal B}_n\, , \;\; n=1,2,\dots$
Besides, elements of the space ${\cal P}(R,F)$ satisfy a [*reduced cyclic property*]{} M\^[(\^[(n)]{}\^[(n-1)1]{})]{} = M\^[(\^[(n-1)1]{}\^[(n)]{})]{} \^[(n)]{}\_n , \^[(n-1)]{}\_[n-1]{} ,n=2,3,… .
Formulas M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{} M\^[\^[(i)]{}]{} := M\^[(\^[(n)]{}\^[(i)]{})]{} , where \^[(n)]{}\^[(i)]{} &:=& \^[(n)]{}\^[(i)n]{} (\_n…\_2 \_1\_2\^[-1]{}…\_n\^[-1]{}) ,\
(I ch(\^[(i)]{})) M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{} &:=& M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{} (I ch(\^[(i)]{})) := M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{} ch(\^[(i)]{}) ,\
(I ch(\^[(i)]{}))(I ch(\^[(n)]{}))& :=& I( ch(\^[(i)]{}) ch(\^[(n)]{})) , define an associative multiplication on the space ${\cal P}(R,F)$, which agrees with the ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module structure (\[r-module\]).[^8]
To prove the associativity of the multiplication (\[MaMb\]), it is enough to check $$(\alpha^{(n)} \star \beta^{(i)}) \star \gamma^{(m)}\ =\alpha^{(n)} \star (\beta^{(i)} \star
\gamma^{(m)})\, ,$$ which is a staightforward exercise in an application of the relations (\[braid\]) and (\[braid2\]).
It is less trivial to prove a compatibility condition for the formulas (\[MaMb\]) and (\[MaI\]) $$\left\{M^{\alpha^{(n)}}\! \star (I\, ch(\beta^{(i)}))\right\} \star M^{\gamma^{(m)}}\, =\, M^{\alpha^{(n)}} \star
\left\{(I\, ch(\beta^{(i)}))\star M^{\gamma^{(m)}}\right\}\, ,$$ which, in terms of the matrix ‘exponents’, amounts to
[l]{} \^[(n)]{}\^[(i)n]{} \^[(m)(i+n)]{} (\_[i+n]{}…\_2\_1\_2\^[-1]{}…\_[i+n]{}\^[-1]{})\
\^[(n)]{}\^[(m)n]{} \^[(i)(m+n)]{} (\_n…\_2\_1\_2\^[-1]{}…\_n\^[-1]{}) .
Here the symbol $\stackrel{\rm mod\, (\ref{red-cycl})}{=}$ means the equality modulo the reduced cyclic property (\[red-cycl\]).
To check eq.(\[lesstriv\]), we apply a technique, which was used in [@IOP1] to prove the commutativity of the characteristic subalgebra. Consider an element
[rcl]{} u\_[i,m]{}\^[(i+m)]{} &:=& (\_i…\_2\_1) (\_[i+1]{}…\_3\_2) …(\_[i+m-1]{}…\_[m+1]{}\_m)\
&=&(\_i\_[i+1]{}…\_[i+m-1]{}) (\_[i-1]{}\_i…\_[i+m-2]{}) …(\_[1]{}\_2…\_m) ,
which intertwines certain elements of the braid group ${\cal B}_{(i+m)}$: \^[(i)]{} u\_[i,m]{}\^[(i+m)]{} = u\_[i,m]{}\^[(i+m)]{} \^[(i)m]{} ,\^[(m)i]{} u\_[i,m]{}\^[(i+m)]{} = u\_[i,m]{}\^[(i+m)]{} \^[(m)]{} . Substitute an expression $(u_{i,m}^{(i+m)\uparrow n}\gamma^{(m)\uparrow n}\beta^{(i)\uparrow (n+m)}
(u_{i,m}^{(i+m)\uparrow n})^{-1})$ for the factor $(\beta^{(i)\uparrow n} \gamma^{(m)\uparrow (i+n)})$ in the left hand side of the equation (\[lesstriv\]), move the element $u_{i,m}^{(i+m)\uparrow n}$ cyclically to the right and then use an equality (\^[-1]{}\_1\^[-1]{}\_2…\^[-1]{}\_i) u\_[i,m]{}\^[(i+m)]{} = u\_[i,m-1]{}\^[(i+m-1)1]{} to cancel it on the right hand side. Such transformation results in the right hand side of the equation (\[lesstriv\]).
Consistency of the multiplication and the ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module structures on ${\cal P}(R,F)$ follows obviously from the last equality in (\[MaI\]). $\blacksquare$
To illustrate the relation between the $\star \, $-product and the usual matrix multiplication, we present formulas (\[MaMb\]) and (\[a\*b\]) in the case $n=1$ ($\alpha^{(1)}\equiv 1$) in a form M N = M(N) N(R,F) , where $\cdot$ denotes the usual matrix multiplication and the map $\phi$ is defined by the formula (\[phi\]) in subsection \[Twolinearmaps\].
The noncommutative analogue of the matrix power is given by a repeated $\star \, \, $-multiplication by the matrix $M$ M\^ := I , M\^ := \_ = M\^[(\_1\_2…\_[n-1]{})]{} = M\^[(\_[n-1]{}…\_2\_1)]{} . Here we introduce symbol $M^{\overline{n}}$ for the [*$n$-th power of the matrix $M$*]{}. The standard matrix powers multiplication formula follows immediately from the definition M\^ M\^ = M\^ .
A ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module, generated by the matrix powers $M^{\overline{n}}$, $n=0,1,\dots$, belongs to the center of the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$.
It is sufficient to check a relation $M\star M^{\alpha^{(i)}} = M^{\alpha^{(i)}}
\star M$, which, in turn, follows from a calculation\
$ \hspace{15mm} \alpha^{(i)}\sigma_i\dots \sigma_2\sigma_1\sigma_2^{-1}\dots
\sigma_i^{-1}\, =\, \sigma_i\dots \sigma_2\sigma_1\alpha^{(i)\uparrow 1}\sigma_2^{-1}\dots
\sigma_i^{-1}\,\stackrel{\rm mod\, (\ref{red-cycl})}{=}\, \alpha^{(i)\uparrow 1} \sigma_1\, .$ $\blacksquare$
Matrix $\star\,$-product, BMW case {#subsec4.4a}
----------------------------------
It is natural to expect that the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$ is commutative as all of its elements are generated by the matrix $M$ alone. We can prove the commutativity in the BMW case. Notice that (in contrast to the Iwahori-Hecke case), in the BMW case, the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$ cannot be generated by the $\star\,$-powers of $M$ only.
By an analogy with formula (\[M\*\]), we define a ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module map $\Mt : {\cal P}(R,F)$ $\rightarrow$ $ {\cal P}(R,F)$ (N) := M(N), N(R,F) , where the endomorphism $\xi$ is defined by formula (\[xi\]) in subsection \[Twolinearmaps\]. Equivalently, we can write (M\^[\^[(n)]{}]{}) = M\^[(\^[(n)1]{}\_1 )]{} \^[(n)]{}\_n ,n=1,2,… .
Let the quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ be of the BMW type. Then the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$ is commutative. As a ${\cal C}(R,F)$–module, it is spanned by matrices M\^ (M\^) , n=0,1,… .
A proof of the last statement of the proposition goes essentially along the same lines as the proof of proposition \[proposition4.7\] and we will not repeat it. The only modification is a reduction of the cyclic property (c.f., eqs.(\[cyclic\]) and (\[red-cycl\])$\,$), which finally leads to an appearance of the additional elements $\{\Mt(M^{\overline{n}})\}_{n\geq 2}$ in the generating set.
To prove the commutativity of ${\cal P}(R,F)$, we derive an alternative expression for the exponent in the matrix product formula (\[MaMb\]) \^[(n)]{}\^[(i)]{} = (\_i\^[-1]{}…\_2\^[-1]{} \_1 \_2…\_i)\^[(n)i]{}\^[(i)]{} . The calculation proceeds as follows &&\^[(n)]{}\^[(i)]{} =\^[(n)]{}\^[(i)n]{} (\_n…\_1\_2\^[-1]{}…\_n\^[-1]{}) = u\_[n,i]{}\^[(n+i)]{}\^[(n)i]{}\^[(i)]{}(u\_[n,i]{}\^[(n+i)]{})\^[-1]{} (\_n…\_1\_2\^[-1]{}…\_n\^[-1]{})\
&& (u\_[n,i-1]{}\^[(n+i-1)1]{})\^[-1]{}(\_2\^[-1]{}…\_n\^[-1]{}) u\_[n,i]{}\^[(n+i)]{}\^[(n)i]{}\^[(i)]{} = (u\_[n,i-1]{}\^[(n+i-1)1]{})\^[-1]{}\_1 u\_[n,i-1]{}\^[(n+i-1)1]{}\^[(n)i]{}\^[(i)]{}\
&& = (\_i\^[-1]{}…\_2\^[-1]{}) (u\_[n-1,i-1]{}\^[(n+i-2)2]{})\^[-1]{}\_1 u\_[n-1,i-1]{}\^[(n+i-2)2]{}(\_2…\_i)\^[(n)i]{}\^[(i)]{} = .Here we applied again the intertwining operators (\[u\]) and used their properties (\[u1\]) and (\[u2\]) and the reduced cyclicity. One more property $$u_{n,i}^{(n+i)} = u_{n-1,i}^{(n+i-1)\uparrow 1} (\sigma_1\sigma_2\dots \sigma_i)
$$ is used in the last line of the calculation.
Due to proposition \[proposition4.13\], to prove the commutativity of the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$, it remains to check the commutativity of the set $\{\Mt(M^{\overline{n}})\}_{n\geq 2}$.
Notice that the factors of the exponents of the matrices $\Mt(M^{\overline{n}})$ can be taken in an opposite order, $\Mt(M^{\overline{n}}) = M^{(\kappa_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3\dots\sigma_n)}
=M^{(\sigma_n\dots \sigma_3 \sigma_2\kappa_1)}\, .$ This observation, together with formula (\[a\*b-2\]), allow us to choose the exponents of two matrices $\Mt(M^{\overline{n}})\star \Mt(M^{\overline{i}})$ and $\Mt(M^{\overline{i}})\star \Mt(M^{\overline{n}})$ to be mirror (left-right) images of each other. Finally, $M^{\alpha^{(n)}}=M^{\varsigma(\alpha^{(n)})},\; \forall\, \alpha^{(n)}\in {\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$, where $\varsigma$ is the antiautomorpism (\[antvs\]), since both sides of this equality can be expanded into linear combinations of the generators (\[P-gen\]), which are invariant with respect to the mirror reflection of their exponents, and since the expansion rules (i.e. the defining relations for the BMW algebras) are mirror symmetric. $\blacksquare$
For the BMW type quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$, one has (I) = M , (M) = \^[-1]{} I g ,\
((N)) = N g N(R,F) .
The relations (\[Mt-IM\]) follow immediately from the relations (\[tau2\]) and (\[traceDK\]) and the definitions (\[Mt\]) and (\[xi\]).
As for the equality (\[Mt2-N\]), it is enough to check it in the case when the matrix $N$ is a power of the matrix $M$.
To evaluate the expression $\Mt(\Mt(M^{\overline n}))=M^{(\kappa_1\kappa_2\sigma_3\dots\sigma_{n+1})}$, we transform its exponent, using the relations (\[bmw3\]) in the BMW algebra and the reduced cyclic property, to
[ccl]{} \_1\_2\_3…\_[n+1]{}&=&\_1(\_2\_3\_2\^[-1]{}) \_4…\_[n+1]{} (\_2\^[-1]{}\_1\_2) \_3\_4…\_[n+1]{}\
&=&\_1\_2\_3\_4…\_[n+1]{} = …\_1\_2…\_[n-1]{}\_n \_[n+1]{} .
For the exponent (\[trans-exp\]), the matrix power is easily calculated, again with the help of the relations (\[tau2\]) and (\[traceDK\]), and gives the expression $M^{\overline{n}}g$. $\blacksquare$
The last relation in (\[Mt-IM\]) shows that to introduce the inverse matrix to the matrix $M$ it is sufficient to add the inverse $g^{-1}$ of the 2-contraction $g$ to the algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$. This is realized in the next subsection.
Matrix inversion {#subsec4.5}
----------------
In this subsection we define an [*extended*]{} quantum matrix algebra, to which the inverse of the quantum matrix belongs.
Let ${\cal M}(R,F)$ be the BMW type quantum matrix algebra. Its 2-contraction $g$ fulfills a relation M g = g ( G\^[-1]{} M G) ,where $G$ is defined by formula (\[G\]).
The proof consists of a calculation
[ccl]{} M\_1(g K\_2) &=&\^2 M\_ M\_M\_ K\_2 =\^2 M\_M\_M\_K\_2K\_1K\_2 =\^2 K\_2 ( M\_M\_ K\_1) M\_ K\_2\
&=& gK\_2K\_1 M\_ K\_2 = (g K\_2) \_[(2,3)]{}(K\_2 K\_1 M\_)\
&=& (g K\_2)\_[(2,3)]{}(K\_2 F\_2 F\_1 K\_2 M\_1 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{})\
&=& (g K\_2)\_[(2,3)]{}(F\_2 F\_1 K\_2) M\_1 \_[(2,3)]{}(K\_2 F\_1\^[-1]{} F\_2\^[-1]{}) =(g K\_2) (G\^[-1]{} M G)\_1 .
Here the relations (\[tau2\]) and (\[bmw5a\]) were used in the first two lines; the property ${\rm rk}\, K=1$ was used in the last/first equality of the second/fourth line; the definition of $M_{\overline{3}}$ was substituted and the twist relation for the pair $\{K,F\}$ was used in the third line; the formulas (\[G\]) and (\[G-inv\]) for $G$ and $G^{-1}$ were substituted in the last equality. $\blacksquare$
Let ${\cal M}(R,F)$ be the BMW type quantum matrix algebra. Consider an extension of the algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ by a generator $g^{-1}$ subject to relations g\^[-1]{} g = g g\^[-1]{} = 1 , g\^[-1]{} M = (G\^[-1]{}MG) g\^[-1]{} .The extended algebra, which we shall further denote by ${\cal M^{^\bullet\!}}(R,F)$, contains an inverse matrix to the matrix $M$ M\^[-1]{} := (M) g\^[-1]{} :MM\^[-1]{} = M\^[-1]{}M = I .
Lemma \[lemma4.16\] ensures the consistency of the relations (\[j-inv\]). The equality $M\cdot M^{-1}=I$ for the inverse matrix (\[M-inv\]) follows immediately from the formulas (\[Mt-IM\]) and (\[Mt\]).
To prove the equality $M^{-1}\cdot M = I$, consider a mirror partner of the map $\xi$: (M) := \^[-2]{} K\_1 M\_ . By the (left-right) symmetry arguments in the assumptions of lemma \[lemma3.9\], the map $\theta$ is invertible and the inverse map reads \^[-1]{}(M) =( F\^[-1]{}\_1 K\_1 M\_1 F\_1) . Applying in a standard way the transformation formula (\[inv-trD\]), we calculate a composition of the maps $\xi$ and $\theta$, ((M))\_1 = ((M))\_1 = \^[-2]{} K\_2 K\_1 M\_ =\_[(2,3)]{} K\_2 K\_1 M\_ =(G\^[-1]{} M G)\_1 . Here the relation (\[KDD\]) was used to substitute the R-traces by the usual traces; the last equality follows from a comparison of the second and the last lines in the calculation (\[MjK\]).
Now we observe that, in view of the relations (\[tau2\]) and (\[traceDK\]), a matrix $(^{-1}M)\, :=\, \mu\, g^{-1}\, \theta^{-1}(M)$ fulfills the relation $(^{-1}M)\cdot M=I$. The identity $(^{-1} M) = M^{-1}$ follows then from the relations (\[composition\]) and (\[Mj\]). $\blacksquare$
Relations for generating sets of the characteristic subalgebra: BMW case.
=========================================================================
In this last section we use the basic identities from subsection \[subsec5.1\] to establish relations between the three sets of elements in the characteristic subalgebra — $\{g,a_i\}_{i\geq 0}$, $\{g,s_i\}_{i\geq 0}$ and the power sums $\{g,p_i\}_{i\geq 0}$. As a byproduct, we prove the proposition \[proposition4.8\].
Before we proceed, let us recall the initial data of the construction.
- Given a compatible pair of R-matrices $\{R,F\}$, in which the operator $F$ is strict skew invertible and the operator $R$ is skew invertible of the BMW type (and, hence, strict skew invertible), we introduce the BMW type quantum matrix algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$ (see definition \[definition4.1\]);
- Assuming additionally that the eigenvalues $q$ and $\mu$ of the R-matrix $R$ (i.e., the parameters of the BMW algebras, whose representations are generated by the matrix $R$) satisfy conditions $i_q\neq 0,\;\mu\neq -q^{3-2i}\;\;\forall
\; i=2,3,\dots ,n$ (see (\[mu\])) we can consistently define the antisymmetrizers $a^{(i)}$ and introduce skew powers of the quantum matrix $M$: $M^{a^{(i)}}$, $0\leq i\leq n$.
Basic identities
----------------
In this subsection we establish relations between ‘descendants’ of the matrices $M^{a^{(i)}}$ in the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$. These relations are used later in a derivation of the Newton relations.
For $1\leq i\leq n$ and $m\geq 0$, we consider two series of descendants of $M^{a^{(i)}}$: A\^[(m,i)]{} := i\_q M\^ M\^[a\^[(i)]{}]{} , B\^[(m+1,i)]{} :=i\_q M\^ (M\^[a\^[(i)]{}]{}) .
It is suitable to define $A^{(m,i)}$ and $B^{(m,i)}$ for boundary values of their indices & A\^[(-1,i)]{} := i\_q \^[-1]{}( M\_M\_…M\_ \_R(a\^[(i)]{}) ) , B\^[(0,i)]{} := i\_q \^[-1]{}((M\^[a\^[(i)]{}]{})) &and &A\^[(m,0)]{} :=0 B\^[(m,0)]{} := 0 m0 .&Notice that although the elements $A^{(-1,i)}$ and $B^{(0,i)}$ do not, in general, belong to the algebra ${\cal P}(R,F)$, their descendants $A^{(-1,i)} g$ and $B^{(0,i)} g$ do (see eqs.(\[rek1\]) and (\[rek2\]) in the case $m=0$).
In the case when the contraction $g$ (and, hence, the matrix $M$) is invertible, the formulas (\[La\]), with $m$ now an arbitrary integer, can be used to define descendants of $M^{a^{(i)}}$ in the extended algebra ${\cal P^{^\bullet\!}}(R,F)$ (see the remark \[remark4.18\]). In this case, the matrices $A^{(-1,i)}$ and $B^{(0,i)}$ are expressed uniformly: $A^{(-1,i)} = i_q M^{\overline{-1}} \star M^{a^{(i)}}$, $B^{(0,i)} = i_q M^{\overline{-1}} \star \Mt (M^{a^{(i)}})$.
For $0\leq i\leq n-1$ and $m\geq 0$, the matrices $A^{(m-1,i+1)}$ and $B^{(m+1,i+1)}$ satisfy recurrent relations A\^[(m-1,i+1)]{} &=& q\^i M\^ a\_i - A\^[(m,i)]{} - [ q\^[2i-1]{}(q-q\^[-1]{})1+q\^[2i-1]{}]{} B\^[(m,i)]{} ,\
B\^[(m+1,i+1)]{} &=&( \^[-1]{}q\^[-i]{} M\^ a\_i + [q-q\^[-1]{}1+q\^[2i-1]{}]{} A\^[(m,i)]{} -B\^[(m,i)]{}) g .
[**Proof.**]{} For $i=0$ relations (\[rek1\]) and (\[rek2\]) by (\[LT0\]) simplify to $$A^{(m-1,1)} = M^{\overline{m}}\, , \quad B^{(m+1,1)} = \mu^{-1} M^{\overline{m}} g\, .
$$ They follow from eqs. (\[M\^k\* M\^p\]), (\[Mt-IM\]).
Let us check (\[rek1\]) for $i>0$. For $m \geq 0$, we calculate A\^[(m,i+1)]{} = (i+1)\_q M\^[(a\^[(i+1)m]{} \_m…\_2\_1)]{} = q\^i M\^[(a\^[(i)(m+1)]{}\^[-]{}\_[m+1]{}(q\^[-2i]{})\_m…\_2\_1)]{}\
= q\^i M\^ a\_i - A\^[(m+1,i)]{} - [q\^[2i-1]{}(q-q\^[-1]{})1+q\^[2i-1]{}]{} B\^[(m+1,i)]{} .Here in the first line we used the second formula from (\[a\^k\]) for $a^{(i+1)\uparrow m}$ and applied the reduced cyclic property (\[red-cycl\]) and the relations (\[idemp-2\]) to cancel one of two terms $a^{(i)\uparrow (m+1)}$. In the second line we substituted the formula (\[ansatz\]) for the baxterized elements $\sigma_{m+1}^-(q^{-2k})$ and applied the relation (\[char1\]) to simplify the first term in the sum.
For $A^{(-1,i+1)}$, the relations (\[rek1\]) are verified similarly $$\begin{array}{ccl}
A^{(-1,i+1)} &=& q^{i}\, \phi^{-1}\left( \Tr{2,3,\dots i+1} M_{\overline{2}}
M_{\overline{3}}\dots M_{\overline{i+1}}\rho_R(a^{(i)\uparrow 1}\sigma^{-}_1(q^{-2i}))\right)\,
\\[1em]
&=&
q^i\, \phi^{-1}(I)\, a_i\, -\, i_q\, \phi^{-1}(\phi(M^{a{(i)}}))\, -\, {\displaystyle \frac{\mu q^{2i-1}(q-q^{-1})}
{1+\mu q^{2i-1}}}\, i_q\, \phi^{-1}(\xi(M^{a^{(i)}}))\,
\\[1em]
&=&
q^i\, I\, a_i \, -\, A^{(0,i)}\, -\,
{\displaystyle \frac{\mu q^{2i-1}(q-q^{-1})}
{1+\mu q^{2i-1}}}\, B^{(0,i)}\, .
\end{array}$$ Here the definitions (\[phi\]) and (\[xi\]) of the endomorphisms $\phi$ and $\xi$ were additionally taken into account.
To prove (\[rek2\]) for $i>0$ we proceed in the same way
[l]{} B\^[(m+1,i+1)]{} = (i+1)\_q M\^[(a\^[(i+1)m+1]{} \_[m+1]{}\_[m]{}…\_2\_1)]{} = q\^i M\^[(a\^[(i)m+2]{} \^[-]{}\_[m+2]{}(q\^[-2i]{})\_[m+1]{}\_[m]{}…\_2\_1)]{}\
= q\^[-i]{} M\^ (M) a\_i- i\_q M\^[(a\^[(i)m+2 ]{}\^[-1]{}\_[m+2]{}\_[m+1]{}\_[m]{}…\_1)]{} + M\^ ((M\^[a\^[(i)]{}]{})).
Here in the second line we used another expression for the baxterized generators $$\sigma_{i}^{\varepsilon}(x)\, =\, x 1\, +\, {x-1\over q-q^{-1}}\, \sigma^{-1}_{i}\, -\,
{\alpha_{\varepsilon}x(x-1)\over \alpha_{\varepsilon}x+1}\,\kappa_{i}\, ,$$ which follows by a substitution $\sigma_i = \sigma_i^{-1} + (q-q^{-1})(1-\kappa_i)$ into the original expression (\[ansatz\]).
Now, notice that \^[-1]{}\_3\_2\_1 =\^[-1]{}\_3\_2\_1\_2\^[-1]{} \_2\^[-1]{}\^[-1]{}\_3\_2\_1 = \_3\_2\_1 ,and, hence, in the case $m\geq 1$, the second term in the last line of the equality (\[kusok\]) can be expressed as - i\_q M\^[(a\^[(i)m+2]{}\^[-1]{}\_[m+2]{}\_[m+1]{}\_[m]{}…\_1)]{} = - i\_q M\^(((M\^[a\^[(i)]{}]{}))) .Applying then the formulas (\[Mt-IM\]) and (\[Mt2-N\]) to the expressions (\[kusok\]) and (\[kusok2\]), we complete verification of (\[rek2\]) for $m\geq 1$.
For the case $m=0$, the transformation of the second term in (\[kusok\]) should be slightly modified. Notice that by eq.(\[kakaka\]), $$\phi(M^{a^{(i)\uparrow 2}\sigma_2^{-1}\kappa_1})\, =\, \xi(\Mt(\Mt(M^{a^{(i)}})))\, .$$ Inverting the endomorphism $\phi$ in this formula and using the relation (\[Mt2-N\]) and the definition of $B^{(0,i)}$ (\[AB-boundary\]), we complete the transformation of the second term in (\[kusok\]) and, again, get the equality (\[rek2\]). $\blacksquare$
Newton and Wronski relations
----------------------------
Let ${\cal M}(R,F)$ be a BMW type quantum matrix algebra. Assume that its two parameters $q$ and $\mu$ satisfy the conditions (\[mu\]), which allow to introduce either the set $\{a_i\}_{i=0}^n$ or, respectively, the set $\{s_i\}_{i=0}^n$ in the characteristic subalgebra ${\cal C}(R,F)$ (see the definitions (\[SA\_0\]) and (\[SA\_k\])$\,$). Then the following Newton recurrent formulas relating, respectively, the sets $\{a_i,g\}_{i=0}^n$, or $\{s_i,g\}_{i=0}^n$ to the set of the power sums (see the definitions (\[P-01\]) and (\[P\_k\])$\,$) \_[i=0]{}\^[n-1]{} (-q)\^i a\_i p\_[n-i]{} &=& (-1)\^[n-1]{} n\_q a\_n + (-1)\^n \_[i=1]{}\^( q\^[n-2i]{} -q\^[1-n+2i]{}) a\_[n-2i]{} g\^i and \_[i=0]{}\^[n-1]{} q\^[-i]{} s\_i p\_[n-i]{} &=& n\_q s\_n +\_[i=1]{}\^( q\^[2i-n]{} + q\^[n-2i-1]{}) s\_[n-2i]{} g\^i are fulfilled.
In the case, when both sets $\{a_i,g\}_{i=0}^n$ and $\{s_i,g\}_{i=0}^n$ are consistently defined, they satisfy the Wronski relations \_[i=0]{}\^n (-1)\^i a\_i s\_[n-i]{} = \_[n,0]{} -\_[n,2]{} g ,where $\delta_{i,j}$ is a Kronecker symbol.
[**Proof.**]{} We prove the relation (\[Newton-a\]). Denote $$J^{(0)} := 0, \quad J^{(i)} := {\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}} (-q)^j M^{\overline{i-j}} a_j,
\quad i=1,2,\dots ,n\ .
$$ We are going to find an expression for the matrix $J^{(n)}$ in terms of the matrices $A^{(0,i)}$ and $B^{(0,i)}$, $1\leq i\leq n$.
As we shall see, there exist matrices $H^{(i)}$, which fulfill equations (1-q\^2) H\^[(i)]{} g =(J\^[(i)]{} + (-1)\^i A\^[(0,i)]{} ) , i=0,1,…,n. To calculate the matrices $H^{(i)}$, we substitute repeatedly the relations (\[rek1\]) for the elements $A^{(0,i)}$, $A^{(1,i-1)}, \dots , A^{(i-1,1)}$ in the right hand side of eq.(\[H-1\]). It then transforms to H\^[(i)]{} g = -q\^[-1]{}\_[j=1]{}\^[i-1]{} (-1)\^j [q\^[2j-1]{}1+q\^[2j-1]{}]{} B\^[(i-j,j)]{} , i=0,1,…,n. Now, using the expressions (\[rek2\]) for the elements $B^{(i-j,j)}$, one can check that matrices H\^[(0)]{}& := & H\^[(1)]{} := 0,\
H\^[(i)]{}& :=&\_[j=0]{}\^[i-2]{} [(-q)\^[j]{}1+q\^[2j+1]{}]{}( M\^ a\_j + [q\^[j]{}(q-q\^[-1]{})1+q\^[2j-1]{}]{} A\^[(i-j-2,j)]{} - q\^j B\^[(i-j-2,j)]{}) , i=2,…,n. satisfy eq.(\[H-2\]).
Next, consider a combination $(H^{(i+2)}- H^{(i)} g)$. Using eq.(\[H\]) for the first term and eq.(\[H-2\]) for the second term, we calculate H\^[(i+2)]{} - H\^[(i)]{} g &=&\_[j=0]{}\^[i-1]{} [(-q)\^j1 +q\^[2j+1]{}]{}( M\^ a\_j + [q\^j (q-q\^[-1]{})1+ q\^[2j-1]{}]{} (A\^[(i-j,j)]{}-q\^[-1]{}B\^[(i-j,j)]{}) )\
&& + [(-q)\^i1+ q\^[2i+1]{}]{}( I a\_i + [q\^i (q-q\^[-1]{})1+ q\^[2i-1]{}]{} A\^[(0,i)]{} -q\^i B\^[(0,i)]{}) , i=0,…, n. To continue, we need the following auxiliary result:
For $1\leq i\leq n$, one has =\_[j=0]{}\^[i-1]{} [(-q)\^j1+q\^[2j+1]{}]{}( M\^ a\_j + [q\^j(q-q\^[-1]{})1+q\^[2j-1]{}]{} (A\^[(i-j,j)]{}-q\^[-1]{} B\^[(i-j,j)]{})) .
[**Proof.**]{} Use the recursion (\[rek1\]) for $A^{(i-j-1,j+1)}$ to calculate $${A^{(i-j-1,j+1)}\over 1+\mu q^{2j+1}} +{A^{(i-j,j)}\over 1+\mu q^{2j-1}} =
{q^{j}\over 1+\mu q^{2j+1}}\Bigl( M^{\overline{i-j}}a_j +{\mu q^j (q-q^{-1})\over 1+\mu q^{2j-1}}
(A^{(i-j,j)}-q^{-1} B^{(i-j,j)}) \Bigr)\, .$$ Compose an alternating sum of the above relations for $0\leq j \leq i-1$ and take into account the condition $A^{(i,0)}=0$. $\blacksquare$
Using the relation (\[A-tri\]), we finish the calculation H\^[(i+2)]{} - H\^[(i)]{} g = (1+q\^[2i+1]{})\^[-1]{}( (-q)\^i I a\_i + (-1)\^[i+1]{}(A\^[(0,i)]{}+q\^[2i]{} B\^[(0,i)]{})) i=0,…,n-2.
Now it is straightforward to get H\^[(i)]{} =\_[j=1]{}\^[\[i/2\]]{}[(-1)\^[i-1]{}1+q\^[2(i-2j)+1]{}]{}( A\^[(0,i-2j)]{} + q\^[2(i-2j)]{} B\^[(0,i-2j)]{} - q\^[i-2j]{} I a\_[i-2j]{} ) g\^[j-1]{} , i=0,…,n, where $[k]$ denotes the integer part of the number $k$. Finally, substituting the expression (\[H-otvet\]) back into eq.(\[H-1\]), we obtain a formula J\^[(i)]{} = (-1)\^[i-1]{} A\^[(0,i)]{} + \_[j=1]{}\^[\[i/2\]]{}[(-1)\^[i-1]{}(1-q\^2)1+q\^[2(i-2j)+1]{}]{}( A\^[(0,i-2j)]{} + q\^[2(i-2j)]{} B\^[(0,i-2j)]{} - q\^[i-2j]{} I a\_[i-2j]{}) g\^j , which is valid for $0\leq i\leq n$.
Taking the R-trace of eq.(\[J-otvet\]), we obtain the Newton relations (\[Newton-a\]). Here, in the calculation of the R-trace of $B^{(0,i-2j)}$, we took into account the formulas (\[phi-xi-traces\]).
The formulas (\[Newton-s\]) can be deduced from the relations (\[Newton-a\]) by a substitution $q\rightarrow -q^{-1}$, $a_j\rightarrow s_j$. This is justified by the existence of the BMW algebras homomorphism (\[homS-A\]) $\iota:\;{\cal W}_n(q,\mu)\rightarrow {\cal W}_n(-q^{-1},\mu)$ and a fact that one and the same R-matrix $R$ generates representations of both algebras ${\cal W}_n(q,\mu)$ and ${\cal W}_n(-q^{-1},\mu)$.
The relation (\[Wronski\]) is proved by induction on $n$. The cases $n=0,1,2$ are easily checked with the use of eqs.(\[Newton-a\]) and (\[Newton-s\]). Then, making an induction assumption, we derive the Wronski relations for arbitrary $n>2$. To this end, we take a difference of eqs.(\[Newton-s\]) and (\[Newton-a\]) $${\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}} \Bigl( q^{-i} s_i\, p_{n-i}\, -\, (-q)^i a_i\, p_{n-i}
\Bigr)\, =\, n_q (s_n\, +\, (-1)^n a_n )\, +\,\mbox{terms proportional to $g$}$$ and substitute for $p_{n-i}$ in the first/second term of the left hand side its expression from the Newton relation (\[Newton-a\])/(\[Newton-s\]) (with $n$ replaced by $n-i$). As a result, all terms, containing the power sums, cancel and, after rearranging the summations, we get $$n_q \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i a_i s_{n-i}\, =\, -\sum_{i=1}^{[n/2]}
(q^{1-n+2i}+q^{n-1-2i})g^i\sum_{j=0}^{n-2i}(-1)^j a_j s_{n-2i-j}\, .$$ By the induction assumption, the double sum in the right hand side of this relation vanishes identically: when $n$ is odd, the second sum vanishes for all values of the index $i$; when $n$ is even, the second sum is different from zero only for two values of the index $i$, $i=n/2$ and $i=n/2-1$, and these two summands cancel. $\blacksquare$
Primitivity of contractors
==========================
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
In this appendix we return to the consideration of the contractors in the BMW algebra. We shall establish useful properties of the contractors in lemmas \[zapo\], \[fuproco1\] and then use it to demonstrate their primitivity (announced in proposition \[proposition2.2\] in subsection \[subsec2.4\]) in proposition \[primco\].
In this appendix we shall denote by ${\cal W}(\sigma_i,\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$, where $i\leq j$, the BMW algebra with the generators $\sigma_i,\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j$ (the values of the parameters $q$ and $\mu$ are fixed).
Let $\alpha\in {\cal W}(\sigma_1,\sigma_{2},\dots ,\sigma_j)$, where $j\geq n$. Then there exists an element $\tilde{\alpha}\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{n+1},\sigma_{n+2},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ such that $$c^{(2n)}\alpha =c^{(2n)}\tilde{\alpha}\ .
$$
[**Proof.**]{} Assume that $\alpha\in {\cal W}(\sigma_i,\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ and $\alpha\notin {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$. If $i>n$ then there is nothing to prove.
For $i\leq n$, we shall prove that there exists an element $\alpha'\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ such that $$c^{(2n)}\alpha =c^{(2n)}\alpha'\ .
$$ Given this statement, the proof follows by induction on $i$.
Due to the formula (\[char8\]), we can express the element $\alpha$ as a linear combination of elements of the form $xu_i \bar{x}$, where $x,\bar{x}\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ and $u_i$ is equal to 1, $\sigma_i$ or $\kappa_i$. The terms with $u_i=1$ belong already to ${\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ so we may assume that the element $u_i$ is non-trivial (that is, equals $\sigma_i$ or $\kappa_i$).
We express now the element $x$ as a linear combination of the elements of the form $yu_{i+1}\bar{y}$, where $y,\bar{y}\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+2},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ and $u_{i+1}$ is equal to 1, $\sigma_{i+1}$ or $\kappa_{i+1}$. Each element $\bar{y}$ commutes with the element $u_i$ thus the element $\alpha$ becomes a linear combination of elements of the form $yu_{i+1}u_i\bar{\bar{x}}$ with $y\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+2},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ and $\bar{\bar{x}}\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$. In the terms with $u_{i+1}=1$ we move the element $y$ rightwards through the element $u_i$ and continue the process for the terms with $u_{i+1}$ equal to $\sigma_{i+1}$ or $\kappa_{i+1}$. After a finite number of steps the process terminates and we will have an expression for the element $\alpha$ as a linear combination of terms u\_[i+k]{}…u\_[i+1]{}u\_iz , where the element $z$ belongs to ${\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$ and each of the elements $u_{i+s}$, $s=0,1,\dots k$, is equal to $\sigma_{i+s}$ or $\kappa_{i+s}$.
Let us first analyze expressions (\[zapod2\]) with $i+k>n$. The contractor $c^{(2n)}$ is divisible by the element $\kappa_n$ from the right due to the relation (\[idemp-c1\]). The element $\kappa_n$ can move rightwards in the product $c^{(2n)}u_{i+k}\dots u_{i+1}u_iz$ until it reaches the element $u_{n+1}$ and we arrive at the expression $\dots\kappa_n u_{n+1}u_n\dots$. For all four possibilities ($\sigma_{n+1}\sigma_n$, $\sigma_{n+1}\kappa_n$, $\kappa_{n+1}\sigma_n$ or $\kappa_{n+1}\kappa_n$) for the product $u_{n+1}u_n$, the expression $\kappa_n u_{n+1}u_n$ can be rewritten, with the help of the relations (\[bmw2b\])–(\[bmw5a\]), in a form $\kappa_n v_{n+1}$, where $v_{n+1}$ is a polynomial in $\sigma_{n+1}$. Moving the element $\kappa_n$ back to the contractor $c^{(2n)}$, we obtain $$c^{(2n)}u_{i+k}\dots u_{i+1}u_iz =c^{(2n)}u_{i+k}\dots u_{n+2}v_{n+1}\cdot u_{n-1}\dots
u_iz=c^{(2n)}u_{n-1}\dots u_i\bar{z}
$$ with some other $\bar{z}\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$.
Thus we can rewrite the product of the contractor $c^{(2n)}$ by an expression (\[zapod2\]) with $i+k>n$ as a product of $c^{(2n)}$ with an expression of the same form (\[zapod2\]) but with $i+k<n$.
Now using the relations (\[idemp-c2\]) we remove the elements $u_{i+k}$ one by one to the right: $$c^{(2n)}u_{i+k}\dots u_{i+1}u_i=c^{(2n)}u_{n-i-k}u_{i+k-1}\dots u_{i+1}u_i=
c^{(2n)}u_{i+k-1}\dots u_{i+1}u_iu_{n-i-k}\ .
$$ At the end we will obtain for the product $c^{(2n)}\alpha$ an expression of the form $c^{(2n)}\alpha'$, where the element $\alpha'$ belongs to ${\cal W}(\sigma_{i+1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$, as stated. $\blacksquare$
\[fuproco1\] Relations (\[bmw2b\]) and (\[bmw5a\]) involving the elements $\kappa_i$ have the following analogues for the higher contractors: c\^[(2i)]{}\_[2i]{} c\^[(2i)]{}&=&\^[-1]{}\^[-1]{}c\^[(2i)]{} ,\
c\^[(2i)]{}\_[2i]{}c\^[(2i)]{} &=&\^[-1]{}c\^[(2i)]{} .
We prove the identity (\[fup1\]) by induction on $i$ (the base of induction, $i=1$, is the relation (\[bmw5a\]) itself): $$\begin{array}{l}
c^{(2i+2)}\kappa_{2i+2}c^{(2i+2)}=c^{(2i)\uparrow 1} \kappa_{2i+1}\kappa_{1}
c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+2}c^{(2i+2)}=
c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+1}\kappa_1\kappa_{2i+2}c^{(2i+2)}
\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+1}\kappa_{2i+2}\kappa_{2i+1}c^{(2i+2)}
=c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+1}c^{(2i+2)}=\eta^{-1}c^{(2i+2)}\ .
\end{array}
$$ In the first equality we used the definition (\[kappa-i\]); in the second equality we used the property (\[idemp-c1\]); in the third equality we moved the element $\kappa_1$ rightwards to the contractor $c^{(2i+2)}$ and used the property (\[idemp-c2\]); in the fourth equality we used the relation (\[bmw5a\]); the fifth equality is the induction assumption.
The identity (\[fup3\]) is proved again by induction on $i$ (the base of induction, $i=1$, is now the relation (\[bmw2b\])): $$\begin{array}{l}
c^{(2i+2)}\sigma_{2j+2}c^{(2i+2)}=c^{(2i)\uparrow 1} \kappa_{2i+1}\kappa_{1}
c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\sigma_{2i+2}c^{(2i+2)}=
c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+1}\kappa_1\sigma_{2i+2}c^{(2i+2)}
\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+1}\sigma_{2i+2}\kappa_{2i+1}c^{(2i+2)}
=\mu^{-1}c^{(2i)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2i+1}c^{(2i+2)}=\mu^{-1}
\eta^{-1}c^{(2i+2)}\ .
\end{array}
$$ In the first equality we used the definition (\[kappa-i\]); in the second equality we used the property (\[idemp-c1\]); in the third equality we moved the element $\kappa_1$ rightwards to the contractor $c^{(2i+2)}$ and used the property (\[idemp-c2\]); in the fourth equality we used the relation (\[bmw2b\]); the fifth equality is the identity (\[fup1\]).
The proof is finished.$\blacksquare$
The contractor $c^{(2n)}$ is a primitive idempotent in the algebra ${\cal W}_{2n}(q,\mu )$ and in the algebra ${\cal W}_{2n+1}(q,\mu )$.
[**Proof.**]{} To prove both statements about the primitivity, one has to check that a combination $c^{(2n)}\alpha^{(2n+1)}c^{(2n)}$ is proportional to the contractor $c^{(2n)}$ for an arbitrary element $\alpha^{(2n+1)}$ from the algebra ${\cal W}_{2n+1}(q,\mu)$.
Let $\alpha$ be an arbitrary element from the algebra ${\cal W}(\sigma_{1},\dots ,\sigma_j)$, where $j\geq 2n+1$. Due to lemma \[zapo\], we have $c^{(2n)}\alpha=c^{(2n)}\beta$ with $\beta\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{n+1},\dots ,\sigma_{j})$.
Let $i$ ($i>0$) be such that $\beta\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{n+i},\sigma_{n+i+1},\dots ,\sigma_{j})$ and $\beta\notin {\cal W}(\sigma_{n+i+1},\dots ,\sigma_{j})$. We shall demonstrate that there exists an element $\bar{\beta}\in {\cal W}(\sigma_{n+i+1},\dots ,\sigma_{j})$ for which $$c^{(2n)}\beta c^{(2n)}=c^{(2n)}\bar{\beta} c^{(2n)}\ .
$$ Given this statement, the proof follows by induction on $i$.
The element $\beta$ is a linear combination of elements of the form $xu_{n+i}y$, where the elements $x$ and $y$ belong to ${\cal W}(\sigma_{n+i+1},\dots ,\sigma_{j})$ and $u_i$ is equal to $\sigma_{n+i}$ or $\kappa_{n+i}$. We have $$c^{(2n)}xu_{n+i}yc^{(2n)}=c^{(2n)}xc^{(2i)\uparrow n-i}u_{n+i}c^{(2i)\uparrow n-i}yc^{(2n)}
\sim c^{(2n)}xc^{(2i)\uparrow n-i}yc^{(2n)}=c^{(2n)}xyc^{(2n)}\ .
$$ In the first equality we used the relations (\[idemp-c1\]); the proportionality follows from the relations (\[fup1\]) and (\[fup3\]). Then we used again the relations (\[idemp-c1\]) to absorb the contractor $c^{(2i)\uparrow n-i}$ into $c^{(2n)}$.
The proof is finished. $\blacksquare$
Further properties of contractors {#fuproco}
=================================
The relations, involving the elements $\kappa_i$, for the generators of the BMW algebras have analogues for the higher contractors. Two examples of such relations are proved in lemma \[fuproco1\]. In proposition \[fuproco2\] we prove further analogues.
The identities in the lemma below have several versions obtained by an application of the automorphisms (\[homS-A\]) and (\[innalis\]) and the antiautomorphism (\[antvs\]). For an identity of each type we present one version.
\[fuproco2\] Another analogue of the identity (\[bmw5a\]): \_[2j]{} c\^[(2j)]{}\_[2j]{}=\^[-1]{}\_[2j]{} c\^[(2j-2)1]{} .
More general than (\[fup3\]) analogues of the identity (\[bmw2b\]): c\^[(2j)]{}\_[j+k]{}\_[j+k+1]{}…\_[2j]{}c\^[(2j)]{}= (\^[-1]{}\^[-1]{})\^[j+1-k]{}c\^[(2j)]{} 0<kj \[fup4\]and c\^[(2j)]{}\_[j-k]{}\_[j-k+1]{}…\_[2j]{}c\^[(2j)]{}= \^[-j]{}(\^[-1]{})\^[j-1-k]{}c\^[(2j)]{} 0k<j . \[fup5\]
An analogue of the identities (\[bmw3\]): c\^[(2j)]{}c\^[(2j)1]{}=\^[-j]{} c\^[(2j)]{} \_[2j]{}\^[-1]{}\_[2j-1]{}\^[-1]{}…\_1\^[-1]{} .\[fup6\]
An analogue of the identity (\[bmw7\]): \_[j]{}’\_[j-1]{}’…\_1’ c\^[(2j)1]{} \_1’…\_[j-1]{}’\_[j]{}’=\_[j+1]{}’\_[j+2]{}’ …\_[2j]{}’c\^[(2j)]{}\_[2j]{}’…\_[j+2]{}’\_[j+1]{}’ .
Another analogue of the identity (\[bmw5a\]): c\^[(2j)1]{}c\^[(2j)]{}c\^[(2j)1]{}=\^[-2j]{}c\^[(2j)1]{} .
An analogue of the identity (\[idemp-c3\]): c\^[(2j)]{}\^[(2k)j-k]{}=\^k c\^[(2j)]{} kj .where the elements $\tau^{(i)}$ are defined in eq.(\[tau-n\]).
The identity (\[fup2\]) is proved by induction on $j$ (the base of induction, $j=1$, is the relation (\[bmw5a\])): $$\begin{array}{l}
\kappa_{2j+2}c^{(2j+2)}\kappa_{2j+2}=\kappa_{2j+2}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}
\kappa_{2j+1}\kappa_{1}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2j+2}=
c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2j+2}\kappa_{2j+1}\kappa_{2j+2}\kappa_{1}
c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\kappa_{2j+2}\kappa_{1}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}=
\eta^{-1}\kappa_{2j+2}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\ .
\end{array}
$$ In the first equality we used the definition (\[kappa-i\]); in the second equality we formed the combination $\kappa_{2j+2}\kappa_{2j+1}\kappa_{2j+2}$; in the third equality we used the relation (\[bmw5a\]); the fourth equality is the induction assumption.
The identity (\[fup4\]) is proved by induction on $k$ down; the base of induction, when $k=j$, is the identity (\[fup3\]). $$\begin{array}{l}
c^{(2j)}\sigma_{j+k}\sigma_{j+k+1}\dots\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}=
c^{(2j)}c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}\sigma_{j+k}\sigma_{j+k+1}\dots\sigma_{2j}
c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}c^{(2j)}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=c^{(2j)}c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}\sigma_{j+k}
c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}\sigma_{j+k+1}\dots\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}\mu^{-1}c^{(2j)}c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}\sigma_{j+k+1}
\dots\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}\mu^{-1}c^{(2j)}\sigma_{j+k+1}
\dots\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}
=(\eta^{-1}\mu^{-1})^{j+1-k}c^{(2j)}\ .\end{array}
$$ In the first equality we used the property (\[idemp-c1\]); in the second equality we formed the combination $c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}\sigma_{j+k}
c^{(2k)\uparrow j-k}$; in the third equality we used the identity (\[fup3\]); in the fourth equality we used again the property (\[idemp-c1\]); the fifth equality is the induction assumption.
The identity (\[fup5\]) is proved by induction on $k$. We have $c^{(2j)}\sigma_j=\mu c^{(2j)}$ by the relation (\[idemp-c3\]), so the identity (\[fup5\]) with $k=0$ follows from the identity (\[fup4\]) with $k=1$.
Next, we have, for $i<j$:
[l]{} c\^[(2j)]{}\_i \_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{}c\^[(2j)]{}= c\^[(2j)]{}\_[2j-i]{} (\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})c\^[(2j)]{}\
=c\^[(2j)]{}(\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})\_[2j-i-1]{}c\^[(2j)]{}= c\^[(2j)]{}(\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})\_[i+1]{}c\^[(2j)]{} .
Here we used the property (\[idemp-c2\]) and the defining relation (\[braid\]).
The last expression in eq.(\[fupdo5\]) can be rewritten in a form $$c^{(2j)}\underline{\sigma}_{i+2}(\sigma_{i+1}\dots\sigma_{2j})c^{(2j)}
\ ,
$$ again by the braid relation (\[braid\]).
If $i+2$ is still smaller than $j$, we continue in the same manner:
[l]{} c\^[(2j)]{}\_[i+2]{} (\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})c\^[(2j)]{}= c\^[(2j)]{}\_[2j-i-2]{} (\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})c\^[(2j)]{}\
=c\^[(2j)]{}(\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})\_[2j-i-3]{}c\^[(2j)]{}= c\^[(2j)]{}(\_[i+1]{}…\_[2j]{})\_[i+3]{}c\^[(2j)]{}
and the last expression in eq.(\[fupdo7\]) can again be rewritten in a form $$c^{(2j)}\underline{\sigma}_{i+4}(\sigma_{i+1}\dots\sigma_{2j})c^{(2j)}
\ .
$$ We repeat this process till the moment when the index of the underlined $\sigma$ becomes equal to $j$. Then we use the property (\[idemp-c3\]) and conclude $$c^{(2j)}\sigma_i \sigma_{i+1}\dots\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}
=\mu c^{(2j)}\sigma_{i+1}\dots\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}\ ,
$$ which, due to the induction assumption, finishes the proof of the identity (\[fup5\]).
The proof of the identity (\[fup6\]) consists of a calculation $$c^{(2j)}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}=c^{(2j)} \sigma_1\sigma_2\dots
\sigma_{2j}c^{(2j)}\sigma_{2j}^{-1}\dots\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}
=\eta^{-j}c^{(2j)}c^{(2j)}\sigma_{2j}^{-1}\dots\sigma_2^{-1}\sigma_1^{-1}
\ .
$$ The first equality here is valid due to the defining relations (\[braid\]); in the second equality we used the identity (\[fup5\]) with $k=j-1$.
Using a combination of the isomorphisms (\[innalis\]) and (\[homiota’\]), we can rewrite the identity (\[fup6\]) in forms c\^[(2j)1]{}c\^[(2j)]{}=\^[-j]{} c\^[(2j)1]{} \_[1]{}\_[2]{}…\_[2j]{} ,\[fupdo15\]c\^[(2j)]{}c\^[(2j)1]{} =\^[-j]{} c\^[(2j)]{}\_[2j]{}…\_[2]{}\_[1]{}\[fupdo16\]and c\^[(2j)1]{}c\^[(2j)]{}=\^[-j]{} c\^[(2j)1]{} \_[1]{}\^[-1]{}\_[2]{}\^[-1]{}…\_[2j]{}\^[-1]{} .\[fupdo17\]
We now turn to the proof of the identity (\[fup7\]). First, we prove by induction on $i$ the following identity: \_1’(\_2\_3…\_[j+1]{})\_1’\_2’ …\_j’ =\_2’\_3’…\_[j+1]{}’ (\_1\_2…\_[j]{})\_[j+1]{}’ .The base of induction ($j=1$) is the identity (\[bmw7\]). The induction step is $$\begin{array}{l}
\sigma_1'(\kappa_2\kappa_3\dots \kappa_{j+2})\sigma_1'\sigma_2'
\dots\sigma_{j+1}'= \sigma_1'(\kappa_2\kappa_3\dots \kappa_{j+1})
(\sigma_1'\sigma_2'\dots\sigma_j')\kappa_{j+2}\sigma_{j+1}'\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\sigma_2'\sigma_3'\dots\sigma_{j+1}'(\kappa_1\kappa_2\dots \kappa_{j})
\sigma_{j+1}'\kappa_{j+2}\sigma_{j+1}'=
\sigma_2'\sigma_3'\dots\sigma_{j+1}'(\kappa_1\kappa_2\dots \kappa_{j})
\sigma_{j+2}'\kappa_{j+1}\sigma_{j+2}'\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\sigma_2'\sigma_3'\dots\sigma_{j+2}'(\kappa_1\kappa_2\dots \kappa_{j+1})
\sigma_{j+2}'\ ,\end{array}
$$ where we used the identity (\[bmw7\]) in the third equality.
The image of the identity (\[fupdo11\]) under the antiautomorphism (\[antvs\]) reads \_[j]{}’\_[j-1]{}’…\_[1]{}’ (\_[j+1]{}\_[j]{}…\_[2]{})\_[1]{}’ = \_[j+1]{}’ (\_[j]{}\_[j-1]{}…\_[1]{}) \_[j+1]{}’\_[j]{}’…\_[2]{}’ .
The proof of the identity (\[fup7\]) is again by induction on $j$ (the base of induction is the identity (\[bmw7\])): $$\begin{array}{l}
(\sigma_{j+1}'\sigma_{j}'\dots\sigma_1') c^{(2j+2)\uparrow 1}
(\sigma_1' \dots\sigma_{j}'\sigma_{j+1}')\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}
(\sigma_{j+1}'\dots\sigma_1') c^{(2j)\uparrow 2}
(\kappa_{2j+2}\dots\kappa_{j+3})
(\kappa_2\dots\kappa_{j+2})
(\sigma_1' \dots\sigma_{j+1}')\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}
(\sigma_{j+1}'\dots\sigma_2') c^{(2j)\uparrow 2}
(\kappa_{2j+2}\dots\kappa_{j+3})\underline{\sigma_1'
(\kappa_2\dots\kappa_{j+2})
(\sigma_1' \dots\sigma_{j+1}')}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}(\sigma_{j+1}'\dots\sigma_{2}') c^{(2j)\uparrow 2}
(\kappa_{2j+2}\dots\kappa_{j+3})
(\sigma_2' \dots\sigma_{j+2}')
(\kappa_1\dots\kappa_{j+1})\sigma_{j+2}'\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}\underline{(\sigma_{j+1}'\dots\sigma_{2}') c^{(2j)\uparrow 2}
(\sigma_2' \dots\sigma_{j+1}')}
(\kappa_{2j+2}\dots\kappa_{j+3})\sigma_{j+2}'
(\kappa_1\dots\kappa_{j+1})\sigma_{j+2}'
\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}(\sigma_{j+2}'\dots\sigma_{2j+1}')
c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\underline{(\sigma_{2j+1}'\dots\sigma_{j+2}')
(\kappa_{2j+2}\dots\kappa_{j+3})
\sigma_{j+2}'}(\kappa_1\dots\kappa_{j+1})\sigma_{j+2}'\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}(\sigma_{j+2}'\dots\sigma_{2j+1}')
c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}
\sigma_{2j+2}' (\kappa_{2j+1}\dots\kappa_{j+2})
(\sigma_{2j+2}'\dots\sigma_{j+3}')
(\kappa_1\dots\kappa_{j+1})\sigma_{j+2}'\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\eta^{-1}(\sigma_{j+2}'\dots\sigma_{2j+2}')
c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}
(\kappa_{2j+1}\dots\kappa_{j+2})(\kappa_1\dots\kappa_{j+1})
(\sigma_{2j+2}'\dots\sigma_{j+2}')
\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=(\sigma_{j+2}'\dots\sigma_{2j+2}')
c^{(2j+2)}\sigma_{2j+2}'\dots\sigma_{j+2}'\ .
\end{array}
$$ Here in the first equality we used the expression (\[kappa-i2\]) for the contractor; in the second equality we moved the element $\sigma_1'$ rightwards to the string $(\kappa_2\dots\kappa_{j+2})$; in the third equality we transformed the underlined expression using the identity (\[fupdo11\]); in the fourth equality we moved the string $(\sigma_2'\dots\sigma_{j+1}')$ leftwards to the contractor $c^{(2j)\uparrow 2}$; in the fifth equality we used the induction assumption to transform the underlined expression; in the sixth equality we transformed the underlined expression using the shift ${}^{\uparrow j+1}$ of the identity (\[fupdo13\]); in the seventh equality we rearranged terms and then used again the expression (\[kappa-i2\]) for the contractor in the eighth equality.
The following calculation establishes the identity (\[fup8\]): $$c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}c^{(2j)}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}=\eta^{-j} c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}
c^{(2j)}\sigma_{2j}\dots\sigma_{2}\sigma_{1}=\eta^{-2j} c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}
\ .
$$ Here in the first equality we used the relation (\[fupdo16\]) while in the second one we used the relation (\[fupdo17\]).
To prove the identity (\[fup9\]), it is enough to prove its particular case c\^[(2j)]{}\^[(2j)]{}=\^j c\^[(2j)]{}since the element $c^{(2j)}$ is divisible by the element $c^{(2j-2k)\uparrow k}$ due to the relations (\[idemp-c1\]).
We shall need two identities. The first one is c\^[(2j+2)]{}\_[1]{}\_[2]{}…\_[2j]{}=c\^[(2j+2)]{}c\^[(2j)1]{} \_[1]{}\_[2]{}…\_[2j]{}=\^j c\^[(2j+2)]{}c\^[(2j)]{} .\[fupdo18\]In the first equality we used the relations (\[idemp-c1\]); in the second equality we used the relations (\[fupdo15\]) and again (\[idemp-c1\]).
Here is the second identity:
[l]{} c\^[(2j+2)]{}c\^[(2j)]{}\_[2j+1]{}=c\^[(2j+2)]{}\_[1]{}c\^[(2j)]{} =c\^[(2j+2)]{}\_[2j-1]{}c\^[(2j)]{} =c\^[(2j+2)]{}\_[3]{}c\^[(2j)]{}\
=…=c\^[(2j+2)]{}c\^[(2j)]{} .
In the first equality we moved the element $\sigma_{2j+1}$ leftwards through the contractor $c^{(2j)}$ and then we replaced the combination $c^{(2j+2)}\sigma_{2j+1}$ by $c^{(2j+2)}\sigma_{1}$ due to the relation (\[idemp-c2\]); repeatedly using the relation (\[idemp-c2\]), we replaced the combination $\sigma_{1}c^{(2j)}$ by $\sigma_{2j-1}c^{(2j)}$, then $c^{(2j+2)}\sigma_{2j-1}$ by $c^{(2j+2)}\sigma_{3}$ [*etc.*]{} The index of the element $\sigma$ jumps by 2; at one moment it becomes equal to either $j$ or $j+1$ and we use then the relation (\[idemp-c3\]).
We now prove the relation (\[fupdo20\]) by induction on $j$ (the base of induction, $j=1$, is the relation (\[bmw2a\])): $$\begin{array}{l}
c^{(2j+2)}\tau^{(2j+2)}=c^{(2j+2)}(\sigma_1\dots\sigma_{2j+1})\tau^{(2j+1)}
=\eta^j c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}\sigma_{2j+1}\tau^{(2j+1)}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \
=\mu\eta^j c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}\tau^{(2j+1)}
=\mu\eta^j c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}\tau^{(2j)}(\sigma_{2j}\dots\sigma_1)\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \
=\mu^{j+1}\eta^j c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}(\sigma_{2j}\dots\sigma_1)
=\mu^{j+1}\eta^{2j} c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}\\[1em]
\ \ \ \ \
=\mu^{j+1}\eta^{2j} c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}c^{(2j)}c^{(2j)\uparrow 1}
=\mu^{j+1}c^{(2j+2)}\ .
\end{array}
$$ In the first equality we used the iterative definition of the elements $\tau^{(i)}$ (it is different but equivalent to the one given in eq.(\[innalis\])); in the second equality we used the relation (\[fupdo18\]); in the third equality we used the relation (\[fupdo21\]); in the fourth equality we used again the iterative definition of the elements $\tau^{(i)}$; the fifth equality is the induction assumption; in the sixth equality we used the relation (\[fupdo16\]); in the seventh equality we used the relations (\[idemp-c1\]); finally, in the eighth equality we used the relation (\[fup8\]).
The proof is finished. $\blacksquare$
[We have also $$c^{(2j+2)}\tau^{(2j+1)}=c^{(2j+2)}(\sigma_1\dots\sigma_{2j})\tau^{(2j)}
=\eta^j c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}\tau^{(2j)}=(\eta\mu )^j c^{(2j+2)}c^{(2j)}\ .
$$ In the first equality we used the iterative definition of the elements $\tau^{(i)}$; in the second equality we used the relation (\[fupdo18\]); in the third equality we used the identity (\[fup9\]).]{}
On twists in quasitriangular Hopf algebras {#append1}
==========================================
Here we shall discuss universal (i.e., quasi-triangular Hopf algebraic) counterparts of relations from subsections \[subsec3.2\], \[subsec3.2a\], especially from proposition \[proposition3.6\]: we shall see, in item [**8**]{} of the appendix, that these relations have a quite transparent meaning, they reflect the properties of the twisted universal R-matrix.
We do not give an introduction to the theory of quasitriangular Hopf algebras assuming that the reader has some basic knowledge on the subject (see, e.g., [@CP], the chapter 4).
Generalities
------------
#### [**1.**]{}
Let ${\cal A}$ be a Hopf algebra; $m, \D ,\e$ and $S$ denote the multiplication, comultiplication, counit and antipode, respectively.
Assume that ${\cal A}$ is quasitriangular with a universal R-matrix $\cR =a\ot b$ (this is a symbolic notation, instead of $\sum_i a_i\ot b_i$). One has $(S\ot S)\cR =\cR$. The universal R-matrix $\cR$ is invertible, its inverse is related to $\cR$ by formulas $\cR^{-1}=S(a)\ot b$ or $(\id\ot S)(\cR^{-1})=\cR$.
For elements in ${\cal A}\ot {\cal A}$, the ‘skew’ product $\odot$ is defined as the product in ${\cal A}^{\mathrm{op}}\ot {\cal A}$, where ${\cal A}^{\mathrm{op}}$ denotes the algebra with the opposite multiplication. In other words, the skew product of two elements, $x\ot y$ and $\ti{x}\ot\ti{y}$ is $(x\ot y)\odot (\ti{x}\ot\ti{y})=\ti{x}x\ot y\ti{y}$. For a skew invertible element ${\cal X}\in {\cal A}\ot {\cal A}$, we shall denote its skew inverse by $\psi_{\cal X}$. The universal R-matrix $\cR$ has a skew inverse, $\psi_\cR =a\ot S(b)$. The element $\psi_\cR$ is invertible, $(\psi_\cR)^{-1}=a\ot S^2(b)$. The element $\cR^{-1}$ is skew invertible as well, its skew inverse is $\psi_{(\cR^{-1})} =S^2(a)\ot b$. All these formulas are present in [@D3]. We shall see below that there are similar formulas for the twisting element $\cF$. However, the properties of the twisting element $\cF$ and of the universal R-matrix $\cR$ are different, for instance, the square of the antipode is given by $S^2(x)=u_{_\cR}\, x\, (u_{_\cR} )^{-1}$, where $u_{_\cR} =S(b)a$, but there is no analogue of such formula for $\cF$. Because of this difference, we felt obliged to give some proofs of the relations for $\cF$.
Let $\rho$ be a representation of the algebra ${\cal A}$ in a vector space $V$. For an element ${\cal X}\in {\cal A}\ot {\cal A}$, denote by $\hat{\rho}({\cal X})\in {\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$ an operator $\hat{\rho}({\cal X})=P\cdot (\rho\ot\rho)({\cal X})$ (recall that $P$ is the permutation operator). The skew product $\odot$ translates into the following product $\hat{\odot}$ for elements of ${\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$: (XY)\_[13]{}:=\_[(2)]{}(X\_[12]{}Y\_[23]{}) . In other words, if ${\cal X}\odot {\cal Y}={\cal Z}$ then $\hat{\rho}({\cal X})\;\hat{\odot}\;\hat{\rho}({\cal Y})=\hat{\rho}({\cal Z})$. For an operator $X\in {\rm End}(V^{\otimes 2})$, its skew inverse $\Psi_X$, in the sense explained in subsection \[subsec3.1\], is presicely the inverse with respect to the product $\hat{\odot}$.
#### [**2.**]{}
The following lemma is well known (see, e.g., [@CP], the chapter 4, and references therein).
Consider an invertible element $\cF =\a\ot\b\in {\cal A}\ot {\cal A}$ (we use the symbolic notation, $\a\ot\b =\sum_i \a_i\ot\b_i$, like for the universal R-matrix) and let $\cF^{-1}=\g\ot\d$. Assume that the element $\cF$ satisfies \_[12]{} ()()=\_[23]{} ()() .Assume also that ()=()=1 .Then an element $\vf =\a\, S(\b )$ is invertible, its inverse is ()\^[-1]{}=S() .One also has S() ()\^[-1]{}=1 S()=1 .Twisting the coproduct by the element $\cF$, \_(a)=(a)\^[-1]{} ,one obtains another quasitriangular structure on ${\cal A}$ with \_=\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} and S\_(a)= S(a) ()\^[-1]{} (the counit does not change).
An element $\cF$, satisfying conditions (\[uu1\]) and (\[uu2’\]) is called [*twisting*]{} element. We shall denote by ${\cal A}_\cF$ the resulting ‘twisted’ quasitriangular Hopf algebra.
[On the representation level, the formula (\[anor\]) transforms (compare with eq.(\[R\_f\])$\,$) into $\hat{\rho}(\cR_\cF )=
\hat{\rho}(\cF )_{21}\hat{\rho}(\cR )_{21}\hat{\rho}(\cF )_{21}^{-1}$. Below, when we talk about matrix counterparts of universal formulas, one should keep in mind this difference in conventions.]{}
#### [**3.**]{}
Assume, in addition to eq.(\[uu1\]), that () ()=\_[13]{}\_[23]{} and () ()=\_[13]{}\_[12]{} .
Now the conditions (\[uu2’\]) follow from the relations (\[uu18\]) and (\[uu19\]) and the invertibility of the twisting element $\cF$: applying $\e\ot\id\ot\id$ to the relation (\[uu18\]), we find $(\e\ot\id ) (\cF)=1$; applying $\id\ot\id\ot\e$ to the relation (\[uu19\]), we find $(\id\ot\e ) (\cF)=1$.
Since $\D^{{\mathrm{op}}}(x)\cR =\cR\D (x)$ for any element $x\in {\cal A}$ (where $\D^{{\mathrm{op}}}$ is the opposite comultiplication), it follows from the relation (\[uu18\]) that \_[12]{}\_[13]{}\_[23]{}=\_[23]{}\_[13]{}\_[12]{} .
Similarly, the relation (\[uu19\]) implies \_[23]{}\_[13]{}\_[12]{}=\_[12]{}\_[13]{}\_[23]{} .
When both relations (\[uu18\]) and (\[uu19\]) are satisfied, the relation (\[uu1\]) is equivalent to the Yang–Baxter equation for the twisting element $\cF$: \_[12]{}\_[13]{}\_[23]{}=\_[23]{}\_[13]{}\_[12]{} .
One also has $$(\D_\cF\ot\id ) (\cF_{21})=\cF_{31}\;\cF_{32}\ \ {\mathrm{and}}\ \
(\id\ot\D_\cF )(\cF_{21})=\cF_{31}\;\cF_{21}\ .
$$ Therefore, one can twist $\D_\cF$ again, now by the element $\cF_{21}$.
On the matrix level, this corresponds to the second conjugation of $\hat{\rho}(\cR )$ by $\hat{\rho}(\cF )$, $$\hat{\rho}\bigl(\, (\cR_\cF )_{\cF_{21}}\,\bigr)\,
=\,\hat{\rho}(\cF )^2\; \hat{\rho}(\cR )\;\hat{\rho}(\cF )^{-2}\ .$$
[The element $\cF_{21}^{-1}$ satisfies the conditions (\[uu1\]), (\[uu18\]) and (\[uu19\]) if the element $\cF$ does. Thus, one can twist the coproduct $\D$ by the element $\cF_{21}^{-1}$ as well.]{}
#### [**4.**]{}
The conditions (\[uu2’\]), (\[uu18\]), (\[uu19\]) imply the invertibility and skew-invertibility of the element $\cF$. The formulas for its inverse and skew inverse are similar to the corresponding formulas for the universal R-matrix $\cR$ (in particular, we reproduce the standard formulas for $\cR$ since we can take $\cF =\cR$).
Assume that the conditions (\[uu2’\]) and (\[uu18\]) are satisfied. Then the element $\cF$ is invertible, its inverse is \^[-1]{}=S() .Assume that the conditions (\[uu2’\]) and (\[uu19\]) are satisfied. Then the element $\cF$ is skew invertible, with the skew inverse \_=S() .Assume that the conditions (\[uu2’\]), (\[uu18\]) and (\[uu19\]) are satisfied. Then (SS)()= .Moreover, the element $\psi_\cF $ is invertible, its inverse is (\_)\^[-1]{}=S\^2() and the element $\cF^{-1}$ is skew-invertible, its skew inverse reads \_[(\^[-1]{})]{} =S\^2() .
The calculations are similar to those, from textbooks, for the universal R-matrix. We include this proof for a completness only.
Applications of $m_{12}\circ S_1$ and $m_{12}\circ S_2$ to the relation (\[uu18\]) imply the formula (\[uu26\]) (here $m_{12}$ is the multiplication of the first and the second tensor arguments; $S_1$ is an operation of taking the antipode of the first tensor argument, [*etc.*]{}).
Applications of $m_{23}\circ S_2$ and $m_{23}\circ S_3$ to the relation (\[uu19\]) establish the formula (\[uu34\]).
Given the formula (\[uu34\]), the statement, that the element $\psi_\cF$ is a left skew inverse of the element $\cF$, reads in components: ’S(’)=1 ,where primes are used to distinguish different summations terms, the expression $\a\a'\ot S(\b')\b$ stands for $\sum_{i,j}\a_i\a_j\ot S(\b_j)\b_i$. Applying $S_1$ to this equation, we find $(S(\a' )\ot S(\b'))\cdot (S(\a )\ot\b)=1$ which means that the element $S(\a' )\ot S(\b')$ is the left inverse of the element $S(\a )\ot\b$. However, the latter element is, by the formula (\[uu26\]), the inverse of $\cF$. Therefore, the relation (\[uu29\]) follows.
Applying $S_2$ to the equality (\[uupsi\]), we find that the element $\a\ot S^2(\b )$ is the right inverse of the element $\psi_\cF$.
Applying $S_1^2$ to the equality (\[uupsi\]) and using the relation (\[uu29\]), we find that $S^2(\a )\ot \b $ is a right skew inverse of the element $\cF^{-1}$.
We shall not repeat details for the left inverse of the element $\psi_\cF$ and the left skew inverse of the element $\cF^{-1}$, calculations are analogous.$\blacksquare$
[There is a further generalization of the formulas from lemma \[lemma3.2.0.2\]. Start with the element $\cF$ and alternate operations ‘take an inverse’ and ‘take a skew inverse’. Then the next operation is always possible, the result is always invertible and skew invertible. One arrives, after $n$ steps, at $S^n(\a )\ot\b$ if the first operation was ‘take an inverse’; if the first operation was ‘take a skew inverse’ then one arrives at $\a\ot S^n(\b )$ (see [@D3], section 8). ]{}
Counterparts of matrix relations
--------------------------------
#### [**5.**]{}
We turn now to the Hopf algebraic meaning of relations from subsections \[subsec3.2\], \[subsec3.2a\].
The square of the antipode in an almost cocommutative Hopf algebra, with a universal R-matrix $\cR =a\ot b$, satisfies the property $S^2(x)=u_{_\cR} x(u_{_\cR})^{-1}$, where $u_{_\cR} =S(b)a$, for any element $x\in {\cal A}$. In a matrix representation of an algebra ${\cal A}$, the element $u_{_\cR}$ maps to the matrix $D_{\hat{\rho}({\cal R})}$ (and the element $S(u_{_\cR} )$ maps to the matrix $C_{\hat{\rho}({\cal R})}$), so an identity (which follows from the relation (\[uu29\])$\,$) $$\begin{array}{rcl}(1\ot u_{_\cR})\;\cF^{-1}\; (1\ot (u_{_\cR})^{-1})&\equiv& (1\ot u_{_\cR} )
(S(\a )\ot\b )(1\ot (u_{_\cR})^{-1}=S(\a )\ot S^2(\b )
\\[1em]
&=&\a\ot S(\b )\equiv\psi_\cF\end{array}$$ becomes one of the relations from lemma \[lemma3.3\]. In a similar manner, one can interpret other relations from lemma \[lemma3.3\].
Such an interpretation is not, however, unique. For instance, applying $m_{12}\circ S_2$ to the relation (\[uu24\]) and using the formula (\[uu26\]), one finds $$\vf\ot 1=\a'\vf S(\a )\ot\b\b'\ ,$$ which, after an application of $S_2$, becomes, due to the formulas (\[uu34\]) and (\[uu29\]), 1=\_ (1) .Similarly, applying $(\id\ot S)\circ m_{23}\circ\tau_{23}\circ S_3$ (where $\tau$ is the flip, $\tau (x\ot y)=y\ot x$) to eq.(\[uu24\]) and using eqs.(\[uu29\]) and (\[uu35\]), one finds $$1\ot\vf =\a\a'\ot S(\b')\vf S^2(\b )\ ,$$ which, after an application of $S_1$, becomes, with the help of eq.(\[uu29\]), 1= (1)\_ .In the matrix picture, the relations (\[uu39\]) and (\[uu36\]) are also equivalent to particular cases of the relations from lemma \[lemma3.3\] – but this time we did not use the fact that the square of the antipode is given by the conjugation by the element $u_{_\cR}$.
Below we shall make use of another version of the formulas (\[uu39\]) and (\[uu36\]).
Writing the formulas (\[uu39\]) and (\[uu36\]) as $(\vf\ot 1)\cF^{-1}=\psi_\cF (\vf\ot 1)$ and $ \cF^{-1}(1\ot\vf) =(1\ot\vf )\psi_\cF$, respectively, and using the expressions for $\psi_\cF$, $(\psi_\cF )^{-1}$ and $ \cF^{-1}$ from lemma \[lemma3.2.0.2\], we find, in components: S() =S() and, respectively, S()=S() .
Applying $S_1$ or $S_2$ to eqs.(\[uu41\]) and (\[uu37\]), we obtain corresponding formulas with $\vf$ replaced by $S(\vf )$. These formulas, together with eqs.(\[uu41\]) and (\[uu37\]), imply
[ccc]{} (S()1)&=&(S()1) ,\
(1S())&=&(1S()) .
It follows, from a compatibility of the relations (\[uu39\]) and (\[uu36\]) (express the element $\psi_\cF$ in terms of $\cF$ and $\vf$ in two ways), that \_[12]{}() =()\_[12]{} .
The relations (\[fvsv\]) and (\[fvvvvf\]) are universal analogues of the matrix equalities (\[FCD\]) and (\[FCC\]) (for certain choices of the compatible pairs of the R-matrices) from the corollary \[corollary3.4\].
#### [**6.**]{}
We need some more information about the element $\vf$. The inverse to the element $\vf$ is given by the formula (\[vfin\]); it follows from lemma \[lemma3.2.0.2\] that $(\vf )^{-1}=S^2(\a )\b$.
By eq.(\[uu29\]), one has $S(\vf )=S(\b )\a$ and, then, $S^2(\vf )=\vf $. Since $S^2(x)=u_{_\cR} x(u_{_\cR})^{-1}$ for any element $x\in {\cal A}$, we conclude that the element $u_{_\cR}$ commutes with the element $\vf$ and, similarly, with the element $S(\vf )$.
Making the flip in the relations (\[uu41\]) and (\[uu37\]), multiplying them out and comparing, we find that the elements $\vf$ and $S(\vf )$ commute.
In fact, more is true. Applying $\id\ot S^j$ to the relation (\[uu41\]), we obtain $\vf\a\ot S^{j-1}(\b )=\a\vf\ot S^{j+1}(\b )$ (we used the relation (\[uu29\]) to rearrange the powers of the antipode). In a similar way, applying $S^{-j}\ot\id$ to the relation (\[uu37\]), we obtain $\a\ot S^{j-1}(\b )\vf =\a\ot\vf S^{j+1}(\b )$. Multiplying out and comparing the right hand sides, we find that the element $\vf$ commutes with the elements $S^k(\a )\b$ $\forall$ $k\in {\Bbb Z}$.
The same procedure, applied to the flipped versions of the relations (\[uu41\]) and (\[uu37\]) shows that the element $\vf$ commutes with the elements $S^k(\b )\a$ $\forall$ $k\in {\Bbb Z}$.
Applying the antipode to these commutativity relations, we find that the element $S(\vf )$ commutes with the elements $S^k(\a )\b$ and $S^k(\b )\a$ $\forall$ $k\in {\Bbb Z}$ as well.
#### [**7.**]{}
We shall now establish a Hopf algebraic counterpart of the relation (\[rcdm\]).
There is a closed formula for the coproduct of the element $\vf$, again similar to the standard formula for the coproduct of the element $u_{_\cR}$.
One has ()=\_[12]{}\^[-1]{}\_[21]{}\^[-1]{}() .
Together, eqs.(\[uu18\]) and (\[uu19\]) imply $$(\D\ot\D )(\cF )=\cF_{14}\cF_{13}\cF_{24}\cF_{23}\ .
$$ Therefore, the coproduct of $\vf$ can be written in a form ()=\_[(1)]{} S(\_[(2)]{})\_[(2)]{} S(\_[(1)]{} )=’ S(”)” S(’)(we use the Sweedler notation for the coproduct, $\D (x)=x_{(1)}\ot
x_{(2)}$ for an element $x\in {\cal A}$).
Using the relation (\[uu37\]), we continue to rewrite the expression (\[vvs1\]): ()=S(’) S(”)”’ . The relation (\[uu24\]), in a form $\cF_{13}\cF_{23}\cF_{12}^{-1}=\cF_{12}^{-1}\cF_{23}\cF_{13}$, reads, in components, S(’)”’”=S()”’’” . Using eq.(\[cfmff\]), we transform the right hand side of eq.(\[vvs2\]) to a form $$\D (\vf )=S(\a )\a''S(\b'')S(\b')\ot\b\a' \vf =S(\a )\vf S(\b')\ot\b\a' \vf\ .
$$ Using again eq.(\[uu37\]), we obtain $$\D (\vf )=S(\a )\b'\vf\ot\b S(\a' ) \vf\ ,
$$ which, by the formula (\[uu26\]), is a component form of the relation (\[deltavf\]). $\blacksquare$
Applying the flip to the relation (\[deltavf\]), we find $\D^{{\mathrm{op}}} (\vf )=\cF_{21}^{-1}\;\cF_{12}^{-1}\cdot (\vf\ot\vf )$. Since $\D^{{\mathrm{op}}} (\vf )\;\cR =\cR\;\D (\vf )$, we conclude (\_)\_[\_[21]{}]{} ()=() .The translation of the equality (\[twitwi\]) into the matrix language is equivalent to the relation (\[rcdm\]) (see the remarks \[rrr1\] and \[rrr2\]).
[It follows from the relation (\[deltavf\]) that (S())=(S()S())\_[12]{}\^[-1]{}\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} .The relation (\[fvvvvf\]), together with the relations (\[deltavf\]) and (\[svf1\]), implies that an element :=S()\^[-1]{}is group-like, $\D (\varphi )=\varphi\ot\varphi$. Therefore, $S(\varphi )=\varphi^{-1}=S(\vf )(\vf )^{-1}$ but $S(\varphi )=S(\vf S(\vf )^{-1})=(\vf )^{-1}S(\vf )$, which shows again that $\vf$ commutes with $S(\vf )$.]{}
#### [**8.**]{}
The twisted Hopf algebra ${\cal A}_\cF$ is quasitriangular, so we can write the usual identities for its universal R-matrix $\cR_\cF =\cF_{21}\cR\cF^{-1}$. The relations from proposition \[proposition3.6\] are the matrix counterparts of some of these identities.
For the twisted Hopf algebra ${\cal A}_\cF$, one finds, with the help of the first relation in eq.(\[uu14\]), that $u_{(\cR_\cF)}=\varphi\, u_{_\cR}$, where the element $\varphi$ is defined by the formula (\[deffi\]) (on the matrix level, this becomes one of the relations (\[CDtwist\])$\,$). In particular, (S\_)\^2 (x)= S\^2(x)\^[-1]{} .
([*i*]{}) The relation (\[R\_f-fin\]) is a consequence of, for example, the identity (S\_)((\_)\^[-1]{})=\_ .We have
[rcl]{} \_&=&(S\_)((\_)\^[-1]{})=(S\_)(\^[-1]{}\_[21]{}\^[-1]{}) =(S\_)(S(a)’b S(’))\
&=& S(a)’S\^2(’)S(b)S()()\^[-1]{}=a’S\^2(’)b S()()\^[-1]{} .
Here we used eq.(\[uu17\]) and the identities from lemma \[lemma3.2.0.2\] for $\cF$ and $\cR$. Applying $S^2\ot S$ to eq.(\[uu41\]), we find S\^2()= ,since $S^2(\vf )=\vf$. Using the relation (\[vsvs1\]) and the relation (\[uu37\]) in a form $S(\a )\ot (\vf)^{-1}\b =\a\ot S(\b )(\vf)^{-1}$, we rewrite the last expression in eq.(\[le36-1\]): $$\cR_\cF =S(\a )a\b'\ot \a'\vf b (\vf )^{-1}\b $$ or \_=\_[21]{}( (1)(1)\^[-1]{})\^[-1]{} ,which, on the matrix level, is equivalent to the relation (\[R\_f-fin\]).
([*ii*]{}) Next, $$\begin{array}{rcl} \psi_{(\cR_\cF )}&=&(\id\ot S_\cF)(\cR_\cF)
=(\id\ot S_\cF)(\cF_{21}\cR\cF^{-1})=(\id\ot S_\cF)(\b a S(\a')\ot\a b\b')\\[1em]
&=&\b a S(\a')\ot \vf S(\b')S(b)S(\a )(\vf )^{-1}
=\b a \a'\ot \vf \b' S(b)S(\a )(\vf )^{-1}\ \end{array}$$ or (1)\^[-1]{} \_[(\_)]{}(1)=\_\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} ,which, on the matrix level, is equivalent to the relation (\[Psi\_R\_f\]).
([*iii*]{}) To obtain another formula for $\psi_{(\cR_\cF )}$, we start with the identity $\psi_{(\cR_\cF )}=(\id\ot (S_\cF )^2)((\cR_\cF )^{-1})$, which is a direct consequence of the identities from lemma \[lemma3.2.0.2\]:
[rcl]{} \_[(\_)]{}&=&((S\_)\^2 )( \^[-1]{}\_[21]{}\^[-1]{}) =((S\_)\^2 )( S(a)’b S(’))\
&=&S(a)’S\^2()S\^2(b)S\^3(’)\^[-1]{} =a’S\^2()S(b)S\^3(’)\^[-1]{}\
&=&a’S()\^[-1]{}S(b)()\^[-1]{}S(’)S() .
Here we used the identities from lemma \[lemma3.2.0.2\], relations $\a\ot\vf S^2(\b )=\a\ot\b\vf$ and $S^3(\a )(\vf )^{-1}\ot\b =(\vf )^{-1}S(\a )\ot\b$, which follow from eqs.(\[uu41\]) and (\[uu37\]), and the formula (\[sfsf\]) for the square of the twisted antipode.
Eq.(\[drfof\]) can be rewritten as ( 1S()) \_[(\_)]{}( 1S()\^[-1]{}) = (1)\_ (1()\^[-1]{})\_[21]{}\^[-1]{} ,which, in the matrix picture, is equivalent to eq.(\[Psi\_R\_f-another\]).
([*iv*]{}) The property $(S_\cF\ot S_\cF )(\cR_\cF )=\cR_\cF$ leads to ()\^[-1]{}\_[21]{}= \_[21]{}\^[-1]{} () .Since the twisting element $\cF$ commutes with $\vf\ot\vf$, the formula (\[anom\]) is another manifestation of the relation (\[rcdm\]).
We conclude this appendix with several more properties of the group-like element $\varphi$ defined in eq.(\[deffi\]).
We have ()=() .To see this, apply $S\otimes S$ to the relation (\[twitwi\]) and then compare with the same relation (\[twitwi\]).
The matrix equivalent of the relation (\[rgrelu\]) is the relation (\[rgrel\]).
Recall that a quasitriangular Hopf algebra ${\cal A}$ is called a ribbon Hopf algebra if it contains a ribbon element $r$, that is, a central element such that $r^2=u_{_\cR} S(u_{_\cR} )$ and $\D (r)=\cR_{12}^{-1}\cR_{21}^{-1}\cdot (r\ot r)$ (see [@Resh], or [@CP], the chapter 4). The twisted algebra ${\cal A}_\cF$ is a ribbon Hopf algebra if the algebra ${\cal A}$ is; for the ribbon element of the algebra ${\cal A}_\cF$, one can choose $r_{_\cF} = \varphi r$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors express their gratitude to Dimitry Gurevich, Alexei Isaev, Alexander Molev, Andrei Mudrov and Pavel Saponov for fruitful discussions and valuable remarks. The work of the first author (O. O.) was supported by the Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University and by the grant RFBR 17-01-00585. The work of the second author (P. P.) was partially supported by the grant of RFBR no.19-01-00726-a, and by the Academic Fund Program at the HSE University (grant no.282948 for the years 2020-2022) and the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.
[999]{} \[refer\]
Brauer, R.: [*‘On algebras which are connected with the semisimple continuous groups’*]{}. Ann. Math. [**38**]{} (1937), pp. 854–872.
O’Brien, D.M., Cant, A. and Carey, A.L.: [*‘On characteristic identities for Lie algebras’*]{}. Ann. Inst. Henry Poincar[' e]{}, A [**26**]{} (1977), pp. 405–429.
Bracken, A.J. and Green, H.S.: [*‘Vector operators and a polynomial identity for ${\rm SO}(n)$’*]{}. J. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} (1971), pp. 2099–2106.
Birman, J.S. and Wenzl, H.: [*‘Braids, link polynomials and a new algebra’*]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**313**]{}, no. 1, (1989), pp. 249–273.
Cherednik, I.V.: Theor. Math. Phys. [**61**]{} no.1, (1984), pp. 977–983.
Chari, V. and Pressley, A.: [*A guide to quantum groups*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
Drinfel’d, V.G.: [*‘Quantum groups’*]{}. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, (Berkeley, California, USA, 1986), pp. 798–820, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1987.
Drinfel’d, V.G.: [*‘Quasi-Hopf algebras’*]{}. Leningrad Math. J. [**1**]{} no. 6, (1990), pp. 1419–1457.
Drinfel’d, V.G.: [*’On almost cocommutative Hopf algebras’*]{}. Leningrad Math. J. [**1**]{} no. 6, (1990), pp. 321–342.
Ewen, H., Ogievetsky, O. and Wess, J.: [*‘Quantum matrices in two dimensions’*]{}. Lett. Math. Phys. [**22**]{} no. 4, (1991), pp. 297–305.
Formanek, E.: [*’The ring of generic matrices’*]{}. J. Algebra [**258**]{} no. 1, (2002), pp. 310–320.
Gould, M.D.: [*‘Characteristic identities for semi-simple Lie algebras’*]{}. J.Austral. Math. Soc. B [**26**]{}, no.3, (1985), pp. 257–283.
Green, H.S.: [*‘Characteristic identities for generators of ${\rm GL}(n),\,{\rm O}(n)$ and ${\rm SP}(n)$’*]{}. J. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} (1971), pp. 2106–2113.
Gurevich, D., Pyatov, P. and Saponov, P.: [*‘Hecke symmetries and characteristic relations on reflection equation algebras’*]{}. Lett. Math. Phys. [**41**]{} (1997), pp. 255–264. Gurevich, D., Pyatov, P. and Saponov, P.: [*‘Cayley-Hamilton theorem for quantum matrix algebras of $GL(m|n)$ type’*]{}. St. Petersburg Math. J. [**17**]{}, no.1, (2006), pp. 119-135. Gurevich, D., Pyatov, P. and Saponov, P.: [*‘Quantum matrix algebras of the $GL(m|n)$ type: The structure and spectral parameterization of the characteristic subalgebra’*]{}. Theor. Math. Phys. [**147**]{}, no.1, (2006), pp. 460–485. Gould, M.D., Zhang, R.B. and Bracken A.J.: [*‘Generalized Gelfand invariants and characteristic identities for quantum groups’*]{}. J. Math. Phys. [**32**]{} no. 9, (1991), pp. 2298–2303.
Hlavaty, L.: [*‘Quantized braided groups’*]{}. J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{} (1994), pp. 2560–2569. Heckenberger, I. and Schüler, A.: [*‘Symmetrizer and antisymmetrizer of the Birman-Wenzl-Murakami algebras’*]{}. Lett. Math. Phys. [**50**]{} (1999), pp. 45–51.
Isaac, P.S., Werry, J.L. and Gould, M.D.: [*‘Characteristic identities for Lie (super)algebras’*]{}. Journal of Physics: Conference Series [**597**]{} (2015) 012045.
Isaev, A.P.: [*‘Quantum groups and Yang-Baxter equations’*]{}. Phys. Part. Nucl. [**26**]{} no.5, (1995), pp. 501–526.
Isaev A., Ogievetsky O. and Pyatov P., [*‘Generalized Cayley-Hamilton-Newton identities’*]{}. Czech. Journ. of Physics [**48**]{} (1998), pp. 1369-1374. ArXiv: math.QA/9809047.
Isaev, A.P., Ogievetsky, O.V. and Pyatov, P.N.: [*‘On quantum matrix algebras satisfying the Cayley-Hamilton-Newton identities’*]{}. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**32**]{} (1999), pp. L115–L121. Isaev, A.P., Ogievetsky, O.V. and Pyatov, P.N.: [*‘Cayley-Hamilton-Newton Identities and Quasitriangular Hopf Algebras’*]{}. In Proc. of International Workshop ‘Supersymmetries and Quantum Symmetries’, July 27-31, 1999. Eds. E.Ivanov, S.Krivonos and A.Pashnev, JINR, Dubna E2-2000-82, pp. 397–405. ArXiv: math.QA/9912197.
Isaev, A.P., Ogievetsky, O.V. and Pyatov P.N.: [*‘On R-matrix representations of Birman-Murakami-Wenzl algebras’*]{}. Proc. Steklov Math. Inst. [**246**]{} (2004), pp. 134–141. Isaev, A.P., Ogievetsky, O.V., Pyatov, P.N., and Saponov P. A.: [*‘Characteristic polynomials for quantum matrices’*]{}. In Proc. of International Conference in memory of V.I.Ogievetsky ‘Supersymmetries and Quantum symmetries’, (Dubna, Russia, 1997). Eds. J. Wess and E. Ivanov, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. [**524**]{}, pp. 322–330, Springer Verlag, 1998.
Itoh M.: [*‘Capelli elements for the orthogonal Lie algebras’*]{}. J. Lie Theory [**10**]{} (2000) pp. 463–489.
Jarvis, P.D. and Green, H.S.: [*‘Casimir invariants and characteristic identities for generators of the general linear, special linear and orthosymplectic graded Lie algebras’*]{}. J. Math. Phys. [**20**]{} no. 10, (1979), pp. 2115–2122.
Jones, V.F.R.: [*‘On a certain value of the Kauffman polynomial’*]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. [**125**]{} (1989) pp. 459–467.
Kantor, I. and Trishin, I.: [*‘On a concept of determinant in the supercase’*]{}. Communications in Algebra, [**22**]{} (1994), pp. 3679 – 3739.
Kantor, I. and Trishin, I.: [*‘On the Cayley-Hamilton equation in the supercase’*]{}. Communications in Algebra, [**27**]{} (1999), pp. 233 – 259.
Khoroshkin, S. and Ogievetsky, O.:[*‘Diagonal reduction algebra and the reflection equation’*]{}. Israel J. Math. [**221**]{} no.2, (2017), pp.705–729.
Kulish and P.P., Sklyanin, E.K.: [*‘Algebraic structures related to reflection equations’*]{}. J. Phys. A [**25**]{} no. 22, (1992), pp. 5963–5975.
Leduc, R. and Ram, A.: [*‘A ribbon Hopf algebra approach to the irreducible representations of centralizer algebras: the Brauer, Birman-Wenzl, and type A Iwahori-Hecke algebras’*]{}. Adv. Math. [**125**]{} no. 1, (1997) pp. 1–94.
Macdonald, I.G.: [*‘Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials’*]{}. Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press, 1998.
Manin, Yu.I.: [*‘Notes on quantum groups and quantum de Rham complexes’*]{}. Theor. Math. Phys. [**92**]{} no. 3, (1992) pp. 997–1023.
Molev, A.: [*‘Sklyanin determinant, Laplace operators, and characteristic identities for classical Lie algebras’*]{}. J. Math. Phys. [**36**]{}, no.2, (1995), pp.923–943.
Molev, A.I., Ragoucy, E., Sorba, P.: [*‘Coideal subalgebras in quantum affine algebras’*]{}. Rev. Math. Phys. [**15**]{}, no.8, (2003), pp.789–822.
Mudrov, A. I.: [*‘Quantum conjugacy classes of simple matrix groups’*]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. [**272**]{}, no.3, (2007) pp. 635–-660. Murakami, J.: [*‘The Kauffman polynomial of links and representation theory’*]{}. Osaka J. Math. [**24**]{} (1987), pp. 745–758.
Nazarov, M. and Tarasov, V.: [*‘Yangians and Gelfand-Zetlin bases’*]{}. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**30**]{} no. 3, (1994), pp. 459–478. Ogievetsky, O.: [*‘Uses of quantum spaces’*]{}. In Proc. of School ‘Quantum symmetries in theoretical physics and mathematics’ (Bariloche, 2000), 161–232, Contemp. Math. [**294**]{} (2002), pp. 161–232.
Ogievetsky, O. and Pyatov, P.: [*‘Orthogonal and Symplectic Quantum Matrix Algebras and Cayley-Hamilton Theorem for them’*]{}. arXiv:math/0511618
Pyatov, P. and Saponov, P.: [*‘Characteristic relations for quantum matrices’*]{}. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**28**]{} (1995), pp. 4415–4421. Reshetikhin, N.Yu.: [*Quasitriangular Hopf algebras and invariants of tangles*]{}. Leningrad Math. J. [**1**]{} no. 2, (1990), pp. 491–513.
Reshetikhin, N.Yu.: [*‘Multiparameter quantum groups and twisted quasitriangular Hopf algebras’*]{}. Lett. Math. Phys. [**20**]{} no. 4, (1990), pp. 331–335.
Reshetikhin, N. Yu., Takhtajan, L. A. and Faddeev, L. D.: [*‘Quantization of Lie groups and Lie algebras’*]{}. Leningrad Math. J. [**1**]{} no. 1, (1990), pp. 193–225.
Schupp, P., Watts, P. and Zumino, B.: [*‘Bicovariant quantum algebras and quantum Lie algebras’*]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. [**157**]{} no. 2, (1993), pp. 305–329. Tuba, I. and Wenzl, H.: [*‘On braided tensor categories of type BCD’*]{}. J. Reine Angew. Math. [**581**]{} (2005), pp. 31–69. Wenzl, H.: [*‘Quantum groups and subfactors of type $B$, $C$, and $D$’*]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. [**133**]{} no. 2, (1990), pp. 383–432.
Zhang, J.J.: [*‘The quantum Cayley-Hamilton theorem’*]{}. J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**129**]{} no. 1, (1998), pp. 101–109.
[^1]: [email protected] ORCID iD 0000-0003-2444-2789
[^2]: [email protected] ORCID iD 0000-0002-9773-3600
[^3]: This operation is also called a quantum trace or, shortly, a $q$-trace in the literature.
[^4]: If $\mu\neq q-q^{-1}$ then it is enough to impose only one of the relations (\[bmw2b\]), the relation with another sign follows (see [@IOP3]).
[^5]: For particular values $\mu=\pm q^{i}$, $i\in {\Bbb Z}$, the limiting cases $q\rightarrow \pm 1$ to the Brauer algebra [@Br] can be consistently defined.
[^6]: Different expressions for the antisymmetrizers and symmetrizers, which are less suitable for our applications, were derived in [@HSch].
[^7]: Here there is no need to specify $M$ to be the matrix of the generators of the algebra ${\cal M}(R,F)$.
[^8]: In other words, a map $ch(\alpha^{(n)})\mapsto I\, ch(\alpha^{(n)})$ is an algebra monomorphism ${\cal C}(R,F)\hookrightarrow {\cal P}(R,F)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The classical knot groups are the fundamental groups of the complements of smooth or piecewise-linear (PL) locally-flat knots. For PL knots that are not locally-flat, there is a pair of interesting groups to study: the fundamental group of the knot complement and that of the complement of the “boundary knot” that occurs around the singular set, the set of points at which the embedding is not locally-flat. If a knot has only point singularities, this is equivalent to studying the groups of a PL locally-flat disk knot and its boundary sphere knot; in this case, we obtain a complete classification of all such group pairs in dimension $\geq 6$. For more general knots, we also obtain complete classifications of these group pairs under certain restrictions on the singularities. Finally, we use spinning constructions to realize further examples of boundary knot groups.'
author:
- |
Greg Friedman\
Yale University, Dept. of Mathematics\
10 Hillhouse Ave., PO Box 208283. New Haven, CT 06520\
[email protected] - Tel. 203-432-6473 Fax: 203-432-7316
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Groups of locally-flat disk knots and non-locally-flat sphere knots'
---
Introduction
============
In the author’s dissertation (see [@GBF] and [@GBF1]), we studied the generalization of Alexander polynomials to PL sphere knots which were not necessarily locally-flat, i.e. PL-embedding $S^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}S^n$ such that the neighborhood disk pairs of points in the image of the embedding are not necessarily PL-homeomorphic to the standard disk pair. In this paper, we study the generalization to such knots of another classical knot invariant, the knot group.
The classically studied knot groups are the fundamental groups of the complements of smooth or PL locally-flat knots. In the context of our PL singular knots, there is a pair of interesting groups to study: the fundamental group of the knot complement and that of the complement of the “boundary knot” which occurs around the *singular set*, the set of points at which the embedding fails to be locally flat. If a knot has only point singularities, this is equivalent to studying the group of a locally-flat disk knot and that of its boundary locally-flat sphere knot, and in this case, we obtain a complete classification of all such group pairs for knots of dimension $n\geq 6$. For more general knots, we also obtain complete classifications of the main knot group and of the boundary knot group under certain restrictions on the singularities. Finally, we show how spinning constructions can be used to realize further examples of boundary knot groups. Note that all embeddings in this paper are Piecewise Linear (PL).
We now outline our results in slightly greater detail:
The groups of smooth or PL locally-flat sphere knots $K: S^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}S^n$ were completely classified for $n\geq 5$ by Kervaire in [@Ke]. In Section \[S: groups\] of this paper, we show in Theorem \[T: nec con\] that Kervaire’s necessary conditions extend to all PL-knots. In Theorem \[T: class\] and Corollary \[C: decouple\], we obtain a classification, analogous to Kervaire’s, for the pair of groups associated to a locally-flat disk knot $J: D^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}D^n$, $n\geq 6$ and its boundary locally-flat sphere knot. This implies a classification in the same dimensions of groups for sphere knots with point singularities.
In Section \[S: links\], we study the *boundary knots* of singular sphere knots with singular sets of dimension $>0$. These boundary knots are not necessarily sphere knots, but they will be locally-flat codimension-2 manifold pairs. In particular, we show that the boundary knot groups will not, in general, satisfy the Kervaire conditions, but in Theorem \[T: bd kerv\], we establish that they will if the singular set is $2$-connected. We also compute the homology of these boundary knot complements in terms of the homology of the singular set (Theorem \[T: H of X\]). In case the singular set has a single stratum, we establish some further necessary conditions on the boundary knot group in terms of the fundamental groups of the stratum and its “link knot” (Theorem \[T: manif sing\] and its corollaries).
Finally, in Section \[S: realize\], we show how to realize some further examples of knot group pairs via knot constructions such as frame twist-spinning and suspension.
Preliminaries and conventions {#S: cons}
=============================
#### Basic definitions
We define a knot, $K$, to be a PL-embedding $S^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}S^n$; we do not assume that the embedding is locally-flat, i.e. there may be points whose regular neighborhoods pairs are not PL homeomorphic to the standard unknotted disk pair. Following standard abuse of notation, we sometimes also use $K$ to refer either to the image $K(S^{n-2})$ or the pair $(S^n, K(S^{n-2}))$. We also sometimes simply refer to the knotted sphere pair $(S^n, K)$. We let $\Sigma$ denote the *singular set* of points at which the embedding $K$ fails to be locally-flat, and without further mention we identify $\Sigma$ either as a subset of $S^{n-2}$ or of $K(S^{n-2})\subset S^n$.
Given a knot, we will most often be concerned with the topological properties of its complement $S^n-K$, which is homotopy equivalent to the knot exterior, $C$, which is the complement in $S^n$ of an open regular neighborhood $N(K)$ of $K$ (generally, we let $\bar{N}$ stand for closed regular neighborhoods and $N$ stand for the interior of $\bar N$). In case the embedding is not locally-flat, we will also be concerned with the $\emph{boundary knot}$. If $\Sigma$ is the singular set of the embedding, then the boundary knot is the pair $({\partial}\bar N(\Sigma), {\partial}\bar N(\Sigma)\cap K)$, where $\bar N(\Sigma)$ is the closed regular neighborhood of $\Sigma$ in $S^n$. Note that the boundary knot does not necessarily consist of knotted spheres, but it is a locally-flat codimension two manifold pair. We can then consider the boundary knot complement ${\partial}\bar N(\Sigma)-({\partial}\bar N(\Sigma)\cap K)$ and the homotopy equivalent exterior $X$, the complement in ${\partial}\bar N(\Sigma)$ of an open regular neighborhood of ${\partial}\bar N(\Sigma)\cap K$. It is not hard to see that we can choose these regular neighborhoods such that $X$ is a subspace of $C$. In fact, $C$ and $X$ are manifolds with boundary, and ${\partial}C\cong X\cup_{{\partial}X={\partial}T} T$, where $T$ is a circle bundle over the manifold $K-( N(\Sigma)\cap K)$ (see below for more about this property of $T$). Our main objects of study will be the fundamental groups of $C$ and $X$ and the homomorphism between them induced by the inclusion $X{\hookrightarrow}C$.
#### The relationship between knots with point singularities and disk knots
In the special case where $K$ is a knot with a single point singularity, then choosing $N(\Sigma)$ as the star of $\Sigma$ in the second barycentric subdivision of the triangulation, we can identify $S^n-N(\Sigma)$ as an $n$-disk, and the pair $(S^n-N(\Sigma), K\cap (S^n-N(\Sigma))$ as a locally-flat PL disk knot, i.e. a proper locally-flat PL embedding $J: D^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}D^n$. In this case, the boundary knot is simply the boundary PL locally-flat sphere knot of the disk knot. If $K$ has multiple point singularities, we can use a technique of Fox and Milnor [@M66] to slightly modify the definition of the boundary knot to obtain again a nice disk knot pair: Let $\rho$ be a simplicial path with no crossings in $K(S^{n-2})$ that connects the singular points of the knot, in other words, a path that starts at one singular point and then traverses all of them in some order with no self-intersections. Instead of the closed regular neighborhood $\bar N(\Sigma)$, we can instead consider the regular neighborhood $\bar N(\rho)$. Since $\rho$ is contractible, this neighborhood is a disk, and the complement of its interior again gives a disk knot. In this case, the boundary knot is the knot sum of the link knots about the point singularities. Note that for our purposes this construction is essentially independent of the choice of $\rho$: Since the regular neighborhood of $\rho$ collapses into the knot $K$, we can see that the disk knot exterior we obtain by this construction is isomorphic to the knot exterior $S^n-N(K)$. Similarly, the boundary knot complement $X$ will be the complement of the sphere knot given by the knot sum of the link knots around the singular points, and this depends only on the knot sum itself, not on the order in which we connect these knots, because knot sum is associative and commutative for locally-flat sphere knots.
If we are given a locally-flat disk knot, there is a converse to the above construction which will give us a sphere knot with point singularity: we can simply add the cone pair on the boundary. However, this construction only gives us knots with a single point singularity. A more general construction would be the following: If a locally-flat disk knot $J: D^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}D^n$ has a boundary locally-flat sphere knot $K: S^{n-3}{\hookrightarrow}S^{n-1}$ which can be written as a connected sum of knots $K=K_1\#\cdots \# K_k$, then there is an ambient isomorphism of the boundary $S^{n-1}$ which can be extended to the interior of the disk and which arranges the knot so that each $K_i$ is contained in a disk except for the tubes which connect it to the other knots in the sequence. In other words, we can assume the sum $K_1\#\cdots \# K_k$ represents the knot sum embedded in the standard way, where we begin with the summand knots completely separated within non-intersecting balls $D^{n-1}_i$ in $S^{n-1}$ and then connect them via non-intersecting and non-self-intersecting tubes $D^1\times S^{n-4}$ (technically, a surgery on the knots determined by $1$-handles embedded in general position in $S^n$, or, equivalently, an internal connected sum). We can assume that the tubes intersect each ${\partial}D^{n-1}_i$ in general position and furthermore the tube connecting $K_i$ to $K_{i+1}$ will intersect only ${\partial}D^{n-1}_i$ and ${\partial}D^{n-1}_{i+1}$, each only once and each intersection being PL-homeomorphic to $S^{n-4}$. Then we can construct a knot with $k$ singularities whose link knots are the $K_i$ as follows: For the ambient sphere, we simply add the cone on the boundary $S^{n-1}$. For the knotted sphere, we take the union of the disk knot $J$, $k$ separate non-intersecting cones on the sets $K\cap D^{n-1}_i$, and the connecting tubes, which we fill in outside of the interiors of the $D^{n-1}_i$ to form closed tubes $D^1\times D^{n-3}$. As the basepoint of each cone, we can take an arbitrary point on the open cone line from the center of each $D^{n-1}_i$ to the cone point of the cone we have appended onto ${\partial}D^{n}$ to create the ambient sphere. This construction gives us a sphere knots with point singularities whose link knots are the $K_i$.
Therefore, by the preceding paragraphs, the study of the homotopy properties of sphere knots with point singularities can be considered equivalent to the study of such properties of locally-flat disk knots. We assume such an identification throughout the following.
#### Knots as stratified spaces
We conclude this preliminary section with some definitions from the theory of stratified spaces that will be useful in the second half of the paper. We first provide some general definitions and then demonstrate how they will apply to the study of knots. Let us begin by recalling the definition of a stratified pair of paracompact Hausdorff spaces $(Y,Z)$ as given in [@CS]. Let $c(A)$ denote the open cone on the space $A$, and let $c(\emptyset)$ be a point. Then a *stratification* of $(Y,Z)$ is a filtration $$Y=Y_n\supset Y_{n-1} \supset Y_{n-2}\supset \cdots \supset Y_0\supset Y_{-1}=\emptyset$$ such that for each point $y\in Y_i-Y_{i-1}$ (if it is non-empty), there exists a *distinguished neighborhood* $N$, a compact Hausdorff pair $(G,F)$, a filtration $$G=G_{n-i-1}\supset \cdots \supset G_0\supset G_{-1}=\emptyset,$$ and a homeomorphism $$\phi: {\mathbb{R}}^i\times c(G,F)\to (N,N\cap Z)$$ that takes ${\mathbb{R}}^i\times c(G_{j-1},G_{j-1}\cap F)$ onto $(Y_{i+j},Y_{i+j}\cap Z)$. This condition says that neighborhoods of points are locally cone bundles over euclidean space. The sets $Y_i$ are called the *skeleta* of $Y$ and the sets $Y_i-Y_{i-1}$ are the *strata*. The definition implies that the stratum $Y_i-Y_{i-1}$ is a manifold of dimension $i$. The pair $(G,F)$ occuring in the definition of a distinguished neighborhood is called the *link* or *link pair* of the point $y$.
For $(Y,Z)$ a compact PL pair, such a stratification exists with each $\phi$ a PL map and with the filtration refining the filtration by $k$-skeletons (see [@Bo]). Note, however, that the choice of such a stratification is generally very non-unique (for example, given any triangulation of $Y$ for which $Z$ is a subcomplex, one can filter by simplicial skeleta to obtain a stratification). We refer the reader to [@Bo Ch. I] for a more comprehensive treatment of PL stratified spaces.
Now suppose that we have a PL knot $K$ (recall that by the standard abuse of notation we may use $K$ to stand for the image of the embedding). In this case, we take $Y=S^n$ and $Z=K$, and we can consider stratifications of the pair $(S^n, K)$. One such stratification is obtained by choosing a fixed triangulation of the PL pair $(S^n, K)$ and then letting $S^n_i$, $0\leq i\leq n-2$, be the union of the $i$ simplices in $K$. Note that then $S^n_{n-2}=K$. We also set $S^{n}_{n-1}=K$ and $S^{n}_n=S^n$. This is easily checked to be a stratification, though once again not a unique one. Since $S^n$ and $K\cong S^{n-2}$ are both manifolds, it is not hard to see that for a point $y\in Y_i-Y_{i-1}$, the spaces $G$ and $F$ in the link pair must be PL homeomorphic to spheres of respective dimensions $n-i-1$ and $n-i-3$, and we call this pair the *link knot*. The pair $(G,F)$ may be non-trivially knotted, even non-locally-flatly. However, for $i\geq n-3$, any embedding $S^{n-i-3}{\hookrightarrow}S^{n-i-1}$ must be unknotted, and so the neighborhood $N$ will be the standard (open) unknotted ball pair. Thus the set of non-locally flat points must lie in a subcomplex of dimension $\leq n-4$. Letting $\Sigma$ denote the *singular set of non-locally flat points*, we can thus always find stratifications of the form $S^n_n\supset S^n_{n-1}=S^n_{n-2}=K\supset S^n_{n-3}= S^n_{n-4}=\Sigma \supset S^n_{n-5}\supset \ldots$. N.B. This convention differs slightly from the standard of allowing $\Sigma$ to represent the entire “singular locus” $S^{n}_{n-2}$.
It is possible to continue describing an explicit stratification determined by the minimal dimensions of link knot pairs. In other words, we could let $S^n_{n-4}=\Sigma$ be the set of points whose distinguished neighborhoods can only be described with link knots of dimension $\geq (3,1)$, $S^n_{n-5}$ the set of points whose distinguished neighborhoods can only be described with link knots of dimension $\geq (4,2)$, and so on. However, we will not need this kind of refinement, so we omit further details. In the second half of this paper we will be concerned with knots that allow stratifications with certain properties.
Knot groups {#S: groups}
===========
With the notation above, we will refer to $\pi_1(C)$ as the *knot group* and $\pi_1(X)$ as the *boundary knot group* of a not necessarily locally-flat knot (if a given knot is locally-flat, then $X$ is trivial). When considering both groups together, we sometimes refer to the “knot group pair”. The following theorem generalizes Kervaire’s [@Ke] necessary conditions for a group ${\bar G}$ to be a knot group, $\pi_1(C)$.
\[T: nec con\] The following conditions are necessary for the group ${\bar G}$ to be the fundamental group of the complement, $C$, of a (not necessarily locally-flat) PL knot $K\subset S^n$, $n\geq 3$:
1. \[J: finite\]\[I: finite\] ${\bar G}$ is finitely presentable,
2. \[J: Z\]\[I: Z\] ${\bar G}/[{\bar G},{\bar G}]\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$,
3. \[J: H2\]\[I: H2\] $H_2({\bar G})=0$,
4. \[J: closure\]\[I: closure\] There exist an element ${\bar g}\in {\bar G}$ such that ${\bar G}$ is the normal closure of ${\bar g}$ (i.e. ${\bar g}$ is of *weight one*).
We will refer to conditions - as the *Kervaire conditions* - on a group.
The proof is a slight generalization of that of Kervaire [@Ke] for smooth knots:
As in [@Ke], condition holds because $C$ is homotopy equivalent to the complement of the open regular neighborhood of the knot, and this is a finite simplicial complex; condition is due to $C$ being a homology circle by Alexander duality; and condition follows from $C$ being a homology circle and the Hopf exact sequence (see [@L77]) $$\begin{CD}
\pi_2(C)@>\rho >>H_2(C)@>>>H_2(\pi_1(C))@>>>0,
\end{CD}$$ where $\rho$ is the Hurewicz homomorphism.
Condition requires the most modification, but again the basic idea is Kervaire’s. We show that the adjunction of one relation to the group $\pi_1(C)$ will kill it; ${\bar g}$ can then be taken as the relator. Equivalently, we show that attaching a disk to $C$ will create a simply-connected space. In particular, choose a point $c_0$ at which the knot is locally-flat. Then, locally, the regular neighborhood of $c_0$ in $S^n$ is isomorphic to a 2-disk bundle in $S^n$ over a neighborhood of $c_0$ in $K$ and whose boundary circle bundle lies in ${\partial}C$. Let $Q$ be the 2-disk fiber with center $c_0$. We show that $C\cup Q$ is simply connected.
Suppose that $\alpha$ is a curve representing an element of $\pi_1(C \cup Q)$. By PL approximation, we may assume that $\alpha$ is PL. Since $S^n$ is simply-connected for $n\geq 2$, there exists a map $F: D^2 \to S^n$ such that $F|_{S^1}=\alpha$. We may also assume $F$ to be a PL map into $S^n$, and by general position, we can assume (by applying a homotopy if necessary) that $F(D^2)$ intersects the knot only at a finite number of locally-flat points, $\{F(b_i)\}$, $b_i\in \text{int}(D^2)$ (since the dimension of the singular set must be $\leq n-4$ as seen in our discussion of stratified pseudomanifolds in Section \[S: cons\]). We can further assume, by further modifying $F$ if necessary, that $F$ maps a small disk $D^2_i$ around each $b_i$ homeomorphically onto a disk representing the fiber over $F(b_i)$ in the $2$-disk bundle that is a regular neighborhood of $F(b_i)$ in $S^n$. Now choose paths, $w_i$, in the knot $K$ from each $F( b_i)$ to $c_0$. By general position, we may assume that these paths are disjoint from each other (except at $c_0$) and from the singular set of the knot. We can now homotop $F$, using these paths, so that each $D^2_i$ contains a disk $E^2_i\subset \text{int}(D^2_i)$ such that $F(E^2_i)=Q$ and $F(D^2_i-E^2_i)\subset C$. Roughly speaking, since each path $w_i$ lies in the locally-flat part of the embedding, we can homotop $F(E_i)$ to $Q$ in a neighborhood of the path while keeping its boundary disjoint from the knot and then stretch $F(D^2_i-E^2_i)$ into the trace of the resulting homotopy on the boundary of $E^2_i$. Then, since this trace is disjoint from the knot, it can be pushed back into the complement of the regular neighborhood. Once this modification has been accomplished for all $i$, we see that $\alpha$ is in fact nullhomotopic in $C\cup Q$. Therefore, $C\cup Q$ is simply connected.
For the case of knots with point singularities, we can generalize Kervaire’s [@Ke] classification in higher dimensions to obtain a full classification of knot group pairs in dimensions $n\geq 6$. By the geometric arguments of Sections \[S: cons\], this is equivalent to classifying the groups of locally-flat disk knots together with those of their locally-flat boundary sphere knots.
\[T: class\] Suppose $n\geq 6$. For the groups ${\bar G}$ and $G$ to be the fundamental groups of the respective complements, $C$ and $X$, of a locally-flat PL disk knot $J: D^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}D^n$ and its boundary locally-flat sphere knot and for $\phi: G\to \bar G$ to be the homomorphism induced by inclusion, it is necessary and sufficient that $G$ and $\bar G$ satisfy the Kervaire conditions with elements of weight one $g\in G$ and $\bar g\in \bar G$ such that $\phi(g)=\bar g$.
(Note: our construction will in fact yield smooth knots, giving a slightly stronger realization theorem.)
The necessity of the statements involving $G$ alone follow from Kervaire’s classification of higher dimensional locally-flat knot groups [@Ke]. Those involving ${\bar G}$ alone follow from Theorem \[T: nec con\] and the fact that $C$ is homotopy equivalent to the complement of the non-locally-flat sphere knot given by adding the cone pair on the boundary to our knot pair $(D^n, J)$.
For the map condition, $\phi$ can be taken as the map on $\pi_1$ induced by inclusion. If we fix a *simple meridian* of the boundary sphere knot in $X$, i.e. an embedded circle that bounds an embedded disk which intersects the knot only in a single point, the inclusion takes this meridian to a simple meridian of the disk knot. By Kervaire’s theorem for sphere knots and the proof of Theorem \[T: nec con\] above, the elements $g\in\pi_1(X)\cong G$ and $\bar g\in \pi_1(C)\cong {\bar G}$ whose normal closures generate the groups can be represented by such meridians. Hence, by an appropriate choice of meridians (and basepoints), $\phi(g)={\bar g}$.
We generalize the construction of Kervaire [@Ke] (see also Levine [@L77 §9]).
We begin by constructing a CW complex that will serve as a blueprint for a handlebody construction. First, we construct two separate complexes, $P_2$ and $Q_2$, such that $\pi_1(P_2)=G$ and $\pi_1(Q_2)={\bar G}$. In fact, since $G$ and ${\bar G}$ are finitely presented, we can take each complex to be the one point union of a set of circles representing generators together with a set of $2$-disks attached to represent the relations. Now, let $P_1$ and $Q_1$ be the $1$-skeleta of $P_2$ and $Q_2$, consisting of the one point unions of the circles representing generators $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ of $G$ and ${\bar G}$. Each $\phi(\alpha_i)$ can be represented by some product of generators of ${\bar G}$, and we use this to define a base-point preserving map from $P_1$ to $Q_1$. In other words, define the map on the circle representing $\alpha_i$ to be a representation of $\phi(\alpha_i)$ in $\pi_1(Q_2)={\bar G}$, which we can assume to lie in $Q_1$. Let $I_{\phi}$ denote the mapping cylinder of the induced map $P_1\to Q_2$, and let $T_2=I_{\phi}\cup P_2$, the quotient along the inclusion of $P_1$ into both $P_2$ and $I_{\phi}$. If we abuse notation and let $\phi$ also stand for the map $P_1\to Q_1$, then $T_2\sim_{h.e.} P_2\cup_{\phi} Q_2$.
Notice that $\pi_1(T_2)\cong {\bar G}$. In fact, $P_2\cup_{\phi} Q_2$ has only the circles representing the generators $\beta_i$ as $1$-cells, and the only $2$-cells are the disks representing the relations in ${\bar G}$ and the images of the $2$-cells from $P_2$. But the boundary of each $2$-cell, say $D$, in $P_2$ represents the $0$ element of $G=\pi_1(P_2)$, and so under the map of $1$-cells induced by $\phi$, ${\partial}D$ must be mapped to a product of generators of ${\bar G}$ which already bounds in ${\bar G}$, because $\phi$ is a homomorphism. Therefore, in $P_2\cup_{\phi} Q_2$, the $2$-cells from $P_2$ introduce no new relations among the $\beta_i$, and $\pi_1(P_2\cup_{\phi} Q_2)\cong \pi_1(Q_2)\cong {\bar G}$.
Notice also that $T_2$ is a CW complex of dimension $2$. It can be obtained from the disjoint union of $P_2$ and $Q_2$ by adding a $1$-handle, $\gamma$, to connect the $0$-skeleta and then attaching $2$-cells whose attaching maps represent $\alpha_i\phi(\alpha_i)^{-1}$.
Next, we are going to need to modify the CW pair $(T_2,P_2)$ to a pair $(T,P)$ so that each of $T$ and $P$ are homology circles. This will be needed below.
The modules $H_1(T_2)$ and $H_1( P_2)$ are already as desired because $H_1(P_2)\cong G/[G,G]\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $H_1( T_2)\cong {\bar G}/[{\bar G}, {\bar G}]\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$. Also $H_i( P_2)=H_i( T_2)=0$ for $i>2$ since $P_2$ and $T_2$ are $2$-dimensional complexes. Now consider $H_2( P_2)$ and $H_2(T_2)$. Since there are no $3$-cells in $T_2$ or $P_2$, these are each free abelian groups, as they are the kernels of the boundary maps on the free abelian chain groups $C_2( T_2)$ and $C_2( P_2)$. Furthermore, the same is true of $H_2(T_2,P_2)$ as the kernel of the boundary map of the chain group $C_2(T_2, P_2)$, which is free abelian because $C_2( P_2)$ is a free direct summand of $C_2(T_2)$. Again since there are no $3$-cells, we have the exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
0@>>> H_2(P_2) @>>> H_2( T_2) @>>> H_2(T_2, P_2) @>{\partial}_*>>,
\end{CD}$$ which we can truncate as $$\begin{CD}
0@>>> H_2( P_2) @>>> H_2( T_2) @>>> \text{ker}({\partial}_*) @>>> 0.
\end{CD}$$ Since $ \text{ker}({\partial}_*)$ is also free as a subgroup of a free group, this sequence splits and $ H_2( T_2)\cong H_2( P_2) \oplus K$, where $K\cong \text{ker}({\partial}_*)$. Notice also that these free groups are all finitely generated since the chain groups are all generated by cells of $T_2$, which is a finite complex by construction.
Let $F$ and $\bar F$ be free groups with the same ranks as $ H_2( P_2)$ and $K$, respectively. Let $\{f_i\}$ and $\{\bar f_i\}$ represent generators of $F$ and $\bar F$, and let $\{e_i\}$ and $\{\bar e_i\}$ represent generators of $ H_2( P_2)$ and $K$. Let ${\partial}: F \oplus \bar F\to H_2( P_2) \oplus K $ be the homomorphism which takes each $f_i$ to $e_i$ and each $\bar f_i \to \bar e_i$. This map is clearly injective, and furthermore the restriction ${\partial}|_F: F\to H_2( P_2)$ is injective. We also claim that each element $e_i\in H_2(P_2)$ can be represented by a $2$-sphere in $P_2$ and that each element $\bar e_i\in H_2(T_2)$ can be represented by a $2$-sphere in $T_2$. These claims follow from the Hopf exact sequences $$\begin{CD}
\pi_2(P_2)@>\rho >>H_2(P_2)@>>>H_2(G)@>>>0\\
\pi_2(T_2)@>\rho >>H_2(T_2)@>>>H_2({\bar G})@>>>0,
\end{CD}$$ since $ H_2(G)= H_2({\bar G})=0$ by assumption. Therefore, let $\{E_i\}$ and $\{\bar E_i\}$ be $2$-spheres representing $\{e_i\}$ and $\{\bar e_i\}$ in $P_2$ and $T_2$. We attach $3$-cells to $T_2$ along the $E_i$ and $\bar E_i$. Let $T$ be the resulting complex, and let $P$ be the subcomplex complex obtained from attaching the $3$-cells along the $E_i$ to $P_2$. Then $H_i( P)=H_i( T)=0$, $i\geq 2$, $H_1( T)\cong H_1( T_2)$, $H_1( P)\cong H_1( P_2)$. Therefore, we can conclude that the CW $3$-complexes $P$ and $T$ are both homology circles.
We now indicate how to create a handlebody based upon the CW-pair $(T,P)$; we outline the procedure in this paragraph and provide the technical justifications in the next two. First, we construct a handlebody of dimension $n\geq 6$ modeled on $P$. In other words, begin with a ball $B^{n}$ and then attach one $1-$handle for each for each generator $\alpha_i$ and then $2$ and $3$ handles as prescribed by the construction of $P$. Let $M$ denote this handlebody, which will be homotopy equivalent to $P$. Now consider $M\times I$, and add the remaining handles as handles of dimension $n+1$ to create an $n+1$-manifold homotopy equivalent to $T$. We can assume that no handles are attached to $M\times 0$.
Let us call this new handlebody $N$; it will be homotopy equivalent to $T$.
We now justify this procedure by using some basic constructions from surgery theory. Let us first construct $M$ inductively. Suppose that we have chosen an order on the cells of $P$ so that $P$ is constructed by attaching the cells in order and with increasing dimensions. Suppose that $P_k$ is the subcomplex consisting of the first $k$ cells of the construction, and suppose that $D_{k+1}$ is the next cell to attach and that $D_{k+1}$ has dimension $r+1$. Suppose that we have an $n$-dimensional handlebody $M_k$ which consists of handles of core dimension $\leq 3$, that $M_k$ is stably parallelizable, and that there is a homotopy equivalence $f:M_k\to P_k$. We want to add a handle to $M_k$ to create $M_{k+1}$ which has the same properties and is homotopy equivalent to $P_{k+1}=P_k\cup D_{k+1}$. If $\alpha:{\partial}D_{k+1}\to P_k$ is the attaching map, the homotopy equivalence of $M_k$ and $P_k$ gives a homotopy class in $\pi_r(M_k)\cong\pi_r(P_k) $. Since $r\leq 2$, $n>5$, and $M_k$ consists of handles of core dimension $\leq 3$, any element of $\pi_r(M_k)$ can be represented by a homotopy element in $[\tilde \alpha]\in\pi_r({\partial}M_k)$ by general position. We want to form $M_{k+1}$ by adding an $r+1$ handle along $\tilde \alpha$. Then clearly we could obtain a homotopy equivalence $M_{k+1}\sim_{h.e.}P_{k+1}$ by extending $f$. The issue of whether we can attach such a handle is the standard surgery problem on ${\partial}M$ given by the diagram $$\begin{CD}
S^r &@>\text{inclusion}>>& D^{r+1}\\
@VV\tilde{\alpha}V&& @VV\text{attachment}V\\
{\partial}M_k& @>f>> & P_{k+1}.
\end{CD}$$ But since $r<n/2$, this surgery problem has a smooth solution, and the union of $M_k$ with the trace of the surgery gives us a new handlebody $M_{k+1}$ which has handles of the appropriate dimension and to which the stable parallelizablility extends (see [@W Chapter 1], where we have take $\nu$ equal to the trivial bundle over $P_k$). We then continue by induction. Note that as the base step, we can use the trivial map of an $n$-ball to the base point of $P$.
Next, we want to add handles to $M\times I$ to obtain a handlebody $N$ homotopy equivalent to $T$. This time $N$ will be the trace of a sequence of surgeries on the interior of $M$. So let us order the cells of $T- P$, and suppose that we have created a stably parallelizable manifold $N_k$ homotopy equivalent to $T_k$ by adding a sequence of handles of core dimension $\leq 3$ to $M\times I$ in such a way as to leave $M\times 0$ invariant. The next attaching map $\alpha: S^r\to T_k$ gives an element of $\pi_r(N_k)$, and by general position, we may assume that this element can be represented by an element $[{\tilde{\alpha}}]\in \pi_r({\partial}N_k)$. Furthermore, by general position, we can assume that ${\tilde{\alpha}}(S^r)\subset {\partial}N_k- (M\times 0)$. Again we have a surgery problem, and the hypotheses on the dimensions and the stable parallelizability of $N_k$, and hence of ${\partial}N_k$, allow us to attach the next handle to create $N_{k+1}$ with the desired properties. The base case for this induction can be taken as the homotopy equivalence $M\times I\to P$ induced by the equivalence $M\to P$. After attaching all of the handles, we obtain $N$.
Having created $N$, we are really interested in the manifold ${\partial}N-\text{int}(M\times 0)$, whose boundary is ${\partial}M\times 0$. Let us call this manifold/boundary pair $(Z,Y)$. The boundary $Y$ is, in fact, that space which is created by Kervaire and then surgered to create a sphere knot with group $G$. In our procedure, this will be the result on the boundary. From Levine’s treatment [@L77] of Kervaire’s construction, we know that $\pi_1(Y)\cong \pi_1(P)\cong G$ and $H_*(Y)\cong H_*(S^1\times S^{n-2})$. We next claim that $\pi_1(Z)\cong \pi_1(T)\cong {\bar G}$, that the inclusion $Z{\hookrightarrow}Y$ induces $\phi: G \to {\bar G}$ on $\pi_1$, and that $H_*(Z)\cong H_*(S^1\times D^{n-1})$.
As an $n+1$-dimensional handlebody consisting of handles of core dimension $\leq 3$, $\pi_i(N, {\partial}N)=0$ for $i<n-2$ by general position. Similarly, $ \pi_i({\partial}N, {\partial}N-\text{int}(M\times 0))\cong \pi_i({\partial}N,Z)=0$ for $i<n-3$. Therefore, $\pi_i(Z)\cong \pi_i(N)$ (induced by inclusion) for $i<n-4$. Since $n>5$, this implies that $\pi_1(Z)\cong {\bar G}$. To verify that the map on $\pi_1$ is as desired, consider the commutative diagram of inclusions $$\label{D: incs}
\begin{CD}
Y& @>>> &Z\\
@VVV&&@VVV\\
M&@>>>& N.
\end{CD}$$ The vertical inclusion maps induce isomorphism on $\pi_1$; by Kervaire for the left map and by the above for the right map. Since the map $\pi_1(M)\to \pi_1(N)$ is the same as $\phi:\pi_1(P) \to \pi_1(T)$, the top map is also $\phi:G\to {\bar G}$.
We next show that $Y\cong {\partial}M$ is a homology $S^1\times S^{n-2}$, and ${\partial}N$ is a homology $S^1\times S^{n-1}$. This follows just as in the proof of [@L77]\[Lemma 10.1\]; we briefly recall the reasoning: Since ${\partial}M$ is an $n-1$-manifold and ${\partial}N$ is an $n$-manifold, it suffices to prove that the homologies agree with those claimed in dimensions less than or equal to $\frac{n-1}{2}$ and $\frac{n}{2}$, respectively. As noted in the last paragraph, $(N, {\partial}N)$ is $n-3$ connected, and similarly, since $M$ is an $n$-dimensional handlebody consisting of handles of core dimension $\leq 3$, $(M, {\partial}M)$ is $n-4$ connected. Thus $H_i({\partial}M)\cong H_i(M)\cong H_i(P)$ and $H_j({\partial}N)\cong H_j(N)\cong H_j(T)$ for $i\leq n-5$ and $j\leq n-4$. Since $M$ and $N$ are homology circles, being homotopy equivalent to $P$ and $T$, we obtain the desired homology groups in these dimensions. The only remaining cases of concern are those where $n=6$, $i=2$, and $j=3$, or when $n=7$ and $i=3$. For $n=6$, we have the exact sequences $$\begin{CD}
H_3(M,{\partial}M)@>>> H_2({\partial}M) @>>> 0\\
H_4(N,{\partial}N) @>>> H_3 ({\partial}N) @>>> 0,
\end{CD}$$ since $M$ and $N$ are homology circles. But $H_3(M,{\partial}M)\cong H^3(M)=0$ and $H_4(N,{\partial}N)\cong H^2(N)=0$, by Lefschetz duality and because $M$ and $N$ are homology circles. Therefore, $ H_2({\partial}M)= H_3 ({\partial}N)=0$. Similarly, when $n=7$, we have $$\begin{CD}
H_4(M,{\partial}M)@>>> H_3({\partial}M) @>>> 0,
\end{CD}$$ and we use $H_4(M, {\partial}M)\cong H^3(M)=0$.
Consider now the Mayer-Vietoris sequence $$\begin{CD}
@>>> H_i(Y) @>>> H_i(M\times 0) \oplus H_i(Z)@>>> H_i({\partial}N) @>>>.
\end{CD}$$ We know that $H_i(Y)\cong H_i(S^1\times S^{n-1})$ and $H_i({\partial}N)\cong H_i(S^1\times S^n)$. Furthermore, $H_i(M)\cong H_i(P)\cong H_i(S^1)$. Therefore, around dimension $1$, the reduced exact sequence is
$$\begin{CD}
0@>>> &{\mathbb{Z}}& @>>>& {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus H_1(Z)&@>>>& {\mathbb{Z}}& @>>>& 0&,\\
\end{CD}$$
where we have used that $Z$ is connected. This sequence must split, and thus $H_1(Z)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$. Also from the sequence, all other $H_i(Z)$ must be $0$ below and at the middle dimension. Since $Y$ is a homology $S^1\times S^{n-1}$, $Z$ will be a homology $S^1\times D^n$ if we show that the map induced by inclusion $H_1(Y)\to H_1(Z)$ is an isomorphism, since this will imply that $H_*(Z,Y)\cong 0$ below and at the middle dimensions, and we can then employ Lefschetz duality.
To show that the map induced by inclusion $H_1(Y)\to H_1(Z)$ is an isomorphism, once again consider the diagram of inclusions . As we have observed, the vertical inclusion maps induce isomorphism on $\pi_1$, so the homology diagram of the same spaces commutes with vertical isomorphisms. Therefore, it suffices to show that the map induced by inclusion $H_1(M)\to H_1(N)$ is an isomorphism, and, by homotopy equivalence, this is equivalent to showing that the map induced by inclusions $H_1(P)\to H_1(T)$ is an isomorphism.
Recall that $g$ and ${\bar g}$ are the defined as the elements of $G$ and ${\bar G}$ whose normal closures are the whole groups $G$ and ${\bar G}$. But then the images of these elements also generate $G/[G,G]\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ and ${\bar G}/[{\bar G},{\bar G}]\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ (see [@L77 §8]). Since, by hypothesis, $\phi$ takes $g$ to ${\bar g}$, we see by the construction of $T$ that the inclusion of a circle representing $g$ in $P$ represents ${\bar g}$ in $T$. In particular, this shows that the inclusion $P{\hookrightarrow}T$ induces an isomorphism on $H_1$.
So, to summarize, at this point we have a manifold pair $(Z,Y)$ such that $\pi_1(Y)\cong G$, $\pi_1(Z)\cong {\bar G}$, inclusion induces the map $\phi:G \to{\bar G}$ of fundamental groups, $Y$ is a homology $S^1\times S^{n-2}$ and $Z$ is a homology $S^1\times D^{n-1}$. Finally, we attach a $2$-handle to $Z$ along a circle representing the element $g$ of $\pi_1(Y)$ (again, note that the dimension conditions and stable parallelizability are sufficient to add a handle). We claim that the resulting manifold/boundary pair $(\Delta, \Sigma)$ is an $n$-disk and that the cocore, $J\cong D^{n-2}$, of the handle is the knot which gives us the desired properties.
Clearly, $\Delta-J$ is homotopy equivalent to $Z$, and therefore possesses the correct fundamental group. Similarly, ${\partial}\Delta-{\partial}J$ is homotopy equivalent to $Y-g$, letting $g$ also stand for an embedded $S^1$ in $Y$ representing $g\in \pi_1(Y)$. Therefore, by general position, $\pi_1(Y)\cong \pi_1({\partial}\Delta-{\partial}D^2)$. The inclusion of these complements induces the appropriate maps. It remains to see that $\Delta$ is a ball. That $\Sigma={\partial}\Delta$ is a sphere follows from Kervaire’s proof of the classification theorem for sphere knot groups (see [@L77], since that construction is the restriction of ours to the boundary). Furthermore, $\Delta$ is simply connected because we attached the handle to $g\in \pi_1(Y)$ which we know also represents ${\bar g}\in \pi(Z)$. Since ${\bar G}$ is the normal closure of ${\bar g}$, this kills the fundamental group. Furthermore, since $Z$ was a homology circle and we have added a handle that kills a free generator of the homology in dimensions $1$, ${\tilde{H}}(\Delta)=0$. It follows from the Whitehead theorem that $\Delta$ is contractible and bounded by a sphere. Since $n>5$, it follows from the higher dimensional Poincare conjecture that $\Delta$ is a PL ball, and the cocore of the last handle gives the desired knot. More generally, since handlebodies can always be assembled smoothly, we can conclude that we have a smooth knotted homotopy disk pair. But since a smooth homotopy sphere which bounds a homotopy ball is standard by the h-cobordism theorem, we actually obtain a smooth disk knot. The embedding respects the structure since it is the standard embedding within the last handle.
If we add the hypotheses to the theorem that $G$ has a presentation with one more generator than relation and that $H_2([G,G])=0$, then there exists a knotted smooth homotopy disk pair $\Delta^3\subset \Delta^5$ with the given groups. For in this case, according to Levine [@L77], the complex $P$ we constructed can be chosen to be $2$-dimensional. Then the dimensions work out sufficiently to apply the above arguments to create manifolds $M$ of dimension $5$ and $N$ of dimension $6$. Then the arguments proceed as in the proof of the theorem, and we obtain a smooth knotted homotopy $5$-disk pair with boundary a knotted homotopy $4$-sphere pair. Since the $5$-dimensional h-cobordism theorem holds in the topological category, we also see that we can obtain a topological disk knot pair in these dimensions with the desired groups.
\[C: decouple\] Suppose $G$ and ${\bar G}$ are two groups which satisfy the Kervaire conditions.
Then for $n\geq 6$, there exists a smooth disk knot $J:D^{n-2}\subset D^n$ such that the groups ${\bar G}$ and $G$ are the fundamental groups of the respective complements, $C$ and $X$, of the disk knot and its boundary sphere knot. If $G$ has a presentation with one more generator than relation and $H_2([G,G])=0$, then there exists a smooth knotted homotopy disk pair $\Delta^3\subset \Delta^5$ with this fundamental group pair.
This follows from the theorem and the above remark provided there exists a homomorphism $\phi:G\to {\bar G}$ that takes $g$ to ${\bar g}$. But we can always construct such a map as follows: Let $\psi:G\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ be the abelianization map, which we know must take $g$ to a generator. Assume that $g\to 1$ (otherwise compose with the isomorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ which takes $1\to -1$). Then let $\eta: {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\bar G}$ be the homomorphism uniquely determined by $1\to {\bar g}$. Now take $\phi=\eta\psi$.
The realization part of the above theorem is still not completely satisfactory if we wish to make the transition back to singular sphere knots. In fact, if we take $G={\mathbb{Z}}$ in the theorem, then the construction yields a disk knot whose boundary sphere knot is actually the unknot. If we then attach the cone on the boundary, we obtain a sphere knot pair, but one that is locally-flat everywhere since the cone on the trivial sphere knot pair yields the trivial disk knot pair. To fix things up, we now indicate how to modify the above construction so that even if we desire $G={\mathbb{Z}}$, we can obtain a non-trivial boundary knot.
The key is simply to use a different choice for the complex $P$ in the construction. Let us construct $P$ by first building its universal cover ${\tilde{P}}$. As the one $1$-skeleton of ${\tilde{P}}$, we take the real line with vertices on the integers and edges connecting these vertices so that there is one edge for each vertex pair $[k, k+1]$. To form the $2$-skeleton, we add a $2$-sphere $S^2$ at each vertex (in other words, we attach one $2$-cell at each vertex using the trivial attaching map which takes ${\partial}D^2$ to the vertex). So far, we have a $2$-complex ${\tilde{P}}_2$ which clearly admits a free ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action. Furthermore, it is obvious that, making an arbitrary choice of basepoint, $\pi_1({\tilde{P}}_2)=0$ and $\pi_2({\tilde{P}}_2)\cong H_2({\tilde{P}}_2)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}]={\mathbb{Z}}[t, t^{-1}]$ as an abelian group and as a ${\mathbb{Z}}$ module through the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action induced via the free ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action of translations on the space. Choose now a Laurent polynomial $p(t)\in {\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]$ such that $p(1)=1$ but $p(t)$ is not identically $1$. This polynomial represents an element of $\pi_2({\tilde{P}}_2)\cong H_2({\tilde{P}}_2)$ and so can be represented by the image of a sphere $S^2$ in ${\tilde{P}}_2$. To form ${\tilde{P}}$, we attach one $D^3$ along this sphere and along each of its translates under the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action. Therefore, we have created a space ${\tilde{P}}$ which still admits a free ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action, $\pi_1({\tilde{P}})$ is still trivial, and $H_2({\tilde{P}})\cong \pi_2({\tilde{P}})\cong {\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]/(p(t))$ by the construction and the Hurewicz theorem. Note also that $H_3({\tilde{P}})=0$, as $C_3({\tilde{P}})$ and $C_2({\tilde{P}})$ are generated by the $3$- and $2$-cells we attached and the boundary map $C_3({\tilde{P}})={\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}]\to C_2({\tilde{P}})={\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}]$ corresponds to multiplication by $p(t)$, which is an injective homomorphism (${\mathbb{Z}}[{\mathbb{Z}}]$ is an integral domain).
Now, let $P$ be the quotient space of ${\tilde{P}}$ under the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action. Clearly $P$ is a space with one cell in each of dimensions zero through three and no other cells. By covering space theory, $\pi_1(P)\cong Z$, generated by the $1$ cell. Also $\pi_2(P)\cong \pi_2({\tilde{P}})\cong {\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]/(p(t))$. Let us compute the homology of $P$. The projection ${\tilde{P}}\to P$ is an infinite cyclic cover since it has covering ${\mathbb{Z}}$ action generated by $t$ and so there is a long exact sequence (Milnor [@M68]) $$\begin{CD}
@>>> H_i({\tilde{P}}) @>t-1>> H_i({\tilde{P}}) @>>> H_i(P) @>>> H_{i-1}({\tilde{P}}) @>>>,
\end{CD}$$ where the map $t-1: H_i({\tilde{P}})\to H_i({\tilde{P}})$ is that induced by the multiplication treating $H_i({\tilde{P}})$ as a ${\mathbb{Z}}[t, t^{-1}]$-module. We already know that $H_i({\tilde{P}})=0$ for $i\geq 3$ and $i=1$. This implies that $H_1(P)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ since clearly $H_0({\tilde{P}})\cong H_0(P)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $t$ acts trivially on $H_0({\tilde{P}})$. Furthermore, multiplication by $t-1$ is an automorphism of $ {\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]/(p(t))$. Rather than construct an algebraic proof of this fact, we note that this result is well known in knot theory because we can construct knots whose complements $S^n-K$ are homology circles but whose Alexander modules in, say, dimension two (i.e. $H_2$ of the infinite cyclic cover of $S^2-K$) are $ {\mathbb{Z}}[t,t^{-1}]/(p(t))$ (see, e.g., Levine [@L66]). Thus $H_2(P)$ and $H_3(P)$ are $0$, so $P$ is a homology circle with non-trivial $\pi_2$ and infinite cyclic $\pi_1$.
The rest of the construction of a disk knot now goes through just as in the proof of the theorem using this $3$-complex $P$ instead of the obvious one. It remains to see that the boundary knot we obtain is non-trivial. Recall that the knot complement of the boundary knot in the construction is ${\partial}M$, where $M$ is a manifold of dimension $\geq 6$ that is homotopy equivalent to $P$. By general position with respect to the cores of the handles, the inclusion $\pi_i({\partial}M)\to \pi_i(M)$ is surjective for $i< n-3$. Since $n\geq 6$, $\pi_2({\partial}M)\to \pi_2(M)$ is surjective. But $\pi_2(M)$ is nontrivial, thus so is $\pi_2({\partial}M)$. Therefore, ${\partial}M$ can not be the complement of the trivial knot as the complement of the trivial knot is homotopy equivalent to $S^1$.
As a side note, observe that if $n\geq 7$ then $\pi_2({\partial}M)\cong \pi_2 (M)$ and $\pi_2({\partial}M)\cong \pi_2( \widetilde{{\partial}M})\cong H_2(\widetilde{{\partial}M})$. Hence in this case the boundary knot will have $p(t)$ as its Alexander polynomial in dimension two.
We summarize this discussion as a proposition:
\[P: nontriv\] Given a pair of groups satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \[T: class\] or Corollary \[C: decouple\], there exist locally-flat disk knots which satisfy the conclusions of the theorem or corollary and whose boundary sphere knots are not the trivial knot (and hence these disk knots are also not trivial).
Boundary knot groups {#S: links}
====================
For sphere knots with singular sets of dimension greater than $0$, the necessary conditions of Theorem \[T: nec con\] might no longer hold for the boundary knot. In particular, calculations below will show that $H_1(X)\cong H_1(\Sigma)\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}$, so the boundary knot group may not abelianize to ${\mathbb{Z}}$. Condition may also fail to hold. For example, if we frame spin a knot $K$ with a point singularity around a manifold $M$ (see [@GBF], [@GBF1], and below) and $G$ is the boundary knot group of $K$, then the boundary knot group of the spun knot $\sigma(K)$ will be $G\times \pi_1(M)$. Therefore, we can not, in general, expect the closure condition to hold since the elements of $G$ and $\pi_1(M)$ commute in $G\times \pi_1(M)$ and $\pi_1(M)$ may not have weight one.
In order to be able to say something about boundary knot groups, we begin by calculating the homology of $X$, a calculation of independent interest which may prove useful in calculating other invariants of knots.
\[T: H of X\] For a PL knot $K\subset S^n$, $$H_i(X)\cong
\begin{cases}
H_0(\Sigma), & i=0,\\
H_{i-1}(\Sigma)\oplus H_{i}(\Sigma),& 1\leq i\leq n-3,\\
0, & i>n-3.
\end{cases}$$ (Note that $H_{n-3}(\Sigma)=0$ since $\Sigma$ can have dimension at most $n-4$.)
This formula holds trivially for $n\leq 3$, since in this case there can be no singular set of the PL embedding. For $n=4$, the singular set will be a set of isolated points, and $X$ will be a disjoint union of homology circles, one for each isolated singular point. Therefore, we can concentrate on the cases $n\geq 5$.
We will use the long exact sequence of the pair $({\partial}C,X)$, so first we calculated the homologies of ${\partial}C$ and of the pair. We first calculate the homology of ${\partial}C$. By Alexander duality, $C$ is a homology circle. So, applying Poincare-Lefschetz duality, the universal coefficient theorem, and the long exact sequence of the pair, we obtain that $$H_{i}({\partial}C)\cong
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb{Z}}, &i=0,1, n-1,n-2,\\
0,& \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
For the homology of the pair $({\partial}C, X)$, let us denote by $T$ the manifold ${\partial}C-\text{int}(X)$ with ${\partial}T\cong {\partial}X$. As the appropriate part of the boundary of the regular neighborhood of the locally-flat part of the knot, $T$ is a tube homotopy equivalent to $S^1\times (K-\Sigma)$. The triviality of the bundle is ensured by the existence of the map $S^n-K\to S^1$ that takes any meridian of the knot to the circle with degree $1$. This map exists because $S^n-K$ is a homology circle; see [@GBF Lemma 4.1] or [@GBF1] for more details. By excision, Poincare-Lefschetz duality, and homotopy equivalence, $H_i({\partial}C, X)\cong H_i(T,{\partial}T)\cong H^{n-1-i}(T)\cong H^{n-i-1}(S^1\times (K-\Sigma))$. This last group is $H^{n-i-1}(K-\Sigma)\oplus H^{n-i-2}( K-\Sigma)$ by the Künneth theorem. Finally, noting that $K-\Sigma$ is connected and applying Alexander duality, we obtain
$$H_i({\partial}C, X)\cong
\begin{cases}
{\tilde{H}}_{i-2}(\Sigma)\oplus {\tilde{H}}_{i-1}(\Sigma), &i<n-2,\\
H_{n-4}(\Sigma)\oplus {\mathbb{Z}},&i=n-2,\\
{\mathbb{Z}},&i=n-1,\\
0,&i>n-1.
\end{cases}$$
Now, since $H_i({\partial}C)=0$ in the middle dimensions, the long exact sequence of the pair $({\partial}C, X)$ shows us that $H_i(X)\cong H_{i+1}({\partial}C, X)\cong {\tilde{H}}_{i-1}(\Sigma)\oplus {\tilde{H}}_{i}(\Sigma)$ for $2\leq i\leq n-4$. It remains to examine the ends of the sequence. The claim at bottom is easy to check, using the correspondence between connected components of $X$ and $\Sigma$.
At the top of the sequence, since $X$ is an $n-1$ manifold with boundary, we have
[$$\begin{CD}
H_{n-1}(X)&@>>>& H_{n-1}({\partial}C)&@>d >> &H_{n-1}({\partial}C, X)&@>>> &H_{n-2}(X)&@>>> &H_{n-2}({\partial}C)\\
&@>>> &H_{n-2}({\partial}C)&@>e>> &H_{n-2}({\partial}C, X)&@>>> &{\tilde{H}}_{n-3}(X)&@>>> &H_{n-3}({\partial}C)\\
\end{CD}$$ ]{}
in which we know that the first and last groups are $0$, the second, third, and fifth are isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}$, and $H_{n-2}({\partial}C, X)\cong {\tilde{H}}_{n-4}(\Sigma)\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}$. We claim that $d$ and $e$ are both split injections, and this will suffice to finish the proof. To this end, consider the map $$H_1(T)\cong H_1(S^1)\oplus H_1(K-\Sigma)\to H_1({\partial}C)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$$induced by inclusion and in which we have utilized the isomorphisms $H_1(S^1)\otimes H_0 (K-\Sigma)\cong H_1(S^1)\otimes {\mathbb{Z}}\cong H_1(S^1)$ and similarly for the other term. From the Künneth theorem, the generator of the first summand of $H_1(T)$ is a meridian of the knot around a locally-flat point of the embedding, and similarly for ${\partial}C$ due to the isomorphism $H_1({\partial}C)\cong H_1(C)$ induced by inclusion. Hence this map is a surjection and a split surjection, since ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is free. By excision and the naturality of Poincare-Lefschetz duality,
we obtain a split surjection $H^{n-2}({\partial}C, X)\cong H^{n-2}(T,{\partial}T)\to H^{n-2}({\partial}C)$ induced by the standard inclusion $C^*({\partial}C, X){\hookrightarrow}C^*({\partial}C)$. Dually, this induces a split injection ${\operatorname{Hom}}(H^{n-2}({\partial}C),{\mathbb{Z}})\to {\operatorname{Hom}}( H^{n-2}({\partial}C, X), Z)$. Notice now that $H^{n-1}({\partial}C)\cong H_0({\partial}C)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ is free, and so is $H^{n-1}({\partial}C,X)\cong H_0(T)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$. Therefore, the natural commutative diagram of universal coefficient sequences for $H_{n-2}({\partial}C)$ and $H_{n-2}({\partial}C, X)$ reduces to
$$\begin{CD}
{\operatorname{Hom}}(H^{n-2}({\partial}C) , {\mathbb{Z}}) &@<\cong<<& H_{n-2}({\partial}C) \\
@VVV&&@VVV\\
{\operatorname{Hom}}(H^{n-2}({\partial}C,X) , {\mathbb{Z}}) &@<\cong<<& H_{n-2}({\partial}C,X) .
\end{CD}$$
Since the lefthand map is a split injection, so must be the righthand map, but this is exactly the standard map induced by projection and so the same map that we considered in the long exact sequence of $({\partial}C, X)$.
The claim for the map $H_{n-1}({\partial}C)\to H_{n-1}({\partial}C, X)$ is even simpler to prove since this is the canonical map of orientation classes.
\[C: link group\] If $\Sigma$ is connected and $G$ is the group of the boundary knot, i.e. $G\cong \pi_1(X)$, then $G/[G,G]\cong H_1(X)\cong H_1(\Sigma)\oplus H_0(\Sigma)$, and there is a surjection $H_2(X)\cong H_2(\Sigma)\oplus H_1(\Sigma)\to H_2(G)$.
The first claim follows from the theorem by abelianizing $G$ and the second from the Hopf exact sequence.
If $\Sigma$ is $2$-connected, then $G\cong \pi_1(X)$ and ${\bar G}\cong \pi_1(C)$ must satisfy conditions - of Theorem \[T: class\].
The necessity of the conditions involving ${\bar G}$ are the content of Theorem \[T: nec con\]. Conditions is true for $G$ because $X$ has a finite complex as a deformation retract. Conditions and follow for $G$ from the previous corollary. The proof of condition for $G$ follows just as in the proof of the equivalent condition in Theorem \[T: nec con\] once we observe that the pair $({\partial}\bar{N}(\Sigma), {\partial}\bar{N}(\Sigma)\cap K)$ is a locally-flat pair and that $\pi_1({\partial}\bar{N}(\Sigma))\cong \pi_1(\Sigma)$ by general position, since $\text{dim}(\Sigma)\leq n-4$.
Finally, the map of condition is that induced by inclusion, which takes a simple meridian of the boundary knot into a simple meridian of the big knot. But we know that we can take these meridians to correspond to the elements $g$ and $\bar g$ whose normal closures give the whole groups.
Using Theorem \[T: class\] and this corollary, we can state the following theorem:
\[T: bd kerv\] Conditions - of Theorem \[T: class\] on the group pairs $({\bar G}, G)$ are necessary and sufficient for these groups to be knot group pairs in the class of PL-knots which have $2$-connected singular sets.
Of course this statement should not be read to imply that we can necessarily realize a group pair once we have fixed the singular set $\Sigma$; we only know how to construct such a knot with point singularities realizing the group pair.
As noted above, if we drop these hypotheses on $\Sigma$, then clearly the conditions of Theorem \[T: class\] may not hold for $G$ (though we have seen above in Theorem \[T: nec con\] that they will still hold for ${\bar G}$). However, we can say a little bit more about the boundary knot group $G=\pi_1(X)$ in another special case: when the knot can be stratified (see Section \[S: cons\]) so that the singular set of the knot $K$ has only one connected stratum which is thus a connected manifold. In particular, $\pi_1(X)$ will be part of an exact sequence involving the fundamental group of the manifold singular set $\Sigma$ and the knot group of the link pair of $\Sigma$.
It follows from the definition of a stratified pseudomanifold (see Section \[S: cons\]) that if the singular set, $\Sigma$, of a manifold embedding has only one stratum, then $\Sigma$ must be a manifold of some dimension $n-k-1$ with $k\geq 3$. If $\Sigma$ is furthermore connected, every point of $\Sigma$ will have the same *link pair* $(L, \ell)$, a locally-flat pair of spaces such that $L$ is PL-homeomorphic to $S^k$ and $\ell$ is PL-homeomorphic to $S^{k-2}$. The pair $(L,\ell)$ can thus be regarded as representing a knot, the *link knot*. Similarly, if a knot can be stratified so that $\Sigma$ possesses a connected component that intersects only one stratum (of dimension $<n-2$), then that component will be a manifold and have associated to it a unique link knot.
\[T: manif sing\] Let $(S^n, K)$ be a PL knot. Suppose that $(S^n, K)$ can be stratified so that some connected component of the singular set intersects only one stratum. Let $M^{n-k-1}$ denote this manifold component and $(L, \ell)$ its link knot. Let $X$ be the exterior of the boundary knot corresponding to this component. Then there is a long exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
@>>> \pi_i(L-\ell)@>>> \pi_i(X) @>>> \pi_i(M)@>>>\pi_{i-1}(L-\ell) @>>> .
\end{CD}$$ In particular, if $G=\pi_1(X)$ is the boundary knot group, then $$\begin{CD}
@>>> \pi_1(L-\ell)@>>> G @>>> \pi_1(M)@>>> 0
\end{CD}$$ is exact. Furthermore, if $\lambda$ is an element of the knot group $\pi_1(L-\ell)$ whose normal closure is the whole group, then the image of $\lambda$ in $G$ is an infinite cyclic subgroup.
Recall that, by definition, $X$ is the exterior of the knot $K$ in the boundary of a closed regular neighborhood $\bar N(M)$ of $M$. But this neighborhood is stratum-preserving homotopy equivalent to the mapping cylinder of a stratified fibration $p: E\to M$ (see [@GBF] or [@GBF3] for proof and explanation of the terminology). Furthermore, the stratified fibration $p: E\to M$ has as stratified fiber a stratified space that is stratum-preserving homotopy equivalent to the pair $(L,\ell)$. In particular, this implies that the restriction of $p$ to the top stratum of $E$, say ${\mathcal{E}}$, is a fibration whose fiber, ${\mathcal{L}}$, is homotopy equivalent to $L-\ell$. Therefore, from this fibration we obtain a long exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
@>>> \pi_i(L-\ell)@>>> \pi_i({\mathcal{E}}) @>>> \pi_i(M)@>>>.
\end{CD}$$
It remains to show that $\pi_i({\mathcal{E}})\cong \pi_i(X)$. Let $Y$ denote the mapping cylinder of $p:E\to M$ (stratified so that $M$ is the bottom stratum with the higher dimensional skeleta being the mapping cylinders of those of $E$). Then $E$ is stratum-preserving homotopy equivalent to $Y-M$ and, in particular, ${\mathcal{E}}$ is homotopy equivalent to the top stratum of $Y-M$. But $Y$ is stratum preserving homotopy equivalent to $\bar N(M)$ so that ${\mathcal{E}}\sim_{h.e.} \bar N(M)-\bar N(M)\cap K$. Finally, we note that the inclusion of $X$ into $\bar N(M)-\bar N(M)\cap K$ is a homotopy equivalence. This follows since both spaces are triangulable and the inclusion is a weak homotopy equivalence by an easy corollary to the stratified generalized annulus property for regular neighborhoods (see the proof of [@GBF2 Lemma 8.7]; this lemma actually concerns intersection homology, but the proof applies equally well to the homotopy groups of a fixed stratum).
To prove the last statement of the theorem, we can consider $L$ as a subset of $\bar N(M)-M$ by choosing a sufficiently small distinguished neighborhood of some point of $M$ and choosing a homeomorphic image of $L$ determined by the product structure of the distinguished neighborhood. As a consequence of the discussion in the proof of [@GBF3 Theorem 6.1], the following diagram exists and commutes up to stratum-preserving homotopy: $$\begin{CD}
L &@>>>& {\mathcal{L}}\\
@VVV&&@VVV\\
\bar N(M) &@<<<& Y,
\end{CD}$$ where ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a fiber of $p:E\to M$, the vertical maps are inclusions, and the top and bottom maps are stratum-preserving homotopy equivalence. This implies, in particular, that the map $\pi_1(L-\ell)\to G$ of our long exact sequence is, up to isomorphism, that induced by an inclusion of $L-\ell$ into $\bar N(M)-K$ (taking into account the homotopy equivalence of $X$ and $\bar N(M)-K$). Now consider the following commutative diagram in which the vertical maps represent abelianizations and the horizontal maps are induced by inclusions: $$\label{D: abel}
\begin{CD}
\pi_1( L-\ell) &@>>>& G\cong \pi_1(\bar N(M)-K)\\
@VVV&&@VVV\\
H_1(L-\ell)\cong Z& @>>> & H_1(\bar N(M)-K)&.
\end{CD}$$ Up to isomorphism, the map of our exact sequence is that represented by the top line of this diagram. So let $\lambda$ be an element of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$ whose normal closure is the whole link knot group. We know from our previous discussions that the left map takes $\lambda$ onto a generator. But any cycle representing the image of $\lambda$ in $H_1(L-\ell)$ is homologous to a simple meridian of the knot $\ell$ (up to orientation), and if any multiple of the image of such a cycle bounded in $\bar N(M)-K$ then it would also bound in $S^n-K$. But this is impossible since a simple meridian of $\ell\subset K$ is also clearly a simple meridian of $K$ which we know generates $H_1(S^n-K)\cong Z$. Thus the composite $H_1(L-\ell)\to H_1(\bar N(M)-K)\to H_1 (S^n-K)$ is an isomorphism and the image of $\lambda$ must generate an infinite cyclic subgroup of $H_1(\bar N(M)-K)\cong H_1(X)$. By the commutativity of the diagram, it follows that the image of $\lambda$ must also generate such a subgroup in $G$.
\[C: s.c. man’\] In the setting of Theorem \[T: manif sing\], if $\Sigma$ is a simply-connected manifold, then there is a surjection $\pi_1(L-\ell)\to G$. If $\Sigma $ is $2$-connected, $\pi_1(L-\ell)\cong G$.
This is clear from Theorem \[T: manif sing\].
\[C: s.c. man\] If $K$ is a PL knot possessing a stratification such that the singular set is a single stratum consisting of a $2$-connected manifold $\Sigma$, then the group of the boundary knot, $G=\pi_1(X)$, must satisfy the Kervaire conditions.
Note that we already know that this corollary is true if $\Sigma$ is a point, so we can assume that $\Sigma$ has dimension $\geq3$ and the knot dimension $n\geq 7$ since dim$(\Sigma)\leq n-4$ and the hypotheses cannot hold if $\Sigma$ is a manifold of dimension $1$ or $2$.
From the previous corollary, we know that $G$ is the quotient of a knot group $\pi_1(L-\ell)$. It follows immediately that $G$ must be finitely generated since this is true of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$. Next, since it follows from Theorem \[T: H of X\] that $H_1(X)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $H_2(X)=0$, it must be that $G$ abelianizes to ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and that $H_2(G)=0$ by the Hopf exact sequence. It remains to see that $G$ is the normal closure of one of its elements. This is equivalent to showing that there is an element $g\in G$ such that adding the relation $g=1$ to the presentation kills the group. But we already know that there exists such and element, say $x$, in $\pi_1(L-\ell)$ and that, since $G$ is a quotient of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$, $G$ can be presented by adding extra relations to a presentation of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$. Then the group presented by the presentation of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$ together with both the extra relations $x=1$ and those that must be added to obtain a presentation of $G$ is the trivial group. But clearly this is the same group obtained from the presentation of $G$ together with the relation given by setting the image of $x$ equal to $1$. In other words, $G$ is the normal closure of the image under the projection of any element of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$ whose normal closure is all of $\pi_1(L-\ell)$. We note for later use that, as usual, such an element can be represented by a simple meridian of the knot $\ell$ which is also homotopic to simple meridians of $K$ and of the boundary knot (assuming a fixed embedding of $(L, \ell)$ in $(S^n, K)$).
We will see below that for $n$ sufficiently large these conditions are also sufficient to classify boundary knot groups of knots with a single manifold stratum if, in addition, the manifold can be embedded with a framing into a sphere. Hence we can obtain a complete characterization of the knot group pairs of knots of this type in a large range of dimensions.
Realizing groups pairs for higher dimensional singular sets {#S: realize}
===========================================================
In order to demonstrate some actual examples of group pairs for knots with higher dimensional singular sets, let us calculate the knot groups of frame twist-spun knots.
First, we briefly review the definition of frame twist-spinning as given in [@GBF] and [@GBF1]. This construction generalizes the frame spinning of Roseman [@Ro89] and the twist-spinning of Zeeman [@Z65]. For a more detailed description, see [@GBF1] or [@GBF7].
To set up the proper language, we adopt some notation from Section 6 of Zeeman’s paper, [@Z65], in which he introduces twist spinning. If we consider the unit sphere $S^{m-1}$ in the Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^m={\mathbb{R}}^{m-2}\times {\mathbb{R}}^2$, then we can define the latitude for a point $y\in S^{m-1}$ as its projection onto ${\mathbb{R}}^{m-2}$ and its longitude as the angular polar coordinate of the projection of $y$ onto the ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ term. Hence the latitude is always well-defined, while the longitude is either undefined or a unique point of $S^1$ dependent on whether or not $y$ lies in the sphere $S^{m-3}$ that is the intersection of $S^{m-1}$ with ${\mathbb{R}}^{m-2}\times 0$. Notice that in the case where the longitude in undefined, the point on the sphere is uniquely determined by its latitude (just as on a standard globe). As in Zeeman’s paper, to simplify the notation in abstract cases, we will simply refer to the latitude-longitude coordinates $(z, \theta)$ in either case.
Let $(D_{-}^{m}, D_{-}^{m-2})$ be an unknotted open disk pair which is the open neighborhood pair of a point that does not lie in the singular set of the embedding of a knot $K\subset S^{m}$. Let $(D_{+}^{m}, K_+)=(S^{m}, K)-
(D_{-}^{m},
D_{-}^{m-2})$. This is a disk knot, possibly not locally-flat, with the unknotted locally-flat sphere pair as boundary. We can identify this trivial boundary sphere pair $(S^{m-1}, S^{m-3})$ with the unit sphere in ${\mathbb{R}}^m$ and its intersection with ${\mathbb{R}}^{m-2}$. Using this identification, we can assign latitude-longitude coordinates $(z,\theta)$ to $S^{m-1}$ such that $S^{m-3}$ is the sphere with undefined longitude. If $M^k$ is a closed connected manifold then $M^k\times (D_{+}^{m},
K_+)$ gives a bundle of knots, and the points in ${\partial}[M^k\times
D_{+}^{m}]$ can be given coordinates $(x,z,\theta)$, where $x\in M$ and $(z,\theta)$ are the latitude-longitude coordinates of ${\partial}D^m$.
Similarly, given an embedding of $M^k\subset S^{m+k-2}$ with framing $\psi$, where $S^{m+k-2}$ is the $(m+k-2)$-sphere embedded in $S^{m+k}$ with the standard normal bundle, we form $$(S^{m+k}, S^{m+k-2})-M^k\times
\text{int}(D^{m-2}\times D^2, D^{m-2}).$$ Again the boundary can be identified as $M^k \times (S^{m-1},
S^{m-3})$, and the framing $\psi$, together with the trivial framing of $S^{m+k-2}$ in $S^{m+k}$, allows us to assign to this boundary the same $(x,z,\theta)$-coordinates.
Given a map $\tau: M^k\to S^1$, we can form the frame twist-spun knot $\sigma_M^{\psi,\tau}(K)$ of ambient dimension $n=m+k$ as $$[(S^{m+k}, S^{m+k-2})-M^k\times \text{int}(D^{m-2}\times D^2, D^{m-2})]
\cup_f [M^k\times (D_{+}^{m}, K_+)],$$ where $f$ is the attaching homeomorphism of the boundaries $$f:{\partial}[M^k\times (D_{+}^{m}, K_+)]\to{\partial}[(S^{m+k}, S^{m+k-2})-M^k\times \text{int}(D^{m-2}\times D^2, D^{m-2})]$$ which, identifying each with $M^k \times (S^{m-1},
S^{m-3})$ as above, takes $(x,z,\theta)\to (x, z, \theta + \tau(x))$, where we define the addition in the last coordinate as the usual addition on $S^1={\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. The map $f$ is well-defined on $M^{k}\times (S^{m-1}-S^{m-3})$ and also on $M^k\times
S^{m-3}$, if we ignore the undefined longitude coordinate. Observe that on each sphere $*\times (S^{m-1}, S^{m-3})$, the map is just the rotation by angle $\tau(x)$ of the longitude coordinate.
Roughly speaking, we are removing a bundle of trivial knots over $M$ and replacing it with a bundle of non-trivial knots using a longitudinal twist determined by $\tau$.
We now compute the knot groups of a frame twist-spun knot. If we spin the $m$-knot $K$ with singular set $\Sigma$, complement $C$, and boundary complement $X$, we represent the corresponding spaces for the spun knot $\sigma^{\psi,\tau}_M(K)$ by $\sigma(\Sigma)$, $\sigma(C)$, and $\sigma(X)$. The singular set $\sigma(\Sigma)$ of the spun knot is just $M\times \Sigma$, and clearly the boundary knot complement $\sigma(X)$ of $\sigma^{\psi,\tau}_M(K)$ is simply $M\times X$. Therefore, if $G\cong \pi_1(X)$ is the boundary knot group for $K$, then $\pi_1(M)\times G$ is the boundary knot group for $\sigma^{\psi,\tau}_M(K)$. Of course if $\Sigma$ is not connected, then these calculations hold separately for each component.
To calculate the group $\pi_1(\sigma(C))$ of the complement $\sigma(C)$ of the knot $\sigma^{\psi,\tau}_M(K)$, we observe as in [@GBF] that $\sigma(C)\cong Y\cup Z$, where $$\begin{aligned}
Y&= S^n-(S^{n-2}\cup\text{int} (M^k\times D^m))\\
Z&= M^k\times (D_+^m-K_+)\end{aligned}$$ and $Y\cap Z= M^k\times (S^{m-1}-S^{m-3})$. But then $Y\sim_{h.e.} S^1$, $Z\sim_{h.e.} M\times C$, and $Y\cap Z\sim_{h.e.} M\times S^1$ (see [@GBF] or [@GBF1] for more details). Therefore, by the van Kampen theorem, $\pi_1(\sigma(C))\cong {\mathbb{Z}}*_{\pi_1(M)\times {\mathbb{Z}}} (\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G})$, where ${\bar G}\cong \pi_1(C)$.
We can simplify this expression by computing the homomorphisms $\pi_1(M)\times {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\pi_1(M)\times {\mathbb{Z}}\to \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}$ induced by the inclusions $Y\cap Z{\hookrightarrow}Y$ and $Y\cap Z{\hookrightarrow}Z$. To make things simpler, let us choose a basepoint which is on the boundary component $S^{m-1}-S^{m-3}$ of the knotted disk complement $D_+^m-K_+$ over some arbitrary base point of $M$. Then a simple meridian in the trivial knot complement $S^{m-1}-S^{m-3}$ is also a simple meridian of the spun knot $\sigma(K)$. Furthermore, by the construction this meridian represents generators of the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ factor of $\pi_1(Y\cap Z)$ and of $\pi_1(Y)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$. Also, it represents a simple meridian of $*\times K$, meaning the copy of $K$ attached over the basepoint of $M$ (note that $D_+^m-K_+$ is homotopy equivalent to $C$). Therefore, in the expression $$\pi_1(\sigma(C))\cong {\mathbb{Z}}*_{\pi_1(M)\times {\mathbb{Z}}} \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G},$$ the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ term on the left can be identified on the right with the product of some representative of some simple meridian in ${\bar G}$ with the identity element of $\pi_1(M)$.
Now, the map $\pi_1(M)\to \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}$ given by the restriction to the first component of the map induced by the inclusion $Y\cap Z\to Z$ is simply the inclusion $\alpha\to \alpha\times 1$, while the map $\pi_1(M)$ to $\pi_1(Y)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ is determined by the map $\tau$. As computed in [@GBF] and [@GBF1], if $x\in \pi_1(M)$, then the map $\pi_1(M)\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ determined by the inclusion $M\times *\subset M\times (S^{m-1}-S^{m-3}){\hookrightarrow}Y$, where $*$ is our basepoint in $S^{m-1}-S^{m-3}$, is given by $\alpha\to \text{deg}(\tau(\alpha))$. But we have already observed that in $\pi_1(\sigma(C))$, the generator of ${\mathbb{Z}}\cong \pi_1(Y)$ can be identified with a certain simple meridian ${\bar g}$ of $K$ and $\sigma(K)$; with the proper choice of meridian representing the element of weight one in ${\bar G}$, this is the same element ${\bar g}$ as before. Putting these computations together, we see that $$\pi_1(\sigma(C))\cong \frac{\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\tau(x))}\}>},$$ where the “denominator” is the normal subgroup generated by all $x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\tau(x))}$ as $x$ ranges over the generators of $\pi_1(M)$. Note, in particular, that if $\tau$ is the trivial map, then $\pi_1(\sigma(C))\cong {\bar G}$, a well-know result for frame-spun and superspun knots (see [@Su92] and [@C70]).
Lastly, let us compute the map induced by inclusion from the boundary knot group $\pi_1(\sigma(X))$ to the knot group $\pi_1(\sigma(C))$. Assume that $\Sigma$ and $M$ are connected, and let us pick a useful base point so that we fix the groups involved within their isomorphism classes. Clearly this base point must be within $\sigma(X)$, but in our calculation of $\pi_1(\sigma(C))$, we assumed a basepoint in $Y\cap Z\cong M\times (S^{m-1}-S^{m-3})$, where the second factor is the complement of the trivial boundary knot left after removing a trivial open disk knot $(D^m_{-}, D^{m-2}_{-})$ from the knot $K$ to be spun. We can let our choice of base in $M$ remain arbitrary. As for the second term, recall that in the spinning construction, we are free to remove from $K$ any trivial disk knot in a neighborhood of any locally-flat point. In particular, clearly we are free to choose $(D^m_{-},D^{m-2}_{-})$ and the neighborhood $\bar N(\Sigma)$ of the singular set of $K$ so that $D^m_{-}\cap \bar N(\Sigma)=\emptyset$ and $(\bar D^m_{-},\bar D^{m-2}_{-})\cap \bar N(\Sigma)\cong (D^{m-1},D^{m-3}) $, in other words so that the boundary unknot $(S^{m-1}, S^{m-3})$ intersects $({\partial}\bar N(\Sigma), {\partial}\bar N(\Sigma)\cap K)$ in a trivial disk knot, say one of its hemispheres. With these choices, we can find base points that lie in both $M\times (S^{m-1}-S^{m-3})$ and in $\sigma(X)$. It then follows immediately from the above calculations that the map induced by inclusion from $\pi_1(\sigma(X))$ to $\pi_1(\sigma(C))$ is the following composition: $$\begin{CD}
\pi_1(M)\times G@>\text{id}\times \phi >> \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}@>\text{projection}>> \frac{\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\tau(x))}\}>}.
\end{CD}$$ If $\Sigma$ has more than one component, then this formula holds for each component where $\phi$ is induced by the inclusion of the boundary knot corresponding to the appropriate component (and we choose base points appropriately).
Let us formalize these calculations as a proposition:
\[P: spin group\] Suppose $K$ is a not necessarily locally-flat knot $K^{m-2}\subset S^m$ with connected singular set $\Sigma$ and that $K$ is frame twist-spun about a connected manifold $M^k$ embedded with framing in $S^{n-2}$ and with twisting function $\tau$. Suppose that $K$ has knot group ${\bar G}$ and boundary knot group $G$. Then the boundary knot group of $\sigma^{\psi,\tau}_M(K)$ is $\pi_1(M)\times G$ and the knot group is $\pi_1(\sigma(C))\cong \frac{\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\tau(x))}\}>}$ for some element ${\bar g}\in{\bar G}$ of weight one. Furthermore, if $M$ and $\Sigma$ are connected, the map from the boundary knot group to the knot group is given by the composition $\pi_1(M)\times G\overset{\text{id}\times \phi}{\to} \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}\to \frac{\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\tau(x))}\}>}$, where $\phi$ is induced by inclusion. If $\Sigma$ is not connected, then the boundary knot about the component $M\times \Sigma_i$ of the singular set of $\sigma(K)$ has group $\pi_1(M)\times \pi_1(X_i)$, where $X_i$ is the corresponding component of the boundary knot of $K$, and the map $\pi_1(M)\times \pi_1(X_i)\to \pi_1(\sigma(C))$ induced on fundamental groups by inclusion is given by the composition $\pi_1(M)\times \pi_1(X_i)\overset{\text{id}\times i_*}{\to} \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}\to \frac{\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\tau(x))}\}>}$, where $i_*:\pi_1(X_i)\to \pi_i(C)={\bar G}$ is induced by inclusion.
Using this, we can prove the following realization statement:
\[T: man real\] Given groups $G$ and ${\bar G}$ which satisfy conditions - of Theorem \[T: class\], a connected manifold $M^k$ that embeds with framing in $S^{n-2}$, $m=n-k\geq 6$, and a homomorphism $\eta:\pi_1(M)\to {\mathbb{Z}}$, there exists a knot $K\subset S^n$ with singular set $M$, boundary knot group $G\times \pi_1(M)$, knot group $\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}/<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\eta(x))}\}>$, and inclusion homomorphism between them given by the composition $\pi_1(M)\times G\overset{\text{id}\times \phi}{\to} \pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}\overset{\text{proj.}}{\to} \frac{\pi_1(M)\times {\bar G}}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}^{\text{deg}(\eta(x))}\}>}$.
By Theorem \[T: class\] and Proposition \[P: nontriv\], we can construct an $m$-disk knot (with non-trivial boundary knot) for the given range of $m$ with groups $G$ and ${\bar G}$ and map $\phi$. Coning on the boundary gives a sphere knot with point singularity and the same groups. We will frame twist-spin these knots about $M$ embedded in $S^{n-2}$ with some framing. To choose $\tau$, notice that the map $\pi_1(M)\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ gives a map in ${\operatorname{Hom}}(H_1(M), {\mathbb{Z}})$ by factoring through the abelianization. This, in turn, gives an element of $H^1(M)$ and hence an element of $[M,K({\mathbb{Z}},1)]=[M,S^1]$. Any element in this homotopy class gives us a map $\tau$ which induces the appropriate map $\eta:\pi_1(M)\to \pi_1(S^1)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ (see [@Sp Chptr. 8]). Therefore, applying the fact that the isomorphism $\pi_1(S^1)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ is given by taking degrees of maps, the theorem follows from the previous proposition by frame twist-spinning if we can show that we are free to spin in such a way that the given element of weight one, ${\bar g}\in {\bar G}$, will play the role of the simple meridian of the same label in the statement of the proposition.
For this, notice that, in the proof of sufficiency in Theorem \[T: class\], the disk knot we end up with is the cocore of the $2$-handle attached along a curve representing ${\bar g}$. Therefore, ${\bar g}$ is a simple meridian of the disk knot. In particular, it bounds the core of the handle. So when, after coning the boundary, we split the knot into $D^n_+$ and $D^n_-$, let us take as $D^n_-$ a thin neighborhood of the core of the handle in the handle. Then $D^n_-$ is constructed around a locally flat point, as desired, and furthermore, it is clear that ${\bar g}$ represents the meridian of the trivial knot $S^{n-3}\subset S^{n-1}$ in ${\partial}D^n_-$, at least up to choice of orientation. But this is the meridian which also represents the ${\bar g}$ of Proposition \[P: spin group\]. So, by making a proper choice of orientation for the generator of $\pi_1(Y)$ in the frame twist-spinning construction, we obtain a knot with the desired groups.
Using these above constructions and Corollary \[C: s.c. man\], we obtain the following classification theorem:
\[T: real sc sing\] If the PL sphere knot $K: S^{n-2}{\hookrightarrow}S^n$ can be stratified so that the singular set $\Sigma$ consists of a single stratum which is a $2$-connected manifold, then for the groups ${\bar G}$ and $G$ to be the fundamental groups of the respective complements, $C$ and $X$, of the knot and its boundary knot and for $\phi: G\to \bar G$ to be the homomorphism induced by inclusion, it is necessary and sufficient that $G$ and $\bar G$ satisfy the Kervaire conditions with elements of weight one $g\in G$ and $\bar g\in \bar G$ such that $\phi(g)=\bar g$. On the other hand, given such a manifold $\Sigma$ of dimension $m$ that can be embedded with framing into a sphere $S^{n-2}$, $n-2\geq m+4$, and $G$, ${\bar G}$, and $\phi$ satisfying these conditions, there exists a PL knot $K: S^{n-2}\subset S^n$ whose singular set is $\Sigma$, whose groups are $G$ and ${\bar G}$, and whose homomorphism induced by inclusion is $\phi$.
The necessity of the conditions on the boundary group $G$ is the content of Corollary \[C: s.c. man\], while that for $G$ has been shown in Theorem \[T: nec con\]. The condition on the map follows from the remark in the proof of Corollary \[C: s.c. man\] according to which we can take $g$ to be represented by a simple meridian of the boundary knot. This is also a simple meridian of $K$ under inclusion and hence its normal closure is all of ${\bar G}$ as in the proof of Theorem \[T: nec con\].
For sufficiency, we an apply Theorem \[T: man real\], noting that the triviality of $\pi_1(M)$ reduces the whole knot group and the boundary knot group to ${\bar G}$ and $G$, respectively.
These constructions and computations can be taken slightly further by taking knot sums of the knots constructed in the theorem with each other, with locally-flat knots, or even with any other singular knots we might have available. Then we obtain knot groups which are the free products amalgamated along appropriate meridians.
As a further alternate construction, we could frame-twist spin about a manifold $M$ that is not connected; we can even spin different knots about different components or use components of different dimensions.
By performing calculations similar to those above and inducting one component at a time, we can see that the knot groups will still be amalgamated free products of the form $$\frac{\pi(M_1)\times {\bar G}_1}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}_1^{\text{deg}(\tau_1(x))}\}>}*_{r_1}\cdots*_{r_{m-1}}
\frac{\pi(M_m)\times {\bar G}_m}{<\{x^{-1}{\bar g}_m^{\text{deg}(\tau_m(x))}\}>},$$ where the subscripts indicate components of $M$ and the relations $r_i$ equate the elements of each component of the product which correspond to the central meridian given in our above computations by the generator of $\pi_1(Y)\cong \pi_1(S^1)$.
The technical details of this computation are left to the reader.
Lastly, as one more example of the kinds of groups we can realize, we compute the groups of the suspension of a knot. As usual, we let $({\bar G}, G)$ stand for the knot group/boundary knot group pair of the knot $K$. If we let ${\mathfrak}{S}$ stand for suspensions (unfortunately, the symbols $\sigma$, $\Sigma$, and $S$ have already been employed), the suspension of a knot pair $(S^n, K)$ is the suspended pair ${\mathfrak}{S}(K)=({\mathfrak}{S}S^n, {\mathfrak}{S}K)$. Let us abuse notation and refer to the complement and boundary complement of ${\mathfrak}{S}(K)$ as ${\mathfrak}{S}(C)$ and ${\mathfrak}{S}(X)$, although these will not actually be suspensions. Since the suspension points are part of the knot, $ \pi_1({\mathfrak}{S}(C))\cong\pi_1(C)\cong {\bar G}$. On the other hand, ${\mathfrak}{S}(X)$ will be $C_+\cup (X\times I)\cup C_-$, two copies of $C$ attached to $X\times I$, one at $X\times 0$ and the other at $X\times 1$, by the canonical inclusions. This is homotopy equivalent to two copies of $C$ identified along $X$. So, if $\Sigma $ is connected, $X$ will be connected and by the van Kampen theorem, $\pi_1({\mathfrak}{S}(X))\cong {\bar G}*_{G}{\bar G}$, where the identification maps are those induced by inclusions $X{\hookrightarrow}C$. In other words, if $i_{\pm}: X_{\pm}{\hookrightarrow}C_{\pm}$ are two copies of the inclusion map and $i_{\pm*}:\pi_1(X_{\pm})\to \pi_1(C_{\pm})$ are the induced maps, then $\pi_1({\mathfrak}{S}(X))\cong \frac{{\bar G}*{\bar G}}{<i_{+*}(\gamma)[i_{-*}(\gamma)]^{-1}>}$ as the denominator runs over all $\gamma\in G$. From the geometry, the map $\pi_1({\mathfrak}{S}(X))\to \pi_1({\mathfrak}{S}(C))$ induced by inclusion is simply the projection $ {\bar G}*_{G}{\bar G}\to {\bar G}$ induced by the identity on each factor.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect in two-dimensional mesoscopic frame in hole systems. We show that differing from the AB effect in electron systems, due to the presence of both the heavy hole and the light hole, the conductances not only show the normal spin-unresolved AB oscillations, but also become spin-separated. Some schemes for spin filter based on the abundant interference characteristics are proposed and the robustness against the disorder of the proposed schemes is discussed.'
author:
- 'J. Zhou'
- 'M. W. Wu'
- 'M. Q. Weng'
title: 'Spin-dependent hole quantum transport in Aharonov-Bohm ring structure: possible schemes for spin filter'
---
[^1]
The aim of using not only charge but also spin degree of freedom of electrons and holes in semiconductor electronic devices leads to a new field: semiconductor spintronics.[@prinz] Spin filter is one of the basic devices in this field. Many schemes for spin filters, most in electron systems, have been proposed[@filter] in order to inject spin-polarized current into semiconductors, by means of spin-selective barriers, stubs,[@stub] weak periodic magnetic modulations[@wu; @wu1] and anti-resonance effects in a double-bend structure.[@wu2]
In this paper, we study the AB effect[@ab; @wu1] in two-dimensional mesoscopic hole system. The interferences between the four spin states, [*i.e.*]{}, the spin-up and -down heavy hole (HH) states and the spin-up and -down light hole (LH) states are more complicated than the electron system. Possible schemes for spin filter are proposed based on the abundant interference characteristics: When the Fermi energy of the lead is lower than the LH band edge of the frame, one can use the AB frame as a spin filter of HH by controlling the AB flux. When a suitable strain is applied on the frame to make the band edges of the HH and the LH close to each other, then if one injects a spin unpolarized HH current into the frame, a spin polarized LH (or HH) current can be obtained by controlling the AB flux.
-0.3cm
-0.3cm
We consider the AB flux $\phi$ introduced by a homogeneous magnetic field $B$ through a two-dimensional (2D) AB frame structure as shown in Fig. \[fig:2dring\], which is grown in a (001) GaAs quantum well with a small well width ($a=\sqrt{10}$ nm). The momentum states along the growth direction ($z$) are therefore quantized and one only need to consider the lowest subband. In this system there is no spin correlation $\langle
a_{k\frac{3}{2}}^{\dag}a_{k-\frac{3}{2}}\rangle$ ($\langle
a_{k\frac{1}{2}}^{\dag}a_{k-\frac{1}{2}}\rangle$) between the spin-up and -down HH’s (LH’s). The spin-up HH’s (LH’s) are only coupled with the spin-down LH’s (HH’s). This can be seen from the Luttinger Hamiltonian[@trebin] $H_L$ in the momentum space with the matrix elements arranged in the order of $\frac{3}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $-\frac{1}{2}$ and $-\frac{3}{2}$: $$H_{L} =\frac {1}
{2m_0}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
P+Q & 0 & R & 0 \\
0 & P-Q & 0 & R \\
R^\dag & 0 & P-Q & 0 \\
0 & R^\dag & 0 & P+Q
\end{array}\right)\ .$$ In this equation $P\pm Q=(\gamma_1\pm\gamma_2)(P_x^2+P_y^2)+
(\gamma_1\mp 2\gamma_2)\frac{\pi^2}{a^2}|t|$ and $R=-\sqrt{3}[\gamma_2(P_x^2-P_y^2)-2i\gamma_{3}P_{x}P_{y}]$ with $\gamma_1=6.85$ and $\gamma_2=2.1$ representing the Luttinger coefficients.[@strain] $m_0/(\gamma_1\pm \gamma_2)$ are the effective masses of the HH and the LH in the $x-y$ plane with $m_0$ representing the free electron mass. Additionally, the Luttinger Hamiltonian can be separated into two independent parts: $ H_{\alpha}(k_x,k_y) =\frac {1}
{2m_0}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
P+Q & R \\
R^{\dag} & P-Q \\
\end{array}\right)$, with the matrix elements arranged in the order of $\frac{3}{2}$ and $-\frac{1}{2}$ for the spin-up HH and the spin-down LH subsystem noted as $\alpha$, and $ H_{\beta}(k_x,k_y) =\frac {1}
{2m_0}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
P+Q & R^{\dag} \\
R & P-Q \\
\end{array}\right)$, with the matrix elements arranged in the order of $-\frac{3}{2}$ and $\frac{1}{2}$ for the spin-down HH and the spin-up LH subsystem noted as $\beta$.
In real space, the Hamiltonian with AB flux can be written in the tight-binding version as:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&H_{2D}=\sum_{i,j,\sigma=\pm\frac{3}{2},\pm\frac{1}{2}}
\epsilon_{\sigma}a_{i,j,\sigma}^{\dag}a_{i,j,\sigma}
+\sum_{i,j,\sigma=\pm\frac{3}{2},\pm\frac{1}{2},\delta=\pm1}
(\gamma_1\pm\gamma_2)V_{i^\prime j^\prime,ij}
[a_{i+\delta,j,\sigma}^{\dag}
a_{i,j,\sigma}+a_{i,j+\delta,\sigma}^{\dag}a_{i,j,\sigma}] \nonumber \\
&&+\Big\{\sum_{i,j,\delta=\pm1,\lambda=0,1}(-\sqrt{3})\gamma_{2}V_{i^\prime j^\prime,ij}[a_{i+\delta,j,
\frac{3}{2}-\lambda}^{\dag} a_{i,j,-\frac{1}{2}-\lambda}-
a_{i,j+\delta,\frac{3}{2}-\lambda}^{\dag}a_{i,j,-\frac{1}{2}-\lambda}] \nonumber \\
&&+\sum_{i,j,\delta=\pm1,\lambda=0,1}\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\gamma_{3}V_{i^\prime j^\prime,ij}
[a_{i+\delta,j+\delta,
\frac{3}{2}-\lambda}^{\dag} a_{i,j,-\frac{1}{2}-\lambda}-
a_{i+\delta,j-\delta,\frac{3}{2}-\lambda}^{\dag}a_{i,j,-\frac{1}{2}-\lambda}]
+\mbox{H.C.}\Big\}\end{aligned}$$
where $i$ and $j$ denote the coordinates along the $x$- and $y$-axes. $t=-\hbar^2/{(2m_{0}a_0^2)}$ is the energy unit with $a_0$ standing for the “lattice” constant. With the vector potential ${\bf A}$ in the Laudau gauge, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\bf A}=(-\frac{1}{2}By,\frac{1}{2}Bx,0)$, the hopping energy from ${\bf r}_{i,j}$ to ${\bf r}_{i^\prime,j^\prime}$ is given by $V_{i^\prime j^\prime,ij}=t\exp[ie{\bf A}\cdot ({\bf r}_{i^\prime, j^\prime}
-{\bf r}_{i,j})/\hbar]$. $\epsilon_{\pm\frac{3}{2}}
=(\gamma_1- 2\gamma_2)\frac{\pi^2}{a^2}|t|-(\gamma_1+ \gamma_2)4t$ and $\epsilon_{\pm\frac{1}{2}}
=(\gamma_1+ 2\gamma_2)\frac{\pi^2}{a^2}|t|-(\gamma_1- \gamma_2)4t$ with the first terms standing for the lowest subband energy in the $z$ direction. The first and the second terms in $\{\cdots\}$ are the nearest-neighbor and the next-nearest-neighbor spin-flip hopping terms. Obviously, there is not any direct or indirect spin flip between the spin-up and -down HH’s or between the spin-up and -down LH’s in the Hamiltonian. Additionally $$H_{strain}=\sum_{i,j,\sigma=\pm\frac{3}{2},\pm\frac{1}{2}}
\epsilon_{|\sigma|}^{s}a_{i,j,\sigma}^{\dagger}a_{i,j,\sigma}$$ is the strain Hamiltonian where $\epsilon_{|\sigma|}^{s}$ represents the strain-induced energy with $\epsilon_{\frac{3}{2}}\not=\epsilon_{\frac{1}{2}}$.[@strain] By adding strain, one may adjust the separation between the HH and the LH bands.
-0.3cm -0.3cm
The Spin-dependent conductance is calculated using the Laudauer-Büttiker formula[@Bu] with the help of the Green function method.[@Da] The two-terminal spin-resolved conductance is given by $G^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}=(e^2/h)\mbox{Tr}
[\Gamma_{1}^{\sigma}G_{1L}^{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}+}\Gamma_{L}^{\sigma^{\prime}}
G_{L1}^{\sigma^{\prime}\sigma-}]$ with $\Gamma_{1}(\Gamma_{L})$ representing the self-energy function for the isolated ideal leads.[@Da] We choose the perfect ideal Ohmic contact between the leads and the semiconductor. $G^{\sigma\sigma^\prime +}_{1L}$ and $G^{\sigma\sigma^\prime -}_{L1}$ are the retarded and advanced Green functions for the conductor, but with the effect from the leads included.
-0.3cm
-0.3cm
We perform a numerical calculation with $d=10a_0$, $W=40a_0$ and $L=200a_0$. A hard wall potential is applied in the transverse direction. In Fig. \[fig:filter\](a), we plot the conductances of the spin-up HH $G^{\frac{3}{2}}=G^{\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}+G^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}}$ and the spin-down HH $G^{-\frac{3}{2}}=G^{-\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{2}}+G^{-\frac{3}{2}
-\frac{3}{2}}$ at the right lead against the AB flux $\phi$. It is noted that as there is no spin flip between the spin-up and -down HH’s, $G^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3}{2}}=G^{-\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}\equiv 0$. By choosing a suitable strain on the two leads, one is able to separate the HH and LH bands well apart and consequently $G^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2}}=
G^{-\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{2}}=0$. We further align the HH band edges of the leads and the frame and choose a low Fermi energy which is $1.4|t|$ above the HH band edge $E_{HH}^{0}$. As there is no strain applied on the frame, the band edge of the LH is $8.29|t|$ above the $E_{HH}^{0}$. Therefore, the LH can not provide a real transport channel but only provides a virtual one. One can see from the figure that when $B=0$, the conductances of the spin-up and -down HH’s are identical. However when $B\not=0$, the conductances vary differently with the AB flux. The reason is understood as follows: When $B=0$, the phase of the subsystem $\alpha$ which comes from the Luttinger spin-orbit coupling has the same magnitude and the same sign as that of the subsystem $\beta$ when a hole travels through different arms as $H_{\alpha}(k_x,k_y)=H_{\beta}(k_x,-k_y)$. For instance, if one considers a hole of subsystem $\alpha$ travelling through the upper arm along an arbitrarily chosen path $P_1$ which consists of a series of hopping, the phase that comes from the accumulation of the imaginary part of the next-nearest-neighbor hopping, such as the hopping in Fig. \[fig:shiyi\](a), is the same as the phase that comes from a hole of subsystem $\beta$ travelling through the mirror-symmetric path of $P_1$, [*i.e.*]{}, $P_1^\ast$. This is because that the hopping of subsystem $\beta$ along $P_1^\ast$ consists of terms as shown in Fig. \[fig:shiyi\](b) and one has $t_1=t_4$ and $t_2=t_3$ with $t_1=-t_2=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\gamma_3t$. Then it is obvious that the conductances of subsystems $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are exactly the same because the interferences of the two subsystems that are determined by the summation of all the paths are entirely mirror-symmetric. However, when $B\ne 0$, the phase shift from the AB effect destroys the above symmetry, [*i,e.*]{} $t_1=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\gamma_3 V_{i+1,j+1;i,j}
\ne t_4=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\gamma_3V_{i+1,j-1;i,j}$ and $t_2=-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\gamma_3 V_{i+1,j-1;i,j}\ne t_3
=-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\gamma_3V_{i+1,j+1;i,j}$. Then the conductances of subsystems $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be different.
It is interesting to see that although there is [*no*]{} real LH channel in the frame and the leads available for the transport due to the low Fermi energy of the leads, the LH states still provide virtual channels which manifest different phases of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ subsystems. It is due to the presence of these virtual channels that separate the HH’s of different spins. If one applies a strain to further increase the separation of the HH and LH in the frame of the above structure, then the contribution from the virtual channels is suppressed and the spin separation becomes smaller. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:far\] where we use the same conditions as those in Fig. \[fig:filter\](a) except the LH band edge is lifted by $50|t|$. One can see that the difference of the conductance $G^{\frac{3}{2}}$ and $G^{-\frac{3}{2}}$ becomes much smaller. And when we lift the LH band edge even higher, we find that $G^{\frac{3}{2}}=G^{-\frac{3}{2}}$ recovers the ordinary AB effect in electron systems.
It is further seen from Fig. \[fig:filter\](a) that by using the different conductances of the spin-up and -down HH’s at different AB flux, one is able to make a spin filter. For example, when $\phi\approx 0.4\phi_0$, one can get spin-up polarization of the HH because $G^{-\frac{3}{2}}=G^{-\frac{3}{2}-\frac{3}{2}}\approx 0$ and $G^{\frac{3}{2}}=G^{\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}\gg G^{-\frac{3}{2}}$; when $\phi\approx 0.3$, one can get spin-down polarization of the HH as $G^{\frac{3}{2}}\approx 0$ and $G^{-\frac{3}{2}}\gg G^{\frac{3}{2}}$. In order to check the roubustness of this filter, we plot in Fig. \[fig:filter\] (b) the spin polarization which is defined as $P=(G^{\frac{3}{2}}-G^{-\frac{3}{2}})/(G^{\frac{3}{2}}+G^{-\frac{3}{2}})$ averaged over 100 random configurations for different disorder strengths versus the AB flux when Anderson disorder is considered. One can see that even when the disorder strength is $0.5|t|$, there is still large spin polarization.
-0.3cm
-0.3cm
We further show that this structure can be used to generate spin polarized current of LH while driving a spin-unpolarized HH charge current into the 2D frame. This can be realized by applying a strain on the left lead which separate the HH and LH far away from each other and a different strain on the frame to recover the $\Gamma$-point degeneracy. There is no strain on the right lead. Therefore the LH band edge of the right lead is $8.29|t|$ above the HH band edge $E_{HH}^{0}$ and the HH (and of course the LH) band edge of the frame is $13.6|t|$ above $E_{HH}^{0}$. By applying a gate voltage on the left lead, one may align the HH band edge of the left lead to be the same as $E_{HH}^{0}$. The Fermi energy is chosen to be $14.65|t|$ above $E_{HH}^{0}$, [*i.e.*]{}, $1.05|t|$ above the HH (LH) band edge of the frame and $6.36|t|$ above the LH band edge of the right lead. Therefore, only a HH charge current can be injected from the left lead into the frame but both HH and LH bands of the frame and the right lead contribute to the transport. The conductances of the HH and the LH are plotted versus the AB flux in Fig. \[fig:HHinject\]. It is seen from the figure that when $\phi=0.68\phi_0$ ($1.37\phi_0$), $G^{\frac{3}{2}}\approx 0$, $G^{-\frac{3}{2}}\approx 0$ and $G^{\frac{1}{2}}=
G^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{2}}=0.294e^2/h$ ($0.371e^2/h$), $G^{-\frac{1}{2}}=G^{-\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}}=0.196e^2/h$ ($0.143e^2/h$). Hence one can obtain a spin polarized current of LH with polarization $P=20$ % (44 %) where $P$ is defined as $P=(G^{\frac{1}{2}}-G^{-\frac{1}{2}})/(G^{\frac{1}{2}}+G^{\frac{1}{2}})$. Therefore, the AB effect of such a 2D frame provides us another scheme for spin filtering that a spin unpolarized HH can be changed to the spin polarized LH. Similarly by choosing $\phi=0.21\phi_0$ and $0.44\phi_0$, one may get spin polarized HH current with a spin-unpolarized HH charge injection. However, the energy dependence of this filter is very sensitive. When we include the effect of disorder, the spin polarized LH current is always accompanied by the HH current.
In conclusion, the AB effect in two-dimensional mesoscopic hole system is studied. We propose some schemes for spin filter based on the abundant interference characteristics. When the band edges of the HH and LH are separated due to the confinement and the Fermi energy is lower than the LH band edge but above the HH band edge, we show that the LH still provides a virtual channel which leads to different phases for the spin-up and -down HH and gives rise to the spin separation. Therefore one can use the frame as a spin filter of HH by controlling the AB flux. Another spin filter is proposed when a suitable strain is applied on the frame in order to make the band edges of the HH and the LH close to each other and the channels of the leads are tuned so that both the HH and LH of the right lead but only the HH of the left lead are below the Fermi energy. When a spin unpolarized HH current from the left lead is injected into the frame, a spin polarized LH (or HH) current can be obtained by controlling the AB flux. It is shown that the first scheme for spin filter is very robust against disorder whereas the second one is very poor against disorder.
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 90303012 and 10247002, the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province under Grant No. 050460203 and SRFDP.
[10]{}
G. A. Prinz, Phys. Today [**48**]{}, 58 (1995); [*Semiconductor Spintronics and Quantum Computation*]{}, eds. D. D. Awschalom, D. Loss, and N. Samarth (Springer, Berlin, 2002); I. Žutić, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 323 (2004). M. J. Gilbert and J. P. Bird, Appl. Phys. Lett. [ **77**]{}, 1050 (2000); G. Papp and F. M. Peeters, Appl. Phys. Lett. [ **78**]{}, 2148 (2001); J. C. Egues ,C. Gould, G. Richter, and L. W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 195319 (2001); Takaaki Koga, Junsaku Nitta, Supriyo Datta, and Hideaki Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 126601 (2002); J. Fransson, E. Holmström, I. Sandalov, and O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 205310 (2003); X. F. Wang and P. Vasilopoulos, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1400 (2002); [**81**]{}, 1636 (2002). F. Sols, M. Macucci, U. Ravaioli, and Karl Hess, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**54**]{}, 350 (1989). J. Zhou, Q. W. Shi, and M. W. Wu, Appl. Phys. Lett. [ **84**]{}, 365 (2004). M. W. Wu, J. Zhou, and Q. W. Shi, Appl. Phys. Lett. [ **85**]{}, 1012 (2004). Q. W. Shi, J. Zhou, and M. W. Wu, Appl. Phys. Lett. [ **85**]{}, 2547 (2004). Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. [**115**]{}, 485 (1969); D. Frustaglia, M. Hentschel, and K. Richter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 256602 (2001); M. Popp, D. Frustaglia, and K. Richter, Nanotechnology [**14**]{}, 347 (2003).
H. R. Trebin, U. Rössler, and R. Ranvaud, Phys. Rev. B [**20**]{}, 686 (1979). G. L. Bir and G. E. Pikus, [*Symmetry and Strain-Induced Effects in Semiconductors*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1974). M. B[[ü]{}]{}ttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 1761 (1986). S. Datta, [*Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995).
[^1]: Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the phase behavior of hard spheres confined between two parallel hard plates using extensive computer simulations. We determine the full equilibrium phase diagram for arbitrary densities and plate separations from one to five hard-sphere diameters using free energy calculations. We find a first-order fluid-solid transition, which corresponds to either capillary freezing or melting depending on the plate separation. The coexisting solid phase consists of crystalline layers with either triangular (${\triangle}$) or square (${\square}$) symmetry. Increasing the plate separation, we find a sequence of crystal structures from $\cdots n {\triangle}\rightarrow (n+1) {\square}\rightarrow (n+1) {\triangle}\cdots$, where $n$ is the number of crystal layers, in agreement with experiments on colloids. At high densities, the transition between square to triangular phases are intervened by intermediate structures, e.g., prism, buckled, and rhombic phases.'
address: 'Soft Condensed Matter, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands.'
author:
- Andrea Fortini and Marjolein Dijkstra
---
Introduction
============
The physics of confined systems is important in different fields of modern technology, like lubrication, adhesion and nanotechnology. The study of simple models is instrumental in understanding the behavior of complex systems. As such the hard-sphere system plays an important role in statistical physics; it serves as a reference system for determining the structure and phase behavior of complex fluids, both in theory and simulations. The bulk phase behavior of hard spheres is now well understood. At sufficiently high densities, the spheres can maximize their entropy by forming an ordered crystal phase [@Hoover1968; @Pusey1986]. The insertion of a hard wall in such a fluid decreases the number of hard-sphere configurations. The system can increase its entropy by the spontaneous formation of crystalline layers with triangular symmetry, the (111) plane, at the wall, while the bulk is still a fluid [@Dijkstra2004]. This effect is known as prefreezing, and is analogous to complete wetting by fluids at solid substrates. It is induced by the presence of a single wall and should not be confused with capillary freezing. Capillary freezing denotes the phenomenon of confinement induced freezing of the whole fluid in the pore at thermodynamic state points where the bulk is still a fluid. This transition depends strongly on the plate separation. The opposite phenomenon, called capillary melting, can also occur. The capillary induces melting for thermodynamic state points that correspond to a crystal in the bulk. Confinement can also change dramatically the equilibrium crystal structure. In 1983 Pieranski [@Pieranski1983] reported a sequence of layered solid structures with triangular and square symmetry for colloidal hard spheres confined in a wedge. The sequence of high density structures is determined more accurately in recent experiments [@Neser1997; @Fontecha2005], reporting the observation of prism phases with both square and triangular symmetry. Recently Cohen [@Cohen2004] studied configurations of confined hard spheres under shear, demonstrating the importance of the equilibrium configurations in the rheological properties. Despite the great number of theoretical and simulation studies on confined hard spheres [@Schmidt1996; @Zangi2000; @Messina2003], the full [*equilibrium*]{} phase behavior is yet unknown. In fact, many of the previous studies were based on an order parameter analysis, which fails dramatically in discriminating the different structures at high densities and large plate separations. More importantly, free energy calculations of confined hard spheres are prohibited so far due to the lack of an efficient thermodynamic integration path which relates the free energy of interest to that of a reference system, while a further complication arises from the enormous number of possible solid phases that has to be considered. Hence, it is unresolved whether the experimentally observed phases are stabilized kinetically or are thermodynamically stable.
![(Color online) Illustration of hard spheres with diameter $\sigma$, confined between parallel hard plates of area $A=L_x L_y$ and a separation distance $H$. []{data-label="fig:model"}](fig1.eps){width="10cm"}
In this letter, we present a novel efficient thermodynamic integration path that enable us to calculate the free energy of [*densely packed and confined*]{} hard spheres, with high accuracy close to the fluid-solid transition. This method allow us to determine for the first time the stability of the structures found in experiments. To this end we perform explicit free energy calculations to map out the full phase diagram for plate separations from 1 to 5 hard-sphere diameters. We report a dazzling number of [*thermodynamically stable*]{} crystal structures (26!) including triangular, square, buckling, rhombic, and prism phases, and a cascade of corresponding solid-solid transformations. In addition, the free energy calculations allow us to determine the chemical potential at coexistence, that was unaccessible in previous simulations. From the analysis of the chemical potential, we find an intriguing sequence of capillary freezing and melting transitions coupled to a structural phase transition of the confined crystal. We note that our new method and results are also relevant for confined simple fluids [@Klein1995; @Gao1997; @Ghatak2001] and self-assembled biological systems [@Ciach2004]. In addition, the structure of dense packings of spheres explains the shape of for instance snowflakes, bee honeycombs, and foams, and it is of great importance for fundamental research, e.g., solid state physics and crystallography, and for applications like communication science or powder technology [@book].
Model and Method
================
Our model system consists of $N$ hard spheres with diameter $\sigma$, confined between two parallel hard plates of area $A=L_x
L_y$ (Fig. \[fig:model\]). In each layer we used approximately 200 particles. We use the packing fraction $\eta=\pi\sigma^3 N/(6 AH)$ as a dimensionless density, where $H$ is the distance between two plates. We determine the equilibrium phase diagram by performing Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in a box, which is allowed to change its shape to accommodate different types of crystals; the ratio $L_x/L_y$ may vary while $H$ and $A$ are fixed. Trial solid structures are obtained from crystals with triangular or square symmetry relaxed with MC moves while slowly increasing the density by expanding the spheres. The free energy $F$ for the resulting equilibrated structures is calculated as a function of $\eta$ and $H$. We use the standard thermodynamic integration technique [@Frenkel2002; @Fortini2005a], but with a new and efficient path based on penetrable potentials, that enable us to change gradually from a non-interacting system to the confined hard-core system of interest. The sphere-sphere potential reads $$v_{ij}(R_{ij})= \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon \exp(-{\rm A} R_{ij} ) & \textrm{ if $R_{ij} < \sigma_c$ } \\
0 & \textrm{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right. \ ,
\label{eq:hs}$$ and the wall-fluid potential $$v_{wi}(z)= \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon \exp(-{\rm B} z_i ) & \textrm{ if $z_i < \sigma_c/2$ } \\
0 & \textrm{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right . \ ,
\label{eq:hs}$$ where $R_{ij}$ is the distance between spheres $i$ and $j$, $z_i$ is the distance of sphere $i$ to the nearest wall, A and B are adjustable parameters that are kept fixed during the simulations, and $\epsilon$ is the integration parameter. The limit $\epsilon
\rightarrow \infty$ yields the hard-core interaction, but convergence of the thermodynamic integration is already obtained for $\epsilon \sim 70 k_B T$. The reference states ( $\epsilon = 0
k_B T$) are the ideal gas and the Einstein crystal for the fluid and solid phase, respectively. We use a 21-point Gaussian quadrature for the numerical integrations and the ensemble averages are calculated from runs with 40000 MC cycles (attempts to displace each particle once), after first equilibrating the system during 20000 MC cycles. We determine phase coexistence by equating the grand potentials $\Omega=F-\mu N$ [@evans].
{width="10cm"}
\[F:phd1\]
[llll]{} Phase & Transition & Simulation[^1] & Experiment\
I1 &$1{\triangle}\rightarrow 2{\square}$& $2{\mathcal{B}}$&$2{\mathcal{B}}$\
I2 & $2{\square}\rightarrow 2{\triangle}$&$2{\mathcal{R}}$& $2{\mathcal{R}}$\
I3 &$2{\triangle}\rightarrow 3{\square}$ &$2{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}+ 2{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$&$2{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}+ 2{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$\
I4 & $3{\square}\rightarrow 3{\triangle}$&$3{\mathcal{R}}+3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ +(3${\mathcal{B}}$)&$3{\mathcal{R}}+3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}+ 3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$\
I5 & $3{\triangle}\rightarrow 4{\square}$&$3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}+4{\mathcal{B}}$&$3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$\
I6 &$4{\square}\rightarrow 4{\triangle}$& $4{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}+4{\mathcal{R}}+4{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$ &$4{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}+4{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$\
I7& $4{\triangle}\rightarrow 5{\square}$&$4{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$&$4{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$, $4{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$, $H$[^2]\
I8&$5{\square}\rightarrow 5{\triangle}$& $5{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$+$4{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$+($5{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$)+$5{\mathcal{R}}$&$5\mathcal{P}$[^3]\
I9&$5{\triangle}\rightarrow 6{\square}$ & $5{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$ & no data\
I10&$6{\square}\rightarrow 6{\triangle}$ &$5{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}+5{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$& no data\
\[tab:list\]
Results
=======
To validate this approach, we perform simulations of a bulk system of hard spheres and we find that the packing fractions of the coexisting fluid and face-centered-cubic (fcc) solid phase are given by $\eta_f=0.4915\pm 0.0005$ and $\eta_s=0.5428\pm0.0005$, respectively. The pressure and the chemical potential at coexistence are $\beta P\sigma^3=11.57\pm0.10$ and $\beta\mu=16.08
\pm 0.10$. These results are in good agreement with earlier results [@Hoover1968; @Davidchack1998]. Furthermore, to validate the approach for confined systems, we determine at bulk coexistence the wall-fluid interfacial tension $\beta\gamma_{\rm
wf}\sigma^2=1.990\pm 0.007$, and the wall-solid interfacial tension for the (111) and (100) planes of the fcc phase, $\beta
\gamma^{111}_{\rm ws}\sigma^2=1.457 \pm 0.018$ and $\beta\gamma^{100}_{\rm ws}\sigma^2=2.106\pm0.021$. Our results are in agreement with previous simulations [@Heni1999], but the statistical error is one order of magnitude smaller due to our new thermodynamic integration path.
Employing this approach we determine the phase behavior of confined hard spheres for plate separations $1 < H/\sigma \leq
5$. Fig. \[F:phd1\] displays the full phase diagram based on free energy calculations in the $H-\eta$ representation. The white regions of the phase diagram denote the stable one-phase regions. The (yellow) shaded regions indicate coexistence between fluid and solid or two solid phases, and the dotted region is forbidden as it exceeds the maximum packing fraction of confined hard spheres. At low densities, we observe a stable fluid phase followed by a fluid-solid transition upon increasing the density. The oscillations in the freezing and melting lines reflect the (in)commensurability of the crystal structures with the available space between the walls. For the crystal phases, we follow the convention introduced by Pieranski [@Pieranski1983], where $n{\triangle}$ denotes a stack of $n$ triangular layers, and $n{\square}$ a stack of $n$ square layers. For $H/\sigma \rightarrow 1$, the stable crystal phase consists of a single triangular layer $1{\triangle}$, which packs more efficiently than the square layer. As the gap between the plates increases, crystal slabs with triangular (Fig. \[sn:rh\](a)) and square packings (Fig. \[sn:rh\](b)) are alternately stable. We find the characteristic sequence $\cdots n {\triangle}\rightarrow (n+1){\square}\rightarrow (n+1) {\triangle}$, which consists of an $n {\triangle}\rightarrow
(n+1) {\square}$ transformation where both the number of layers and the symmetry change followed by an $(n+1) {\square}\rightarrow(n+1) {\triangle}$ transformation where only the symmetry changes. This sequence is driven by a competition of a smaller height of $n$ square layers compared to $n$ triangular layers and a more efficient packing of triangular layers w.r.t. square layers. When the available gap is larger than required for the $n{\triangle}$ structure, but smaller than for $(n+1){\square}$, intermediate structures may become stable. Similar arguments can be used for the intervention of intermediate structures in the $(n+1){\square}\rightarrow (n+1){\triangle}$ transformation. Especially at high packing fractions, the spheres can increase their packing by adopting interpolating structures. In Fig. \[F:phd1\] we report the boundaries of the interpolating regions $In$. Each region represents one or more interpolating structures, that are listed in Tab. \[tab:list\], according to the standard notation. Within the resolution of our simulations, it is difficult to draw the phase boundaries of all the intermediate structures in $In$, but in Tab. \[tab:list\] the [*thermodynamically stable*]{} structures are listed in the order they appear upon increasing $H$ and $\eta$. We also compare our sequence of structures with the experimental one [@Fontecha2005]. The experiments considered charged particles, but we do not expect that the soft repulsion has a strong effect on the observed structures at high densities. The agreement is excellent at small plate separations. The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (Fig. \[sn:rh\](c)) interpolates between $1{\triangle}$ and $2{\square}$. In the $2{\mathcal{B}}$, the $1{\triangle}$ is split into two sublayers consisting of rows that are displaced in height and which can transform smoothly into $2{\square}$ upon increasing the gap. The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (Fig. \[sn:rh\](d)) is found between $2{\square}$ and $2{\triangle}$. The rhombic phase is also stable between $n{\square}$ and $n{\triangle}$ for $n\leq5$, but not in the whole region. In addition, we find that at higher $n$ the interpolating structures are mainly prism phases. In agreement with experiments, we find two types of prisms, one with a square base $n{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (Fig. \[sn:rh\](e)), and one with a triangular base $n{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$ (Fig. \[sn:rh\](f)), where $n$ indicates the number of particles in the prism base. As shown in Fig. \[sn:rh\](g),(h), these structures display large gaps as a result of periodically repeated stacking faults in the packing which, nevertheless, allow particles to pack more efficiently, than a phase consisting of parallel planes of particles. For $n>3$, differences between simulations and experiments emerge. We find that the stability region of interpolating structures between $n{\triangle}$, and $(n+1){\square}$ decreases for larger $H$, becoming invisible on the scale of Fig. \[F:phd1\] for $I9=5{\triangle}\rightarrow 6{\square}$. On the other hand, the region of stability of the interpolating structures between $n{\square}$ and $n{\triangle}$ increases while increasing the wall separation, becoming stable also at low packing fractions for the transitions $I8=5{\square}\rightarrow 5{\triangle}$, and possibly $I10=6{\square}\rightarrow 6{\triangle}$. We also note that the solid-solid transitions are first-order with a clear density jump at low $\eta$, but they get weaker (and maybe even continuous) upon approaching the maximum packing limit. In addition, the rhombic and buckling phases are highly degenerate as we find zig-zag and linear buckling or rhombic phases, and a combination of those.
![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}\
![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3c.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3d.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}\
![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3e.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3f.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}\
![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3g.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![(Color online) Stable solid structures of confined hard spheres. (a) The triangular phase $2{\triangle}$ (b) The square phase $2{\square}$ (c) The buckling phase $2{\mathcal{B}}$ (d) The rhombic phase $2{\mathcal{R}}$ (e),(g) The prism phase with square symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\square}}$ (f),(h) The prism phase with triangular symmetry $3{\mathcal{P}_{\triangle}}$. In (a)-(f) the point of view is at an angle of $30^\circ$ to the z direction. In (g),(h) the point of view is at an angle of $90^\circ$. Different shades (colors) indicate particles in different planes ((a)-(d)) or particles belonging to different prism structures ((e)-(h)).[]{data-label="sn:rh"}](fig3h.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}\
![Chemical potential $\beta \mu$ at fluid-solid coexistence, for different wall separations $H/\sigma$. The symbols are the simulation results for the triangular (${\triangle}$) and square structures (${\square}$). The thin dashed line is a guide to the eye. The thick continuous line indicate the value of the bulk freezing chemical potential $\beta \mu=16.08$. The thick dashed and dotted curves are the prediction of the Kelvin equation for the $111$, and $100$ planes parallel to the walls, respectively. []{data-label="F:phd2"}](fig4.eps){width="10cm"}
We now turn our attention to the fluid-solid transition. In Fig. \[F:phd2\], we plot the chemical potential $\beta \mu^{\rm
cap}$ at the freezing transition of the confined system as a function of $H$. The freezing for crystal slabs with a triangular symmetry are denoted by triangles, while the square symmetry is displayed by squares. We find strong oscillations in the chemical potential reminiscent to the (in)commensurability of the crystal structures with plate separation. The highest values for $\beta
\mu^{\rm cap}$ are reached at the transition region $n{\triangle}\rightarrow (n+1){\square}$, corresponding to plate separations where both structures are incommensurate and hence unfavorable. In this regime, $\beta \mu^{\rm cap}$ can reach values that are higher than the bulk freezing chemical potential $\beta \mu^{\rm bulk}$ (the black vertical line in Fig. \[F:phd2\]), corresponding to capillary melting, while the freezing transitions with $\beta
\mu^{\rm cap}$ lower than the bulk value correspond to capillary freezing. Hence, we find a reentrant capillary freezing/melting behavior for wall separations $1<H/\sigma<3.5$. In addition, we compare our results with the predictions of the Kelvin equation[@Rowlinson2002]: $\beta \mu^{\rm cap} = \beta
\mu^{\rm bulk} - \pi\sigma^3/3H
(\gamma_{wf}-\gamma_{ws})/(\eta_s-\eta_f)$ using the parameters determined in our simulations. The thick dashed line in Fig. \[F:phd2\] is the prediction of the Kelvin equation for the $(111)$ crystal plane (triangular order) at the walls, while the dotted line is that for the $(100)$ plane (square order). The Kelvin equation predicts capillary freezing for the triangular structure and capillary melting for the square structures. The Kelvin equation predictions are in reasonable agreement with our simulations for triangular order for wall separation as small as $H/\sigma \sim 4$, but deviates for smaller $H$, while the prediction for the square structure is in agreement only at very small $H$. It is surprising to find qualitative agreement at small $H$ since the Kelvin equation is valid in the limit $H/\sigma \rightarrow \infty$.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we have calculated the equilibrium phase diagram of confined hard spheres using free energy calculations with a novel integration path. The high density sequence of structures is in good agreement with experimental results. We find that the prism phases are thermodynamically stable also at lower densities, and this work will, hopefully, stimulate further experimental investigations, for a quantitative comparison at intermediate packing fractions. In addition, our results show an intriguing sequence of melting and freezing transitions upon increasing the distance between the walls of a slit which is in contact with a bulk reservoir. The mechanical behavior is therefore very sensitive on the degree of confinement, and the knowledge of the phase diagram can help the understanding and fabrication of new materials. The transition from confined to bulk behavior, and the interface between different solid structures (studied in lower dimensions in Ref. [@Chaudhuri2004]) represent interesting directions for future investigations.
We thank M. Schmidt for inspiring discussions. This work is part of the research program of the [*Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie*]{} (FOM), that is financially supported by the [*Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek*]{} (NWO). We thank the Dutch National Computer Facilities foundation for granting access to TERAS and ASTER supercomputers.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} W.G. Hoover and F.M. Ree, J. Chem. Phys. [**49**]{}, 3609 (1968). P. N. Pusey and W. van Megen, Nature (London) [**320**]{}, 340 (1986). M. Dijkstra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 108303 (2004); D.J. Courtemanche and F. van Swol, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2078 (1992). P. Pieranski and L. Strzelecki and B. Pansu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 900 (1983). S. Neser [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2348 (1997). A.B. Fontecha [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. [**17**]{}, S2779 (2005). I. Cohen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, (2004). M. Schmidt and H. Löwen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4552 (1996); Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 7228 (1997). R. Zangi and S.A. Rice, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 660 (2000); ibid [**61**]{}, 671 (2000). R. Messina and H. Löwen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 146101 (2003); Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 011405 (2006). J. Gao [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 705 (1997). J. Klein and E. Kumacheva, Science. [**269**]{}, 816 (1995). C. Ghatak and K. G. Ayappa, Phys. Rev. E. [**64**]{}, 051507 (2001). A. Ciach, Progr. Colloid Polym. Sci. [**129**]{}, 40 (2004). J.H. Conway and N.J.A. Sloane, [*Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups*]{} (Springer, New York, 1993); T. Aste and D. Weaire, [*The Pursuit of Perfect Packing*]{} (IOP, Bristol, 2000). D. Frenkel and B. Smit, [*Understanding [M]{}olecular [S]{}imulation 2nd edition*]{} (Academic Press, 2002). A. Fortini [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 051403 (2005). R. Evans and U. Marini Bettolo Marconi, J. Chem. Phys. [**86**]{}, 7138 (1987). R.L. Davidchack and B.B. Laird, J. Chem. Phys. [**108**]{}, 9452 (1998). M. Heni and H. Löwen, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, 7057 (1999). J.S. Rowlinson and B. Widom, [*Molecular [T]{}heory of [C]{}apillarity*]{} (Dover, New York, 2002).
D. Chaudhuri and S. Sengupta. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 115702 ( 2004).
[^1]: In parenthesis metastable phases
[^2]: Not fully characterized structure with hexagonal symmetry
[^3]: Not fully characterized prism structure.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the use of the recently developed Square Gradient Minimization (SGM) algorithm for excited state orbital optimization, to obtain spin-pure Restricted Open-Shell Kohn-Sham (ROKS) energies for core excited states of molecules. ROKS with the modern SCAN/$\omega$B97X-V functionals is found to predict the K edge of C,N,O and F to a root mean squared error of 0.3 eV. This high accuracy can be contrasted with traditional TDDFT, which typically has greater than $10$ eV error and requires empirical translation of computed spectra to align with experiment. ROKS is computationally affordable (having the same scaling as ground state DFT, and a slightly larger prefactor) and can be applied to geometry optimizations/ab-initio molecular dynamics of core excited states, as well as condensed phase simulations. ROKS can also model doubly excited/ionized states with one broken electron pair, which are beyond the ability of linear response based methods.'
author:
- Diptarka Hait
- 'Martin Head-Gordon'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
nocite:
- '[@kowalczyk2013excitation]'
- '[@myhre2018theoretical]'
title: 'Highly Accurate Prediction of Core Spectra of Molecules at Density Functional Theory Cost: Attaining sub eV Error from a Restricted Open-Shell Kohn-Sham Approach.'
---
Spectroscopy of core electrons is an useful tool for characterizing local electronic structure in molecules and extended materials, and has consequently seen wide use for studying both static properties[@wilson2013x; @hahner2001order; @guo2011electronic] and dynamics[@chergui2017photoinduced; @bhattacherjee2018ultrafast; @schnorr2019tracing] of chemical systems. Theoretical modeling of core excited states is however a challenging task, as traditional quantum chemistry methods are typically geared towards understanding behavior of valence electrons. Indeed, it is common practice to ‘shift’ computed X-ray absorption spectra (XAS) by several eV to align with experiment[@besley2010time; @wenzel2014calculating; @attar2017femtosecond; @bhattacherjee2018photoinduced; @hanson2019scaled; @seidu2019simulation]. Such uncontrolled translation of spectra for empirical mitigation of systematic error is quite unappealing, and creates considerable scope for incorrect assignments.
Linear response (LR) methods like time dependent density functional theory (TDDFT)[@runge1984density; @casida1995time; @dreuw2005single] and equation of motion coupled cluster (EOM-CC)[@stanton1993equation; @krylov2008equation] are widely used to model excitations. LR methods do not require prior knowledge about the nature of targeted states, as they permit simultaneous calculation of multiple states on an even footing. However, widely used LR methods only contain a limited description of orbital relaxation, leading to poor performance for cases where such effects are essential (such as double excitations [@tozer2000determination; @maitra2004double; @loos2019reference], as well as charge-transfer[@dreuw2005single; @peach2008excitation] and Rydberg states[@casida1998molecular; @tozer2000determination] in the case of TDDFT). Core excitations in particular are accompanied by substantial relaxation of the resulting core-hole (as well as relaxation of the valence density in response), leading to rather large errors with standard LR protocols. For instance, TDDFT spectra often need to be blue-shifted by $ > 10$ eV to correspond to experiment[@besley2010time; @wenzel2014calculating; @attar2017femtosecond; @bhattacherjee2018photoinduced] (unless short-range corrected functionals specifically trained to predict core spectra are employed[@besley2009time]) and even EOM-CC singles and doubles (EOM-CCSD)[@stanton1993equation] tends to systematically overestimate energies by $1-2$ eV[@coriani2012coupled; @frati2019coupled]. It worth noting that second order algebraic diagrammatic construction (ADC(2)[@wormit2014investigating], specifically CVS-ADC(2)-x[@wenzel2014calculating]) has been able to attain better accuracy for core-excitations, but only via compensation of basis set incompleteness errors with lack of orbital relaxation[@wenzel2014calculating]. The O$(N^5)$ computational scaling of ADC(2) also restricts applicability to large systems, relative to the lower scaling of DFT.
Orbital optimized (OO) methods attempt to incorporate the full effect of orbital relaxation on target excited states. The state specificity of OO methods necessitate prior knowledge about the nature of targeted states, making them not truly black-box. They have also historically been prone to ‘variational collapse’ down to the ground state (as excited states are usually optimization saddle points), though recent advances in excited state orbital optimization have mitigated this to a great extent[@gilbert2008self; @shea2018communication; @ye2017sigma; @hait2019excited]. OO methods have nonetheless been employed successfully for core ionizations[@zheng2019performance; @lee2019excited] and core excitations [@besley2009self; @derricotte2015simulation; @michelitsch2019efficient]. There also exist LR methods that incorporate partial OO character, like Static Exchange (STEX)[@aagren1997direct] or Non-orthogonal Configuration Interaction Singles (NOCIS)[@oosterbaan2018non; @oosterbaan2019non], though such treatments are wave function based and $\sim 1$ eV error remains common due to lack of dynamic correlation.
The most widely used OO approach for modeling core excitations is $\Delta$ Self-Consistent Field ($\Delta$SCF)[@ziegler1977calculation; @gilbert2008self; @kowalczyk2011assessment; @besley2009self], where a non-aufbau solution to the Hartree-Fock[@szabo2012modern] or Kohn-Sham[@kohn1965self] DFT equations is converged. Unfortunately, single excitations in closed shell molecules cannot be represented by a single Slater determinant, resulting in spin-contaminated “mixed" $\Delta$SCF solutions that are intermediate between singlet and triplet. The core-hole and the excited electron are nonetheless expected to be fairly independent (due to low spatial overlap between orbitals), and spin-contaminated $\Delta$SCF solutions can therefore be reasonably purified to a singlet via approximate spin-projection (AP)[@yamaguchi1988spin]. AP however entails independent optimization of the triplet state, resulting in two sets of orbitals per targeted singlet state, which is both computationally inefficient and intellectually unappealing. Furthermore, spin-unrestricted DFT can exhibit rather unusual catastrophic failures with electronic configurations far from equilibrium[@hait2019wellbehaved], making a restricted approach preferable.
Restricted Open-Shell Kohn-Sham[@filatov1999spin; @kowalczyk2013excitation](ROKS) solves both of these issues via optimizing $2E_{M}-E_{T}$ for the same set of spin-restricted (RO) orbitals ($E_{M}$ is the energy of the mixed Slater determinant and $E_{T}$ is the energy of the corresponding triplet determinant within the $M_s=1$ manifold). Most ROKS implementations (such as the one described in Ref [ ]{}) however tend to collapse down to the lowest excited singlet ($S_1$) state, hindering use for studying core excitations. The recently developed Square Gradient Minimization (SGM) approach[@hait2019excited] permits ROKS to target arbitrary singlet excited states with one broken electron pair, thereby making application to core excitations feasible. SGM has been described in detail elsewhere[@hait2019excited], and we only note that each SGM iteration has a cost that ranges between twice (for methods with analytical orbital Hessians for the energy/Lagrangian) and thrice (for methods without such Hessians, necessitating use of a finite-difference approximation) the cost of evaluating the orbital gradient of the energy/Lagrangian. ROKS calculations with SGM therefore have the same scaling as ground state DFT calculations with methods like GDM[@van2002geometric] or DIIS[@pulay1980convergence], but with a slightly larger prefactor per iteration.
A rather important consideration for use of ROKS is the choice of a functional out of the vast DFT alphabet soup. This is especially relevant for core spectroscopy, as modern DFT functionals have been trained/assessed mostly on modeling ground state energetics[@mardirossian2018survival; @goerigk2017look; @najibi2018nonlocal; @mardirossian2018survival] and properties[@hait2018accurate; @hait2018accuratepolar; @hait2018delocalization], which only depend on behavior of *valence* electrons. It therefore seems appropriate to consider non-empirical density functionals like LSDA[@PW92], PBE[@PBE] and PBE0[@pbe0], or minimally parametrized functionals like SCAN[@SCAN] or $\omega$B97X-V[@wb97xv] that are fairly strongly constrained within functional space. It also seems worthwhile to assess the performance of highly accurate modern functionals like B97M-V[@b97mv], that are less tightly constrained. We have consequently examined the performance of these six functionals in predicting ROKS excitation energies for 40 K edge transitions (i.e. from the 1s orbital) of C,N,O and F, for which relativistic effects are expected to be small. The resulting values have been listed in in Table \[tab:roksdata\], while statistical measures of error have been provided in Table \[tab:errors\]. Table \[tab:errors\] also lists errors in core ionization potentials (core IPs) and term values (gap between K edge and core IP), in order to give a more complete idea about the full spectrum.
Functional
---------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -----
RMSE ME RMSE ME RMSE ME RMSE ME
SPW92 4.6 -4.6 4.4 -4.3 4.2 -4.2 0.3 0.2
PBE 1.2 -1.1 0.9 -0.9 0.8 -0.8 0.3 0.1
B97M-V 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.3 0.1
SCAN 0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2
PBE0 0.9 -0.8 0.6 -0.6 0.4 -0.4 0.4 0.2
$\omega$B97X-V 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.1
: Root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean error (ME) for prediction of K edge energies listed in Table \[tab:roksdata\] (in eV). The effect of relativistic corrections (rel. corr.) have also been considered. The errors in prediction of the corresponding core ionization potential (core IP) and the term value (difference between K edge and core IP) are also reported. []{data-label="tab:errors"}
The values in Table \[tab:errors\] make it quite clear that the SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V functionals are highly accurate in predicting the K edge, having an RMSE on the order $0.3$ eV irrespective of the presence of atom specific relativistic shifts. $\omega$B97X-V appears to be a bit less accurate for the prediction of core IPs than SCAN, but the greater variation in experimental measurements of core IPs[@jolly1984core] indicates that not too much meaning should be drawn from this. The classic PBE0 functional also appears to be fairly accurate when relativistic effects are included (although the K edge RMSE is about twice as large as that of $\omega$B97X-V). The SPW92[@Slater; @PW92] LSDA functional systematically underestimates energies by $>4$ eV, on account of it only being exact for the uniform electron gas and therefore incapable of modeling the inhomogeneities present in the densities of core excited states. The PBE generalized gradient approximation (GGA) systematically underestimates energies by about an eV, while the B97M-V meta-GGA surprisingly appears to systematically *overestimate* by $>1.5$ eV. Finally, all functionals predict term values to approximately the same accuracy, indicating that empirically translating ROKS spectra by functional specific constant shifts would lead to similar levels of accuracy, irrespective of the functional used. We however feel that empirical translation of spectra is rather unappealing and will not pursue that avenue further.
The high accuracy predicted by SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V (relative to experimental errors, which are on the order of 0.1 eV) merits further analysis to determine the factors responsible, and what error cancellations (if any) are occurring. Some of the most obvious factors to consider are relativistic effects, the roles played by orbital relaxation and delocalization error, as well as basis set incompleteness errors. Scalar relativistic effects systematically bind core electrons tighter than what predictions from non-relativistic theories like DFT should suggest. The magnitude of this correction can be estimated from the difference between core IPs calculated with relativistic and non-relativistic theories for bare atoms. This approximation should be fairly accurate for second period elements, as the chemical environment would only slightly perturb these already small corrections (the reported values [@takahashi2017relativistic] range from 0.1 eV for C to 0.6 eV for F). Inclusion of these relativistic shifts however has minimal impact on the K edge RMSE for SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V (as can be seen from Table \[tab:errors\]), as well as for core IPs (as shown in the Supporting Information). The corrections do however appear to perceptibly lower RMSE for PBE0, by reducing some of the systematic underestimation. We also note that relativistic corrections are expected to be much larger past the second period, and cannot be neglected in K edge studies of heavier atoms.
HF CH$_4$
---------------------------- ------- --------
Experiment 687.4 288.0
SCAN/TDDFT 666.1 273.8
SCAN/$\Delta$SCF 687.1 287.9
SCAN/ROKS 687.0 288.0
$\omega$B97X-V/TDDFT 668.7 276.5
$\omega$B97X-V/$\Delta$SCF 687.2 288.5
$\omega$B97X-V/ROKS 687.1 288.5
: Comparison of TDDFT, $\Delta$SCF and ROKS K edges (in eV) for HF and CH$_4$ with the SCAN/$\omega$B97X-V functionals and the aug-cc-pCVTZ basis. The $\Delta$SCF values have been spin-purified with AP.[]{data-label="tab:tddft"}
The overall effect of explicit orbital optimization via ROKS can be gauged by comparison to LR-TDDFT. Table \[tab:tddft\] presents the results for the CH$_4$ and HF molecules, which conclusively demonstrate the utility of orbital optimization (as TDDFT underestimates experiment by 15-20 eV). We also note that $\Delta$SCF has similar accuracy as ROKS, showing that the coupling between the core-hole and excited electron is indeed very weak. Our conclusions about the behavior of ROKS with various functionals are therefore likely transferable to $\Delta$SCF in the regimes where the latter does not exhibit any unphysical behavior.
The poor performance of TDDFT naturally raises questions about the role of delocalization error[@perdew1982density] (of which self-interaction error is but one part[@mori2006many; @hait2018delocalization]), which is the factor typically responsible for systematic underestimation of TDDFT excitation energies[@dreuw2005single]. The excellent behavior of the SCAN meta-GGA local functional, and the relatively small performance gap between the local PBE and the global hybrid PBE0 functionals seem to suggest that delocalization error is not a major factor for ROKS. This is consistent with earlier observations of ROKS predicting excellent charge-transfer[@hait2016prediction] and Rydberg[@hait2019excited] state energies for cases where TDDFT performs poorly. Delocalization error of course continues to exist for ROKS, but orbital optimization drastically reduces the magnitude of delocalization driven errors that LR methods tend to predict[@ziegler2008revised; @subotnik2011communication; @hait2016prediction], down to ground state calculation levels.
Delocalized hole Localized hole Difference
---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------
SPW2 388.4 396.6 -8.2
PBE 391.7 399.8 -8.1
B97M-V 398.9 402.5 -3.6
SCAN 395.3 400.7 -5.4
PBE0 396.4 400.1 -3.7
$\omega$B97X-V 395.7 400.9 -5.3
Experiment 401.0
: Comparison of the N$_2$ K edge predicted by ROKS/aug-cc-pCVTZ (in eV) between the fully delocalized and fully localized core-hole limits.[]{data-label="tab:deloc"}
There is however an additional subtlety associated with systems possessing chemically identical atoms (like N$_2$ or O in CO$_2$), where the exact core-hole density should be delocalized over multiple sites on account of symmetry. The coupling between core orbitals is nonetheless quite weak and localized core-hole diabatic states are therefore expected to be energetically quite close (i.e. within order of 0.01 eV)[@oosterban2019onecenter] to symmetric eigenstates . The energies of delocalized states in DFT are typically systematically underestimated on account of delocalization error (even within an OO framework), making use of localized core-hole states preferable for calculating core excitation energies. A quantitative measure of this effect for the N$_2$ molecule has been supplied in Table \[tab:deloc\]. In practice therefore, the spurious delocalization effect should be avoided by supplying a localized core-hole as the initial guess and letting SGM converge to the closest localized solution. *However*, it means that canonical orbitals cannot be used as initial guesses due to their inherently delocalized nature, and some localization scheme (or even a weak, symmetry breaking electric field) must be employed to generate initial guess orbitals for ROKS. It is somewhat intellectually unsatisfying to completely neglect delocalized states (which appear to be the lowest energy ROKS core-hole states), but this pragmatic choice is essential in light of known failures of DFT for delocalized states[@Dutoi2006; @Ruzsinszky2006; @hait2018accurate; @hait2018communication]. Fully symmetric states can be obtained from a NOCI approach[@oosterbaan2018non; @oosterbaan2019non; @oosterban2019onecenter], but such multireference techniques cannot be straightforwardly generalized to DFT. We additionally note that localized orbitals has long been employed to improve the performance of wave function based approaches as well[@oosterbaan2018non; @cederbaum1986double], although use of delocalized orbitals therein lead to *higher* energies (on account of missing correlation[@hait2018delocalization]).
------------ --------- -------- --------- -------- --------- --------
Core IP K edge Core IP K edge Core IP K edge
CH$_4$ (C) 292.07 289.42 291.16 288.50 291.11 288.44
NH$_3$ (N) 407.02 402.01 405.83 400.85 405.76 400.78
H$_2$O (O) 541.33 535.44 539.86 533.99 539.75 533.88
HF (F) 695.63 688.86 693.87 687.13 693.72 686.98
HCHO (C) 295.89 286.97 294.97 286.03 294.91 285.97
HCHO (O) 540.76 532.32 539.27 530.83 539.15 530.71
HCN (C) 295.03 287.71 293.9 286.58 293.84 286.51
HCN (N) 408.37 401.09 407.07 399.8 406.99 399.71
------------ --------- -------- --------- -------- --------- --------
: Convergence of $\omega$B97X-V core ionization potential (IP) and K edge absorption energies (in eV) against basis set size.[]{data-label="tab:corerelax"}
The final factor we consider is basis set incompleteness error, whose analysis would also assist basis set selection for realistically sized systems (as aug-cc-pCVTZ is too impractically large). Valence excitation energies typically do not exhibit very strong basis set dependence[@loos2018mountaineering], but the situation for core spectra is different due to the need to adequately relax the core-hole. Table \[tab:corerelax\] compares the $\omega$B97X-V core ionization and K edge energies with increasing basis set cardinality. The small difference between aug-cc-pCVTZ and aug-cc-pCVQZ and the exponential convergence of SCF energies[@jensen2005estimating] suggest that aug-cc-pCVQZ values are functionally at the complete basis set limit. It can also be seen that aug-cc-pCVTZ systematically overestimates energies by about 0.1 eV relative to aug-cc-pCVQZ. This deviation is non-negligible relative to the low RMSE of SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V, but is quite comparable to the error bars inherent in experiment, indicating that the basis set incompleteness error in Table \[tab:roksdata\] is not particularly significant. We nonetheless note that the slight overestimation of energies by aug-cc-pCVTZ seems to suggest that a component of the systematic overestimation of energies (after relativistic corrections) for SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V stems from basis set truncation, suggesting slightly lower errors at the complete basis set limit.
Table \[tab:corerelax\] also makes it apparent that aug-cc-pCVDZ is too small for accurate predictions, as energies are systematically overestimated by 1-2 eV. The core IP is overestimated by almost the same amount as the K edge, indicating that the basis set incompleteness effects essentially arise from insufficient core relaxation alone. We therefore recommend that a mixed basis strategy be employed for larger species (where full aug-cc-pCVTZ is impractical), wherein the localized target atom employs a split core-valence triple zeta (CVTZ) basis, while the remaining atoms are treated with some smaller basis. Similar mixed basis approach have also been reported in literature [@ambroise2018probing]. This strategy (using aug-cc-pCVTZ in the target site and aug-cc-pVDZ for other atoms) reproduced the full $\omega$B97X-V/aug-cc-pCVTZ results for both the C and O K edges of HCHO to $\le 0.02$ eV deviation, suggesting its general efficacy. In addition, we note that while diffuse functions are not strictly necessary for excitations to antibonding orbitals, they are critical for Rydberg states, with double augmentation being necessary to converge the higher core excited states of small molecules like H$_2$O and NH$_3$ (as shown in the Supporting Information).
![H$_2$Pc molecule.[]{data-label="fig:h2pc"}](H2Pc.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
We next demonstrate the viability of applying ROKS/SGM to sizeable systems by computing the N K edge of the phthalocyanine molecule (H$_2$Pc, depicted in Fig \[fig:h2pc\]). We employ the mixed basis strategy described and validated earlier, with the large cc-pCVTZ basis being applied to the target site while all other atoms use cc-pVDZ. We note that an additional advantage of the mixed basis approach is that it automatically breaks chemical equivalence of the target site, thereby spontaneously localizing the resulting core orbital (sans explicit localization). Fig \[fig:h2pc\] shows that H$_2$Pc has three different types of N atoms. N1-N4 are bridging aza type, N7-N8 are NH pyrrole like while N5-N6 are hydrogen free pyrrole like. A comparison between $\omega$B97X-V/ROKS excitation energies and experimental values from thin film measurements[@kera2006high] are supplied in Table \[tab:h2pc\]. We continue to find remarkably good agreement between theory and experiment, with the N core energies being predicted to be in the order N5$<$N1$<$N7. This is consistent with behavior observed for imidazole in Table \[tab:roksdata\].
ROKS core-hole site Experiment
------- ---------------- ------------
398.3 N5 397.9
398.4 N5 398.3
398.5 N1
399.1 N1 399
400.3 N7 399.7
400.5 N7 400.3
: Comparison of experimental N 1s excitation energies[@kera2006high] (in eV) of H$_2$Pc to predictions from ROKS with $\omega$B97X-V. A mixed basis set (see text) was used.[]{data-label="tab:h2pc"}
![PES of core excited NH$_3$ (from ROKS $\omega$B97X-V/aug-cc-pCVTZ), against stretch of a NH bond. Nuclear positions of the other atoms were optimized for all points.[]{data-label="fig:pes"}](ammpes.eps){width="50.00000%"}
It is also worth noting the analytical nuclear gradients for ROKS are fairly simple to obtain[@kowalczyk2013excitation], permitting geometry optimizations and ab-initio molecular dynamics in the core-excited state (which could assist in studying ultrafast dissociation processes or lead to ab-initio computation of spectral linewidths, for instance). Conseuqently, it is also possible to compute vibrational spectra of core excited states via finite differences, making it possible to assign modes to vibrational fine structure of XAS. All of this can be acheived for the same computational scaling as ground state DFT, permitting application to very large systems. As a simple of proof of principle, Fig \[fig:pes\] presents the potential energy surface (PES) of core excited NH$_3$ (1s$\to$ 4$a_1$) against NH stretching. This state can relax to a shallow local minimum, but ultrafast dissociation to NH$_2$+H is energetically more favorable (after crossing a small barrier[@walsh2015molecular]). ROKS is able to reproduce this behavior, which is a significant advantage over TDDFT (as the latter is completely incapable of modeling excited state bond dissociation[@hait2019beyond]). The barrier against dissociation is estimated to be 0.08 eV, which is within the $0.1$ eV error bar associated with the experimental estimate of 0.2 eV[@walsh2015molecular]. It is however worth noting that typical DFT error for ground state barrier prediction is of the order of 0.05 eV[@mardirossian2018survival], and so ultraprecise predictions should not be realistically expected. The main strength of ROKS lies in that it can be applied to large systems with *reasonable* accuracy.
We also demonstrate reasonable reproduction of the core excited state bond length and vibrational frequency of N$_2$ by ROKS, which has been fairly well characterized by both theory and experiment[@myhre2018theoretical]. A comparison with the experimental values, the CC3[@christiansen1995response] wave function method (from Ref [ ]{}) and ROKS is provided in Table \[tab:vibdata\]. We find that theoretical methods predict a shorter and stiffer bond in the core-excited state, relative to experimental fits. We do however note that the experimental values are not particularly precise, with the vibrational frequency being estimated from an experiment with a photon resolution of approx 50 meV (i.e. 403 cm$^{-1}$) and the bond length being calculated via a fit to a Morse potential[@chen1989k], which does not appear to be consistent with coupled cluster studies[@myhre2018theoretical]. The SCAN predictions are in very good agreement with CC3, while $\omega$B97X-V predicts a shorter bond and higher vibrational frequency. This superficially seems to suggest higher reliability of SCAN geometries/frequencies, but considerable further testing is required before more general conclusions can be reached. At any rate, the low computational cost of ROKS with either functional makes it attractive relative to O($N^7$) scaling methods like CC3, for large systems.
Molecule Hole site Expt. SPW92 PBE B97M-V SCAN PBE0 $\omega$B97X-V
------------ ----------- ---------------------------------------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ----------------
C$_2$H$_2$ C,C 596.0$\pm$ 0.5[@nakano2013single] 588.3 593.8 598.7 595.6 594.7 596.3
C$_2$H$_4$ C,C 593.3$\pm$ 0.5[@nakano2013single] 585.0 590.7 595.6 592.5 591.5 593.1
C$_2$H$_6$ C,C 590.0$\pm$ 0.5[@nakano2013single] 581.7 587.6 592.4 589.3 588.3 589.9
CO C,O 855.4$\pm$1[@nakano2013single] 846.2 852.6 858.0 854.8 853.6 855.2
CO$_2$ C,O 848.6$\pm$ 1.2[@salen2012experimental] 842.1 848.6 854.3 851.1 850.0 851.6
N$_2$ N,N 835.9$\pm$ 1[@nakano2013single] 827.9 834.4 839.9 836.7 835.7 837.3
N$_2$O N,N 834.2$\pm$2.1[@salen2012experimental] 825.1 831.6 837.4 834.1 833.4 835.2
: Comparison between experimental and ROKS/aug-cc-pCVTZ TSDCH core ionization energies (in eV).[]{data-label="tab:tsdch"}
It is also important to note that the ROKS is applicable to any singlet state with one broken electron pair[@hait2019excited], and not just the single excitations considered so far. There is unfortunately very little high quality experimental data about doubly excited core states involving second period elements. We consequently look at two site double core-hole (TSDCH) states instead, which are intrinsically open-shell (possessing one unpaired electron in each singly ionized atomic site) and are thereby ideal candidates for ROKS. TSDCH states have been long proposed as sensitive measures of chemical environment[@cederbaum1986double], leading to experimental effort towards their realization[@lablanquie2011evidence; @salen2012experimental; @nakano2013single]. We present a comparison between experimental and ROKS TSDCH ionization energies in Table \[tab:tsdch\]. Similar behavior to the K edge data in Table \[tab:roksdata\] is observed, with B97M-V massively overestimating, while SPW92/PBE underestimate. The large experimental error bars make it difficult to judge the relative performances of PBE0, SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V (however, $E_\textrm{PBE0} < E_\textrm{SCAN} < E_{\omega \textrm{B97X-V}}$ for all species). The predictions from the latter three functionals are overall quite reliable (considering the experimental error bars), and offer an inexpensive and spin pure way to compute TSDCH excitation energies (vs, say more expensive methods like $\Delta$CCSD(T), which does not lead to substantially enhanced accuracy for such systems[@lee2019excited]). This certainly represents a major advantage of ROKS over TDDFT, which is incapable of modelling doubly excited states at all[@maitra2004double; @levine2006conical; @dreuw2005single].
In summary, we demonstrate that single core excitation energies for second period elements can be computed to $<0.5$ eV RMS error via the use of a state specific restricted open-shell Kohn-Sham (ROKS) approach, without any need to translate spectra at all. The computational scaling of ROKS is identical to the corresponding ground state DFT calculation (with a slightly larger prefactor), when it is combined with the recently developed square gradient minimization (SGM[@hait2019excited]) orbital optimizer, readily permitting application to large systems. The low ROKS errors owe greatly to advances in ground state density functional development, as modern functionals like SCAN and $\omega$B97X-V are found to be the most accurate. We further show that the low errors in prediction do not stem from basis set incompleteness errors or neglect of relativistic effects, indicating that ROKS is obtaining the right answer for the right reasons (namely that the excitation from one localized core orbital to the virtual space can be very well described by one configuration plus a description of dynamical correlation). The ready availability of analytic ROKS nuclear gradients also suggest considerable potential for employing this approach for excited state geometry optimization or ab-initio molecular dynamics. This is aided by the ability of ROKS to correctly describe excited state bond dissociations, unlike TDDFT. Finally, ROKS can be employed to double excitation or double ionization processes (where a total of one electron pair has been broken), which is difficult for LR methods.
The high accuracy and low computational scaling of ROKS makes it an ideal method for studying the dynamics of both core excited states and XAS of valence excited states in sizeable systems. ROKS (with the local SCAN functional) is also an ideal method for simulating core spectra in the condensed phase. There does however exist a need to incorporate scalar relativistic effects (for K edge spectra) and spin-orbit coupling (for L$_{2,3}$ edge spectra) into the model, in order to extend applicability to third period elements and beyond. Work along these directions is presently in progress.
Computational Details {#computational-details .unnumbered}
=====================
All calculations were performed with the Q-Chem 5.2 [@QCHEM4] package. Local exchange-correlation integrals were calculated over a radial grid with 99 points and an angular Lebedev grid with 590 points. Core IPs were computed with RO-$\Delta$SCF, which is spin-pure and equivalent to ROKS when an electron is excited to infinity. The core-ionized RO-$\Delta$SCF orbitals were subsequently used as initial guesses for ROKS absorption energy calculations. This reduces number of ROKS iterations, by effectively decoupling the core-hole relaxation from the rest of the optimization. Such a strategy would be extremely useful for computing multiple excited states, as the core-hole relaxation process would need to be converged only once to generate initial guesses for several ROKS calculations. SGM was employed for all $\Delta$SCF/ROKS computations. Experimental geometries (from the NIST database[@johnson2015nist]) were used whenever possible, with geometries being optimized with MP2/cc-pVTZ in their absence (except for H$_2$Pc, where $\omega$B97X-V/def2-SV(P) was used instead). Vibrational frequencies $\omega$ in Table \[tab:vibdata\] were found by solving the nuclear wave equation for the PES, and subsequent fitting to the anharmonic oscillator energy $E_{\nu}=\hbar \omega\left(\nu+\dfrac{1}{2}\right)-\hbar \omega x_e\left(\nu+\dfrac{1}{2}\right)^2$
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This research was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. D.H. would like to thank Scott Garner and Katherine Oosterbaan for stimulating discussions.
Supporting Information {#supporting-information .unnumbered}
======================
Geometries of species studied (zip), Raw data (xlsx)..
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a lattice quantum chromodynamics determination of the scalar and vector form factors for the $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ decay over the full physical range of momentum transfer. In conjunction with future experimental data, our results will provide a new method to extract $|V_{cb}|$, which may elucidate the current tension between exclusive and inclusive determinations of this parameter. Combining the form factor results at non-zero recoil with recent HPQCD results for the $B \rightarrow D \ell \nu$ form factors, we determine the ratios $f^{B_s \rightarrow D_s}_0(M_\pi^2) / f^{B \rightarrow D}_0(M_K^2) = 1.000(62)$ and $f^{B_s \rightarrow D_s}_0(M_\pi^2) / f^{B \rightarrow D}_0(M_\pi^2) = 1.006(62)$. These results give the fragmentation fraction ratios $f_s/f_d = 0.310(30)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(6)_{\mathrm{theor.}}(38)_{\mathrm{latt.}} $ and $f_s/f_d = 0.307(16)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(23)_{\mathrm{theor.}}(44)_{\mathrm{latt.}}$, respectively. The fragmentation fraction ratio is an important ingredient in experimental determinations of $B_s$ meson branching fractions at hadron colliders, in particular for the rare decay ${\cal B}(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$. In addition to the form factor results, we make the first prediction of the branching fraction ratio $R(D_s) = {\cal B}(B_s\to D_s\tau\nu)/{\cal B}(B_s\to D_s\ell\nu) = 0.301(6)$, where $\ell$ is an electron or muon. Current experimental measurements of the corresponding ratio for the semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons disagree with Standard Model expectations at the level of nearly four standard deviations. Future experimental measurements of $R(D_s)$ may help understand this discrepancy.'
author:
- 'Christopher J. Monahan'
- Heechang Na
- 'Chris M. Bouchard'
- '[G. Peter]{} Lepage'
- Junko Shigemitsu
bibliography:
- 'bstods.bib'
title: ' $B_s \rightarrow D_s \; \ell \, \nu$ Form Factors and the Fragmentation Fraction Ratio $f_s/f_d$ '
---
Introduction
============
Studies of $B$ and $B_s$ meson decays at the Large Hadron Collider provide precision tests of the Standard Model of particle physics and are an important tool in the search for new physics. For example, the first observation of the rare decay $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+
\mu^-$, through a combined analysis by the LHCb and CMS collaborations [@CMS:2014xfa; @Aaij:2017vad], tested the Standard Model prediction of the branching fraction. This decay is doubly-suppressed in the Standard Model, but may have large contributions from physics beyond the Standard Model (see, for example, [@Ge:2016lwe]). Although the observed branching fraction is currently consistent with Standard Model expectations, there is still considerable room for new physics, given the experimental and theoretical uncertainties. Both LHCb and CMS are expected to reduce their errors significantly in Run II and tightening constraints on possible new physics requires a corresponding improvement in the theoretical determination of the Standard Model branching fraction.
Extraction of the $B_s$ meson branching fraction ${\cal B}( B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ relies on the normalization channels $B^+_u \rightarrow J/\Psi(\mu^+\mu^-) K^+$ and $B^0_d \rightarrow K^+ \pi_-$ [@Adeva:2009ny]. The branching fraction can then be expressed as [@CMS:2014xfa] $${\cal B}(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) = {\cal B}(B_q \rightarrow X)
\frac{f_q}{f_s} \frac{\epsilon_X}{\epsilon_{\mu \mu}} \frac{N_{\mu \mu}}
{N_X},$$ where the $f_q$ are the fragmentation fractions, which give the probability that a $b$-quark hadronizes into a $B_q$ meson. The $\epsilon$ factors in this equation represent detector efficiencies and the $N$ factors denote the observed numbers of events.
The analysis of [@CMS:2014xfa] used the value of $f_s/f_d =
0.259(15)$, determined from LHCb experimental data [@Aaij:2011jp; @Aaij:2013qqa; @LHCb:2013lka]. The ratio $f_s/f_d$ depends on the kinematic range of the experiment, leading to the introduction of an additional systematic uncertainty in the value of $f_s/f_d$ to account for the extrapolation of the LHCb result to the CMS acceptance. Reducing sources of systematic uncertainties in the value of this ratio will improve the precision of the determination of the $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ branching fraction. Indeed, an accurate value for the fragmentation fraction ratio is necessary for improved measurements of other $B_s$ meson decay branching fractions at the LHC [@Adeva:2009ny].
The ratio of the fragmentation fractions, $f_s/f_d$, can be expressed in terms of the ratios of form factors [@Fleischer:2010ay; @Fleischer:2010ca], $$\label{eq:ffrat}
{\cal N}_F = \left [ \frac{f_0^{(s)}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{(d)}(M_K^2)} \right ]^2
\quad \mathrm{and} \quad
{\cal N}'_F = \left [ \frac{f_0^{(s)}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{(d)}(M_\pi^2)}
\right ]^2,$$ where $f_0^{(q)}(M^2)$ is the scalar form factor of the $B_q \rightarrow D_q l \nu$ semileptonic decay at $q^2 = M^2$. The first lattice calculations of the form factor ratios in Equation using heavy clover bottom and charm quarks were published in [@Bailey:2012rr]. In addition, the form factors, $f_+(q^2)$ and $f_0(q^2)$, for the semileptonic decay $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ were determined with twisted mass fermions for the region near zero recoil in [@Atoui:2013zza].
In this article we calculate the form factors, $f_+(q^2)$ and $f_0(q^2)$, for the semileptonic decay $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$. We present a determination of these form factors over the full physical range of momentum transfer, $q^2$ using the modified $z$-expansion for the chiral-continuum-kinematic extrapolation. We combine these form factor results with recent HPQCD results for the $B \rightarrow D \ell \nu$ decay [@Na:2015kha] to determine the ratios of $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ and $B
\rightarrow D \ell \nu$ form factors relevant to the ratio of fragmentation fractions, $f_s/f_d$.
We use the non-relativistic (NRQCD) action for the bottom quarks and the Highly Improved Staggered Quark (HISQ) action for the charm quarks. Our form factors for $B \rightarrow D \ell \nu$ have appeared already in [@Na:2015kha]. Here we first present $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ form factor results and then proceed to the form factor ratios. We find $$\label{eq:ffratresults}
\frac{f_0^{(s)}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{(d)}(M_K^2)} = 1.000(62)
\quad {\rm and} \quad
\frac{f_0^{(s)}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{(d)}(M_\pi^2)} = 1.006(62).$$ This leads to $$\frac{f_s}{f_d} =
0.310(30)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(6)_{\mathrm{theor.}}(38)_{
\mathrm { latt. } }$$ and $$\label{eq:fsfdpp2}
\frac{f_s}{f_d} =
0.307(16)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(23)_{\mathrm{theor.}}(44)_{
\mathrm{latt.}},$$ respectively. The uncertainties in these results are: the experimental statistical and systematic uncertainties; theoretical uncertainties (predominantly arising from a factor that captures deviations from naive factorization and, in Equation , an electroweak correction factor); and the uncertainties in our lattice input. In quoting these results, we have assumed that there are no correlations between the lattice results and the other sources of uncertainty.
In addition to determining the fragmentation fraction ratio relevant to the measurement of the branching fraction for the rare decay, $B_s \rightarrow
\mu^+ \mu^-$, the semileptonic $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay provides a new method to determine the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$. There is a long-standing tension between determinations of $|V_{cb}|$ from exclusive and inclusive measurements of the semileptonic $B$ meson decays (see, for example, [@Amhis:2014hma; @hfag:2016smi] and the review in [@pdg15]), although recent analyses suggest the tension has eased [@Gambino:2016jkc; @Bigi:2016mdz]. The $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay has yet to be observed experimentally and consequently has received less theoretical attention than semileptonic decays of the $B$ meson. The studies that have been undertaken for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay include calculations based on relativistic quark models [@Zhao:2006at; @Bhol:2014jta], light-cone sum rules [@Li:2009wq], perturbative factorization [@Fan:2013kqa] and estimates using the Bethe-Salpeter method [@Li:2010bb; @Chen:2011ut]. At present, there is one unquenched lattice calculation of the form factor ${\cal G}(1)$ at zero recoil [@Atoui:2013zza]. The FNAL/MILC collaboration has previously studied the ratio of the form factors of the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ and $B\to D\ell\nu$ decays [@Bailey:2012rr].
We determine the form factor for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ semileptonic decay at zero momentum transfer to be $f_0(0) = f_+(0) = 0.656(31)$ and at zero recoil to be ${\cal G}(1)\propto f_+(q^2_{\mathrm{max}}) = 1.068(40)$. Although experimental data is frequently presented in the form $|V_{cb}|{\cal G}(1)$, the additional information provided by our calculation of the shape of the form factors throughout the kinematic range will, when combined with future experimental data, provide a new method to extract $|V_{cb}|$ and may elucidate the puzzle of the tension between inclusive and exclusive determinations of this CKM matrix element.
In the next section we briefly outline the details of the calculation, including the gauge ensembles, bottom-charm currents and two- and three-point correlator construction. Our calculation closely parallels that presented in [@Na:2015kha] for the $B \rightarrow D\ell \nu$ semileptonic decay and we refer the reader to that work for further details. In Section \[sec:corrfits\] we discuss correlator fits to our lattice data and Section \[sec:zexp\] covers the chiral-continuum-kinematic extrapolations, which follows closely the methodology of [@Na:2015kha]. We explain how some of the correlations between the new $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ data and the $B \rightarrow D\ell \nu$ data are incorporated into the chiral-continuum-kinematic expansion. Section \[sec:results\] presents our final results for the $B_s \rightarrow
D_s \ell \nu$ form factors, for ${\cal N}_F$ and $\tilde{{\cal N}}_F$, and for $f_s/f_d$ and $R(D_s)$. We summarize in Section \[sec:summary\] and in Appendix \[sec:ffdetails\] we give the information necessary to reconstruct the $B_s
\rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ form factors. The analogous details for $B \rightarrow D \ell \nu$ form factors were summarized in Appendix A of [@Na:2015kha].
\[sec:lattsetup\]Ensembles, currents and correlators
====================================================
Our determination of the form factors for the $B_s \rightarrow D_s \ell \nu$ semileptonic decay closely parallels the analysis presented in [@Na:2015kha]. Here we simply sketch the key ingredients of the analysis and refer the reader to Sections II and III of [@Na:2015kha] for more details of the lattice calculation.
We use five gauge ensembles, summarized in Table \[tab:milc\], generated by the MILC collaboration [@Bazavov:2009bb]. These ensembles include three “coarse” (with lattice spacing $a \approx \SI{0.12}{fm}$) and two “fine” (with $a \approx
\SI{0.09}{fm}$) ensembles and incorporate $n_f = 2+1$ flavors of AsqTad sea quarks.
[cccccc]{} Set & $r_1/a$ & $m_l/m_s$ (sea) & $N_{\mathrm{conf}}$& $N_{\mathrm{tsrc}}$ & $L^3 \times N_t$\
\
\
C1 & 2.647 & 0.005/0.050 & 2096 & 4 & $24^3 \times 64$\
C2 & 2.618 & 0.010/0.050 & 2256 & 2 & $20^3 \times 64$\
C3 & 2.644 & 0.020/0.050 & 1200 & 2 & $20^3 \times 64$\
F1 & 3.699 & 0.0062/0.031 & 1896 & 4 & $28^3 \times 96$\
F2 & 3.712 & 0.0124/0.031 & 1200 & 4 & $28^3 \times 96$\
In addition, we tabulate the light pseudoscalar masses on these ensembles, for both AsqTad and HISQ valence quarks, in Table \[tab:deltapi\]. The difference in these masses captures discretization effects arising from partial quenching. We account for these effects in the chiral-continuum-kinematic expansion, which we discuss in more detail in Section \[sec:zexp\].
[cccccc]{} Set & $M_\pi^{\mathrm{AsqTad}}$ & $aM_\pi^{\mathrm{HISQ}}$ & $aM_K^{\mathrm{AsqTad}}$ & $aM_K^{\mathrm{HISQ}}$ & $aM_{\eta_s}$\
\
\
C1 & 0.15971(20) & 0.15990(20) & 0.36530(29) & 0.31217(20) & 0.41111(12)\
C2 & 0.22447(17) & 0.21110(20) & 0.38331(24) & 0.32851(48) & 0.41445(17)\
C3 & 0.31125(16) & 0.29310(20) & 0.40984(21) & 0.35720(22) & 0.41180(23)\
F1 & 0.14789(18) & 0.13460(10) & 0.25318(19) & 0.22855(17) & 0.294109(93)\
F2 & 0.20635(18) & 0.18730(10) & 0.27217(21) & 0.24596(14) & 0.29315(12)\
In Table \[tab:valq\] we list the valence quark masses for the NRQCD bottom quarks and HISQ charm quarks [@Na:2012kp; @Bouchard:2014ypa]. For completeness and ease of reference, we include both the tree-level wave function renormalization for the massive HISQ quarks [@Monahan:2012dq] and the spin-averaged $\Upsilon$ mass, corrected for electroweak effects, determined in [@Na:2012kp].
[cccccc]{} Set & $a m_b$ & $a m_s$ & $a m_c$ & $ Z_2^{(0)}(a m_c) $ & $aE_{b\overline{b}}^{\mathrm{sim}}$\
\
\
C1 & 2.650 & 0.0489 & 0.6207 & 1.00495618 & 0.28356(15)\
C2 & 2.688 & 0.0492 & 0.6300 & 1.00524023 & 0.28323(18)\
C3 & 2.650 & 0.0491 & 0.6235 & 1.00504054 & 0.27897(20)\
F1 & 1.832 & 0.0337 & 0.4130 & 1.00103879 & 0.25653(14)\
F2 & 1.826 & 0.0336 & 0.4120 & 1.00102902 & 0.25558(28)\
To study $B_s \rightarrow D_s$ semileptonic decays, we evaluate the matrix element of the bottom-charm vector current, $V^\mu$, between $B_s$ and $D_s$ states. We express this matrix element in terms of the form factors $f_+(q^2)$ and $f_0(q^2)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle D_s(p_{D_s}) {} & | V^\mu | B_s(p_{B_s}) \rangle = f_0(q^2)
\frac{M_{B_s}^2-M_{D_s}^2}{q^2}q^\mu \nonumber\\
{} & + f_+(q^2) \left[
p_{B_s}^\mu + p_{D_s}^\mu - \frac{M_{B_s}^2-M_{D_s}^2}{q^2}q^\mu
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the momentum transfer is $q^\mu = p_{B_s}^\mu - p_{D_s}^\mu$. In practice it is simpler to work with the form factors $f_\parallel$ and $f_\perp$, which are related to $f_+(q^2)$ and $f_0(q^2)$ via $$\begin{aligned}
f_+^{(s)}(q^2) = {} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M_{B_{(s)}}}}\Big[f_\parallel^{(s)}(q^2)
\nonumber\\
{} & \qquad
+
(M_{B_{(s)}}-E_{D_{(s)}})f_\perp^{(s)}(q^2)\Big], \\
f_0^{(s)}(q^2) = {} &
\frac{\sqrt{2M_{B_{(s)}}}}{M_{B_{(s)}}^2-M_{D_{(s)}}^2}\bigg[(M_{B_{(s)}}-E_{D_{
(s)} }
)f_\parallel^{(s)}(q^2) \nonumber\\
{} & \qquad +
(E_{D_{(s)}}^2-M_{D_{(s)}}^2)f_\perp^{(s)}(q^2)\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_{D_s}$ is the energy of the daughter $D_s$ meson in the rest frame of the $B_s$ meson. In the following, we work in the rest frame of the $B_s$ meson and when we refer to the spatial momentum, $\vec{p}$, we mean the momentum of the $D_s$ meson.
NRQCD is an effective theory for heavy quarks and results determined using lattice NRQCD must be matched to full QCD to make contact with experimental data. We match the bottom-charm currents, $J_\mu$, at one loop in perturbation theory through ${\cal O}(\alpha_s, \Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b, \alpha_s/am_b)$, where $am_b$ is the bare lattice mass [@Monahan:2012dq]. We re-scale all currents by the nontrivial massive wave function renormalization for the HISQ charm quarks, tabulated in Table \[tab:valq\], [@Na:2015kha].
We calculate $B_s$ and $D_s$ meson two-point correlators and three-point correlators of the bottom-charm currents, $J_\mu$. We use smeared heavy-strange bilinears to represent the $B_s$ meson and incorporate both delta-function and Gaussian smearing, with a smearing radius of $r_0/a = 5$ and $r_0/a = 7$ on the coarse and fine ensembles, respectively. Three-point correlators are computed with the setup illustrated in Figure \[fig:3pt\]. The $B_s$ meson is created at time $t_0$ and a current $J_\mu$ inserted at timeslice $t$, between $t_0$ and $t_0+T$. The daughter $D_s$ meson is then annihilated at timeslice $t_0+T$. We use four values of $T$: 12, 13, 14, and 15 on the coarse lattices; and 21, 22, 23, and 24 on the fine lattices. We implement spatial sums at the source through the $U(1)$ random wall sources $\xi(x)$ and $\xi(x')$ [@Na:2010uf]. We generate data for four different values of the $D_s$ meson momenta, $\vec{p} = 2\pi/(aL)(0,0,0)$, $\vec{p} =
2\pi/(aL)(1,0,0)$, $\vec{p} = 2\pi/(aL)(1,1,0)$, and $\vec{p} =
2\pi/(aL)(1,1,1)$, where $L$ is the spatial lattice extent.
![\[fig:3pt\]Lattice setup for the three-point correlators. See accompanying text for details.](three_point.png){width="45.00000%"}
We fit $B_s$ meson two-point functions to a sum of decaying exponentials in Euclidean time, $t$, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{B_s}^{\beta,\alpha}(t) = {} & \sum_{i=0}^{N_{B_s}-1} b_i^\beta
b_i^{\alpha\ast} e^{-E_i^{B_s,\mathrm{sim}}t} \nonumber\\
{} & + \sum_{i=0}^{N_{B_s}'-1}b_i^{\prime\,\beta}
b_i^{\prime\,\alpha\ast}
(-1)^te^{-E_i^{\prime\,B_s,\mathrm{sim}}t}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the superscripts $\alpha$ and $\beta$ indicate the smearing associated with the $B_s$ meson source (delta function or Gaussian); the $b_i$ and $b_i'$ are amplitudes associated with the ordinary non-oscillatory states and the oscillatory states that arise in the staggered quark formalism; the meson energies are $E_i^{B_s,\mathrm{sim}}$ and $E_i^{\prime\,B_s,\mathrm{sim}}$ for the non-oscillatory and oscillatory states, respectively; and $N_{B_s}^{(\prime)}$ is the number of exponentials included in the fit.
The ground state $B_s$ energy in NRQCD, $E_0^{B_s,\mathrm{sim}}$, is related to the true energy in full QCD, $E_0^{B_s}$, by $$E_0^{B_s} \equiv M_{B_s} =
\frac{1}{2}\left[\overline{M}_{b\overline{b}}^{\mathrm{exp}} -
E_{b\overline{b}}^{\mathrm{sim}}\right] + E_0^{B_s,\mathrm{sim}},$$ because the $b$-quark rest mass has been integrated out in NRQCD. Here $\overline{M}_{b\overline{b}}^{\mathrm{exp}}$ is the spin-averaged $\Upsilon$ mass used to tune the $b$-quark mass and $aE_{b\overline{b}}^{\mathrm{sim}}$ was determined in [@Na:2012kp]. We tabulate the values for $aE_{b\overline{b}}^{\mathrm{sim}}$ in Table \[tab:valq\].
We fit the $D_s$ meson two-point functions to the form $$\begin{aligned}
C_{D_s}(t;\vec{p}) = {} & \sum_{i=0}^{N_{D_s}-1}
|d_i|^2 \left[e^{-E_i^{D_s}t}+e^{-E_i^{D_s}(N_t-t)}\right] \nonumber\\
+\sum_{i=0}^{N_{D_s}'-1}{} & |d_i'|^2
(-1)^t\left[e^{-E_i^{\prime\,D_s}t}+e^{-E_i^{\prime\,D_s}(N_t-t)}\right].\end{aligned}$$ For the three-point correlator we use the fit ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
C_{J}^\alpha{} & (t,T;\vec{p}) = \sum_{i=0}^{N_{D_s}-1} \sum_{j=0}^{N_{B_s}-1}
A_{ij}^\alpha e^{-E_i^{D_s}t}e^{-E_j^{B_s,\mathrm{sim}}(T-t)} \nonumber\\
{} & + \sum_{i=0}^{N_{D_s}'-1} \sum_{j=0}^{N_{B_s}-1}
B_{ij}^\alpha
(-1)^te^{-E_i^{\prime\,D_s}t}e^{-E_j^{B_s,\mathrm{sim}}(T-t)}
\nonumber\\
{} & + \sum_{i=0}^{N_{D_s}-1} \sum_{j=0}^{N_{B_s}'-1}
C_{ij}^\alpha
(-1)^te^{-E_i^{D_s}t}e^{-E_j^{\prime\,B_s,\mathrm{sim}}(T-t)}
\nonumber\\
{} & + \sum_{i=0}^{N_{D_s}'-1} \sum_{j=0}^{N_{B_s}'-1}
D_{ij}^\alpha
(-1)^{T}e^{-E_i^{\prime\,D_s}t}e^{-E_i^{\prime\,B_s,\mathrm{sim}}(T-t)} .\end{aligned}$$ The amplitudes $A_{ij}^\alpha$ for energy levels $(i,j)$ depend on the current $J_\mu$, the daughter $D_s$ meson momentum $\vec{p}$, and the smearing of the $B_s$ meson source, $\alpha$.
The hadronic matrix element between $B_s$ and $D_s$ meson states is then given in terms of the ground state energies and amplitudes extracted from two- and three-point correlator fits by the relation $$\langle D_s(\vec{p}) | V^\mu | B_s \rangle =
\frac{A_{00}^\alpha}{d_0b_0^{\alpha\ast}}\sqrt{2a^3E_0^{D_s}}\sqrt{2a^3M_{B_s}}.$$ For more details on this relation, see Section III of [@Na:2015kha].
\[sec:corrfits\]Correlator fit and form factor results
======================================================
We employ a Bayesian multi-exponential fitting procedure, based on the `python` packages `lsqfit` [@lsqfit] and `corrfitter` [@corrfitter], that has been used by the HPQCD collaboration for a wide range of lattice calculations. Statistical correlations between data points, and correlations between data and priors, are automatically captured with the `gvar` class [@gvar], which facilitates the straightforward manipulation of Gaussian-distributed random variables.
In this Bayesian multi-exponential approach, one uses a number of indicators of fit stability, consistency, and goodness-of-fit to check the fit results. For example, we check that, beyond a minimum number of exponentials, the fit results are independent of the number of exponentials included in the fit. Figure \[fig:ds2pt\] illustrates the results of this test for the $D_s$ meson two-point fits on ensemble set F1. The upper panel presents our results for four values of the spatial momentum, plotted as a function of the number of exponentials included in the plot. The lower panel shows the results obtained from three types of fits: a simultaneous fit to correlator data for all four spatial momenta, plotted with blue diamonds; a chained fit (discussed in detail in Appendix A of [@Bouchard:2014ypa]) to correlator data for all four spatial momenta simultaneously, shown with red squares; and an “individual” fit, plotted with purple circles. These individual fits include the correlator data for just a single daughter meson momentum in each fit.
We take the result for $N_{\mathrm{exp}} = 5$ from the chained fit as our final result for each momentum. These results are tabulated in Table \[tab:ds2pt\] and shown in Figure \[fig:ds2pt\] as shaded bands in each plot. All three fit approaches give consistent results, as seen in the lower panel of Figure \[fig:ds2pt\], but the simultaneous fits, with or without chaining, have the advantage that they capture the correlations between momenta, which is then reflected in the uncertainty quoted in the fit results. The chained fits give slightly better values of reduced $\chi^2$. For example, for the ground state results plotted in the lower panel, the chained fits give $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof} = 0.88$ for $N_{\mathrm{nexp}} = 5$, while the simultaneous fits give $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof} = 1.1$. Both fits include 164 degrees of freedom. In addition, the chained fits are about ten percent faster than the simultaneous fits—14.6s to generate all the data in the lower plot for the chained fit compared to 16.4s for the simultaneous fit. This is not an important consideration for the two-point fits, but becomes relevant for the larger three-point fits, which can take many hours. Choosing to use chained fits for both two- and three-point fits ensures a consistent approach throughout the fitting procedure.
![\[fig:ds2pt\]Fit results for the $D_s$ meson two-point correlator as a function of the number of exponentials included in the fit on ensemble F1. The upper plot includes data for all four values of the spatial momentum of the $D_s$ meson. The lower plot compares the values for the ground state energy from the simultaneous fit with two alternative fitting strategies, which are described in the text, at zero spatial momentum. Note the magnified scale on the vertical axis in the lower panel.](ds_nexp.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![\[fig:ds2pt\]Fit results for the $D_s$ meson two-point correlator as a function of the number of exponentials included in the fit on ensemble F1. The upper plot includes data for all four values of the spatial momentum of the $D_s$ meson. The lower plot compares the values for the ground state energy from the simultaneous fit with two alternative fitting strategies, which are described in the text, at zero spatial momentum. Note the magnified scale on the vertical axis in the lower panel.](ds_nexp_000.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
[ccccc]{} Set & $a M_{D_s}$ & $a E_{D_s}(1,0,0)$ & $a E_{D_s}(1,1,0)$ & $
a E_{D_s}(1,1,1)$\
\
\
C1 & 1.18755(22) & 1.21517(34) & 1.24284(33) & 1.27013(39)\
C2 & 1.20090(30) & 1.24013(56) & 1.27822(61) & 1.31543(97)\
C3 & 1.19010(33) & 1.23026(53) & 1.26948(54) & 1.30755(79)\
F1 & 0.84674(12) & 0.87559(19) & 0.90373(20) & 0.93096(26)\
F2 & 0.84415(14) & 0.87348(25) & 0.90145(25) & 0.92869(33)\
As a further test of the two-point fits for the $D_s$ meson we determine the ratio $(M_{D_s}^2+\vec{p}^2)/E_{D_s}^2$ on each ensemble. We plot the results in Figure \[fig:dsdispersion\]. The shaded region corresponds to $1\pm
\alpha_s(ap/\pi)^2$, where we set $\alpha_s = 0.25$. In general, the data lie systematically above the relativistic value of unity, indicating that the statistical uncertainties of the fit results are sufficiently small that we can resolve discretization effects at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s(ap/\pi)^2)$. These discretization effects are less than $0.5\%$ in the dispersion relation.
![\[fig:dsdispersion\]Dispersion relation for each ensemble. The shaded region corresponds to $1\pm\alpha_s(ap/\pi)^2$ where we take $\alpha_s=0.25$.](disp_ds.png){width="48.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:bs2pt\] shows the corresponding two-point fit results for the ground state of the $B_s$ meson for ensemble sets C2 and F1. These ensemble sets have the same sea quark mass ratios, $m_\ell/m_s = 1/5$ (see Table \[tab:milc\]) and the difference between the results stems almost entirely from the lattice spacing. We take the values with $N_{\mathrm{exp}} =
5$ as our final results, highlighted in the figure by the square data points and the shaded bands. We tabulate our final results in Table \[tab:bs2pt\].
![\[fig:bs2pt\]Fit results for the $B_s$ meson two-point correlator as a function of the number of exponentials included in the fit on two ensemble sets, C2 and F1. We plot our final results, for which $N_{\mathrm{exp}}=5$, as a green hexagon for C2 and a purple square for F1, with corresponding shaded bands.](bs_nexp.png){width="48.00000%"}
[ccccc]{} C1 & C2 & C3 & F1 & F2\
\
\
0.53714(60) & 0.54332(65) & 0.53657(86) & 0.40873(53) & 0.40819(44)\
For the three-point correlator fits, we use a fitting procedure that diverges slightly from the approach taken in [@Na:2015kha] and do not employ a “mixed” fitting strategy. Instead of combining “individual” and “master” fits (see [@Na:2015kha] for full details), we use chained fits to correlators at all spatial momenta. This fitting approach ensures that we keep track of all statistical correlations between data at different momenta while maintaining fit stability, which was an issue for simultaneous fits attempted in [@Na:2015kha].
To improve stability and goodness-of-fit, we thin the three-point correlator data on the fine ensembles by keeping every third timeslice. We illustrate the stability of these fits with the number of exponentials in the fit in Figure \[fig:3ptexp\].
![\[fig:3ptexp\]Fit results for the three-point amplitudes as a function of the number of exponentials on two ensemble sets, C2 and F1. We fit to correlator data for all values of the spatial momentum simultaneously and thin by keeping every third timeslice. We plot our final results, for which $N_{\mathrm{exp}}=5$, as a green hexagon for C2 and a purple square for F1, with corresponding shaded bands. Note that the amplitudes on set C2 are approximately three times larger than the amplitudes on set F1, as indicated by the left (F1) and right (C2) vertical axes.](ann_nexp.png){width="48.00000%"}
We test our choice by comparing fit results for the three-point amplitudes with thinning (keeping both every third and every fifth timeslice) and without thinning and plot the results in Figure \[fig:3ptthin\]. We do not consider thinning by an even integer, which removes information about the oscillatory states generated by the staggered quark action.
![\[fig:3ptthin\]Fit results for the three-point amplitudes as a function of the number of exponentials for different choices of data thinning: no thinning, represented by turquoise triangles; keeping every third timeslice, represented by blue circles and the label “Thinning = 3”; and every fifth timeslice, shown by yellow pentagons and the label “Thinning = 5”. Our final result, for which we use thinning by every third timeslice and $N_{\mathrm{exp}}=5$, is shown as a purple square and the corresponding purple shaded band.](ann_thin.png){width="48.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:3ptT\] we present results for the three-point fits when different combinations of source-sink separations, $T$, are used. For our final results we take the full set, $T = (12,13,14,15)$ on the coarse ensembles and $T = (21,22,23,24)$ on the fine ensembles.
![\[fig:3ptT\]Fit results for the three-point amplitude $A_{00}$ as a function of the number of source-sink separations, $T$, incorporated in the fit on ensemble set F1. We fit to correlator data for all values of the spatial momentum simultaneously and thin by keeping every third timeslice. For our final results we take the full set, $T = (12,13,14,15)$ on the coarse ensembles and $T = (21,22,23,24)$ on the fine ensembles, indicated by the first point, the purple square, and the purple shaded band. Fit results from other combinations of source-sink separations are plotted as blue circles.](ann_Tij.png){width="48.00000%"}
We fit the three-point correlator data after matching the bottom-charm currents to full QCD, as described briefly in Section \[sec:lattsetup\] and in more detail in [@Na:2015kha]. In [@Na:2015kha] this approach was compared with fitting the data first and then matching to full QCD and, as expected, the results are in good agreement within errors.
We summarize our final results for the form factors, $f_0(\vec{p})$ and $f_+(\vec{p})$, for each ensemble and $D_s$ momentum in Tables \[tab:f0\] and \[tab:fp\]. We represent the correlations between form factors at different momenta as a heat map in Figure \[fig:heatmap\] for ensemble set F2.
![\[fig:heatmap\]Correlations between form factors at different momenta for the ensemble set F2.](heatmap.png){width="48.00000%"}
[ccccc]{} Set & $f_0(0,0,0)$ & $f_0(1,0,0)$ & $f_0(1,1,0)$ & $
f_0(1,1,1)$\
\
\
C1 & 0.8885(11) & 0.8754(14) & 0.8645(13) & 0.8568(13)\
C2 & 0.8822(13) & 0.8663(15) & 0.8524(16) & 0.8418(18)\
C3 & 0.8883(13) & 0.8723(16) & 0.8603(16) & 0.8484(21)\
F1 & 0.90632(98) & 0.8848(13) & 0.8674(13) & 0.8506(17)\
F2 & 0.9047(12) & 0.8855(16) & 0.8667(15) & 0.8487(19)\
[cccc]{} Set & $f_+(1,0,0)$ & $f_+(1,1,0)$ & $f_+(1,1,1)$\
\
\
C1 & 1.1384(35) & 1.1081(20) & 1.0827(21)\
C2 & 1.1137(29) & 1.0795(22) & 1.0470(21)\
C3 & 1.1260(34) & 1.0912(24) & 1.0552(28)\
F1 & 1.1453(29) & 1.0955(24) & 1.0549(24)\
F2 & 1.1347(42) & 1.0905(26) & 1.0457(33)\
\[sec:zexp\]Chiral, continuum and kinematic extrapolations
==========================================================
The form factor results presented in the previous section are determined at finite lattice spacing, with sea quark masses that are heavier than their physical values. These form factors are therefore functions of the momentum transfer, the lattice spacing, and the sea quark masses. The form factors determined from experimental data are functions of a single kinematic variable only. Typically this variable is the momentum transfer, $q^2$, or the daughter meson energy, $E_{D_s}$, but the form factors can also be expressed in terms of the $w$-variable, defined by $$\label{eq:wdef}
w(q^2) = 1 + \frac{q_{\mathrm{max}}^2-q^2}{2M_{B_s}M_{D_s}},$$ where $q_{\mathrm{max}}^2 = (M_{B_s}-M_{D_s})^2\simeq \SI{11.54}{GeV^2}$ or the $z$-variable, $$z(q^2) = \frac{\sqrt{t_+-q^2} - \sqrt{t_+-t_0}}{\sqrt{t_+-q^2}+\sqrt{t_+-t_0}}.$$ Here $t_+ = (M_{B_s}+M_{D_s})^2$ and $t_0$ is a free parameter, which we take to be $t_0 = q_{\mathrm{max}}^2$ to ensure consistency with the analysis of [@Na:2015kha]. In Figure \[fig:ffbandbs\] we compare our results for the form factors, $f_0(q^2)$ and $f_+(q^2)$, with the corresponding form factors for the $B\to
D\ell\nu$ decay, taken from [@Na:2015kha], as a function of the $z$-variable. From the plot, we see that there is little dependence on the light spectator quark species in the form factor results.
![\[fig:ffbandbs\]Form factor results for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay, compared to those for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ decay from [@Na:2015kha], as function of $z$. We plot four sets of results, for $f_0(q^2(z))$ and $f_+(q^2(z))$ for both $B$ and $B_s$ meson decays. We distinguish the data in four ways. First, the shape of each data marker indicates the corresponding ensemble set, as shown in the legend in the upper left corner: squares represent set C1; diamonds set C2; circles C3; left-triangles F1; and triangles F2. Second, the upper set of points are those for $f_+(q^2(z))$ and the lower set of points show the data for $f_0(q^2(z))$, as indicated by the annotations. Third, the color of the points distinguishes the data as follows: the turquoise-green points represent $f_+^{B_s\to
D_s}(q^2(z))$; the light purple points are $f_+^{B\to D}(q^2(z))$; the blue points are $f_0^{B_s\to D_s}(q^2(z))$; and the orange-yellow points are $f_0^{B\to D}(q^2(z))$. Finally, we distinguish the data by size: the larger markers represent the $B\to D\ell\nu$ decay, while the smaller points are from those for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay.](b_bs_ff_z.png){width="48.00000%"}
To relate the form factor results determined at finite lattice spacing and unphysical sea quark masses to experimental data, we must therefore perform continuum and chiral extrapolations, along with a kinematic extrapolation in terms of one of the choices of kinematic variable. We combine these extrapolations through the modified $z$-expansion, introduced in [@Na:2010uf; @Na:2011mc], and applied to $B_{(s)}$ heavy-light decays in [@Bouchard:2013mia; @Bouchard:2013pna; @Bouchard:2014ypa]. Our analysis of the chiral-continuum-kinematic extrapolation for $B_s \to D_s \ell \nu$ decay closely parallels that for the $B \to D \ell \nu$ decay in [@Na:2015kha], so we only briefly outline the key components and refer the reader to [@Na:2015kha] for details.
We express the dependence of the form factors on the $z$-variable through a modification of the BCL parameterization [@Bourrely:2008za] $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(q^2(z)) = {} & \frac{1}{P_0}\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}
a_j^{(0)}(m_l,m_l^{\mathrm{sea}},a)
z^j, \\
f_+(q^2(z)) = {} & \frac{1}{P_+}\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}
a_j^{(+)}(m_l,m_l^{\mathrm{sea}},a)\nonumber\\
{} & \qquad \times
\left[z^j - (-1)^{j-J}\frac{j}{J}z^J\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here the $P_{0,+}$ are Blaschke factors that take into account the effects of expected poles above the physical region, $$P_{0,+}(q^2) = \left(1-\frac{q^2}{M_{0,+}^2}\right),$$ where we take $M_+ = M_{B_c^\ast} = \SI{6.330(9)}{GeV}$ [@Gregory:2009hq], and $M_0 = \SI{6.42(10)}{GeV}$. We find little dependence on the value of $M_0$, in line with the results of [@Na:2015kha]. The expansion coefficients $a_j^{(0,+)}$ include lattice spacing and light quark mass dependence and can be written as $$a_j^{(0,+)}(m_l,m_l^{\mathrm{sea}},a) =
\widetilde{a}_j^{(0,+)}\widetilde{D}_j^{(0,+)}(m_l,m_l^{\mathrm{sea}},a),$$ where the $\widetilde{D}_j^{(0,+)}$ include all lattice artifacts and chiral logarithms. These coefficients are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Dcoeff}
\widetilde{D}_j = {} & 1 + c_j^{(1)} x_\pi+ c_j^{(2)} x_\pi
\log(x_\pi) \nonumber\\
{} & \qquad +
d_j^{(1)}\left(\frac{\delta x_\pi}{2} + \delta x_K\right) +
d_j^{(2)}\delta x_{\eta_s}
\nonumber\\
{} & \qquad + e_j^{(1)} \left(\frac{aE_{D_s}}{\pi}\right)^2 + e_j^{(2)}
\left(\frac{aE_{D_s}}{\pi}\right)^4 \nonumber\\
{} & \qquad + m_j^{(1)} (am_c)^2 + m_j^{(2)} (am_c)^4,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
x_{\pi,K,\eta_s} = {} & \frac{M_{\pi,K,\eta_s}^2}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2}, \\
\delta x_{\pi,K} = {} & \frac{(M_{\pi,K}^{\mathrm{AsqTad}})^2 -
(M_{\pi,K}^{\mathrm{HISQ}})^2
}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2}, \\
\delta x_{\eta_s} = {} & \frac{(M_{\eta_s}^{\mathrm{HISQ}})^2 -
(M_{\eta_s}^{\mathrm{phys.}})^2
}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2}, \end{aligned}$$ and the $c_j^{(i)}$, $d_j^{(i)}$, $e_j^{(i)}$, and $m_j^{(i)}$ are fit parameters, along with the $\widetilde{a}_j^{(0,+)}$. We use the fit function form of [@Na:2015kha], with a new fit parameter, $d_j^{(2)}$, to account for the tuning of the valence strange quark mass on each ensemble. We tabulate the meson masses required to calculate $\delta x_{\pi,K,\eta_s}$ in Table \[tab:deltapi\].
We further modify the $z$-expansion parameterization of the form factors to accommodate the systematic uncertainty associated with the truncation of the matching procedure at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s, \Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b,
\alpha_s/(am_b))$. We introduce fit parameters $m_\parallel$ and $m_\perp$, with central value zero and width $\delta m_{\parallel,\perp}$ and re-scale the form factors, $f_\parallel$ and $f_\perp$ according to $$f_{\parallel,\perp} \rightarrow (1+m_{\parallel,\perp})f_{\parallel,\perp}.$$ We take the systematic uncertainties in these fit parameters as 3% and refer the reader to the detailed discussion of this approach in [@Na:2015kha].
In Figure \[fig:ffres1\] we plot our fit results for $f_0(z)$, $f_+(z)$ as a function of the $z$-variable. We obtain a reduced $\chi^2$ of $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof} = 1.2$ with 36 degrees of freedom (dof), with a quality factor of $Q=0.24$. The $Q$-value (or $p$-value) corresponds to the probability that the $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ from the fit could have been larger, by chance, assuming the data are all Gaussian and consistent with each other. We plot the lattice data and the results of the chiral-continuum-kinematic extrapolation for $f_+(z)$ as the upper, red shaded band and for $f_0(z)$ as the lower, purple shaded band. We use the fit ansatz outlined above, including terms up to $z^3$ in the modified $z$-expansion, and refer to these results as the “standard extrapolation”. We tabulate our choice of priors and the fit results in Appendix \[sec:ffdetails\], and provide the corresponding $z$-expansion coefficients and their correlations in Table \[tab:Bszexp\]. Following [@Na:2015kha] and the earlier work of [@Na:2010uf; @Na:2011mc], we group the priors into Group I and Group II variables, and add a third group. Broadly speaking, Group I priors are the typical fit parameters, Group II includes the input lattice scales and masses, and Group III priors are physical input masses. See the appendix of [@Na:2015kha] for more details.
![\[fig:ffres1\]Fit results from the “standard extrapolation” fit ansatz detailed in the text. The purple data points show the fit results at finite lattice spacing and the red and purple shaded bands are the physical extrapolations.](bs_ff_z.png){width="48.00000%"}
To test the convergence of our fit ansatz, we follow a procedure similar to that outlined in [@Na:2015kha]. This can be summarized as modifying the fit ansatz in the following ways:
1. include terms up to $z^2$ in the $z$-expansion;
2. include terms up to $z^4$ in the $z$-expansion;
3. add light-quark mass dependence to the fit parameters $m_j^{(i)}$;
4. add strange-quark mass dependence to the fit parameters $m_j^{(i)}$;
5. add bottom-quark mass dependence to the fit parameters $m_j^{(i)}$;
6. include discretization terms up to $(am_c)^2$;
7. include discretization terms up to $(am_c)^6$;
8. include discretization terms up to $(aE_{D_s}/\pi)^2$;
9. include discretization terms up to $(aE_{D_s}/\pi)^6$;
10. omit the $x_\pi \log(x_\pi)$ term;
11. incorporate a 2% uncertainty for higher-order matching contributions;
12. incorporate a 4% uncertainty for higher-order matching contributions;
13. incorporate 4% and 2% uncertainties on coarse and fine ensembles, respectively, for higher-order matching contributions.
We show the results of these modifications in Figure \[fig:deltaz\]. This plot demonstrates that the fit has converged with respect to a variety of modifications of the chiral-continuum-kinematic extrapolation ansatz. As part of this process, we also tested the significance of the Blaschke factor in the fit results. In line with the results of [@Na:2015kha], we found that, while the results agreed within uncertainties, removing the Blaschke lowered the central value and increased the uncertainty of the result. This test is not strictly a test of convergence and is therefore not included in Figure \[fig:deltaz\].
![\[fig:deltaz\]Fit results from modifications to the “standard extrapolation” fit ansatz, plotted as blue circles representing the form factor $f_0$ at $q^2=0$ (the lower set of data points) and at $q^2 =
q^2_{\mathrm{max}}$ (the upper set of points). The test numbers labeling the horizontal axis correspond to the modifications listed in the text. The first data point, the purple square for $f_0(q^2=0)$ and turquoise diamond for $f_0(
q^2_{\mathrm{max}})$, are the “standard extrapolation” fit results, which are also represented by the purple and turquoise shaded bands, respectively.](bs_ff_fit.png){width="48.00000%"}
To determine the ratio of form factors, we simultaneously fit the lattice form factor data for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ and $B\to D\ell\nu$ decays in a single script. We take the form factor results from Table III of [@Na:2015kha] for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ decay. Fitting the results simultaneously ensures that statistical correlations between the two data sets, such as those stemming from the lattice spacing determination on each ensemble set, are included in the final result for the ratio at zero momentum transfer. We do not re-analyze the $B\to D\ell\nu$ to account for statistical correlations between the correlators themselves, which have negligible effect on the final result, given the current precision. This analysis would require fitting both $B\to D\ell\nu$ and $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ two- and three-point correlators simultaneously. To ensure that these statistical correlations are not important, we tested the correlations between the three-point correlators on different ensemble sets. We show an example of the corresponding correlations as a heat map in Figure \[fig:bbsheatmap\], from which one can see that statistical correlations are less than $\sim 0.6$. We have found that correlations of this size have negligible impact at our current level of precision.
![\[fig:bbsheatmap\]Correlations between $B\to D\ell\nu$ and $B_s\to
D_s\ell\nu$ ensemble-averaged, three-point correlators for ensemble set C1. The data correspond to a single $B_{(s)}$ meson source with Gaussian smearing $r_0/a=5$, a source-sink separation of $T = 13$ and with $a\vec{p}_{D_{(s)}} =
(0,0,0)$.](b_bs_3pt.png){width="50.00000%"}
We fit the form factor data using the standard extrapolation ansätze for both the $B\to D\ell\nu$ and $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ data. For the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay, we choose the priors for the coefficients in the modified $z$-expansion to be equal to those for the corresponding expression for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ $z$-expansion. These priors reflect the close agreement between the values for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ and $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decays, illustrated in Figure \[fig:ffbandbs\]. We list our choice of priors and the fit results for the ratio of form factors in Appendix \[sec:ffdetails\], and provide the corresponding $z$-expansion coefficients and their correlations in Table \[tab:BBszexp\].
\[sec:results\]Results
======================
Form factors
------------
We plot our final results for the form factors, $f_0(q^2)$ and $f_+(q^2)$, as a function of the momentum transfer, $q^2$, in Figure \[fig:ffq2\].
![\[fig:ffq2\]Chiral and continuum extrapolated form factors, $f_0(q^2)$ (lower band) and $f_+(q^2)$ (upper band), as a function of the momentum transfer.](bs_ff_q2.png){width="48.00000%"}
Our final result for the form factor at zero momentum transfer is $$\label{eq:ff0result}
f_0^{B_s\to D_s}(0) = f_+^{B_s\to D_s}(0) = 0.656(31).$$ We provide an estimate of the error budget for this result in Table \[tab:f0errors\]. For the ratio of form factors, we find $$\label{eq:ffKresult}
\frac{f_0^{B_s\to D_s}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{B\to D}(M_K^2)} =
1.000(62),$$ and $$\label{eq:ffmpiresult}
\frac{f_0^{B_s\to D_s}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{B\to D}(M_\pi^2)} =
1.006(62),$$ with corresponding error budgets in Table \[tab:fratioerrors\]. We show the extrapolation bands as a function of momentum transfer for both $B_s\to D_s$ (purple hatched band) and $B
\to D$ (plain turquoise band) semileptonic decays in Figure \[fig:ffratioq2\].
![\[fig:ffratioq2\]Chiral and continuum extrapolated form factors, $f_0(q^2)$ (lower band) and $f_+(q^2)$ (upper band), as a function of the momentum transfer, for both $B_s\to D_s$ (purple hatched band) and $B \to D$ (plain turquoise band) semileptonic decays. The lattice data for each decay cannot be distinguished on this plot and are therefore not included. See Figure \[fig:ffres1\] for a detailed plot of the results for the form factors at finite lattice spacing for both decays.](bs_b_ff_q2.png){width="48.00000%"}
We find agreement, within errors, with the results of [@Bailey:2012rr], which are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f_0^{B_s\to D_s}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{B\to
D}(M_K^2)}[\mathrm{FNAL/MILC}] =
{} & 1.046(46)\\
\frac{f_0^{B_s\to D_s}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{B\to D}(M_\pi^2)}[\mathrm{FNAL/MILC}] =
{} & 1.054(50).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have combined the uncertainties quoted in [@Bailey:2012rr], which are statistical and systematic, in quadrature.
For the form factor at zero recoil, $f_+(q^2_{\mathrm{max}})$, which is often quoted as $${\cal G}(1) = \frac{2\sqrt{\kappa}}{1+\kappa}f_+(q_{\mathrm{max}}^2),$$ where $\kappa = M_{D_s}/M_{B_s}$, we find $$\label{eq:G1result}
{\cal G}(1) = 1.068(40).$$ This result is in good agreement with the value of ${\cal G}(1) =
1.052(46)$ determined in [@Atoui:2013zza], with a slightly smaller uncertainty. The corresponding values for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ form factors are ${\cal
G}^{B\to D}(1) = 1.035(40)$ [@Na:2015kha] and ${\cal
G}^{B\to D}(1) = 1.058(9)$ [@Bailey:2012rr] (where the quoted uncertainty includes only statistical uncertainties).
The slope of the form factor, $f_+(q^2)$, is given by $$\rho^2(w) = -\frac{{\cal G}'(w)}{{\cal G}(w)},$$ where the derivative is with respect to the $w$-variable of Equation . In the CLN parameterization, [@Caprini:1997mu], the form factor is then parameterized by $${\cal G}(w) = {\cal G}(1)\Big[1-8\rho^2z + (51 \rho^2-10)z^2 - (252
\rho^2-84)z^3\Big],$$ with $z = z(w)$ the $z$-variable of the previous section: $$z(w) = \frac{\sqrt{w+1}-\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{w+1}+\sqrt{2}}.$$ We obtain $$\rho^2(1) = 1.244(76)$$ for the slope of the form factor.
Experimental data for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ decay is typically presented in the form $|V_{cb}|{\cal G}(1)$, since the differential decay rate for the $B_{(s)}\to D_{(s)}\ell\nu$ decay can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Gamma(B_{(s)}\to D_{(s)}\ell\nu)}{dw} = {} & \frac{G_F^2}{48 \pi^3}
M_{D_{(s)}}^3(M_{B_{(s)}}+M_{D_{(s)}})^2 \nonumber\\
{} & \times (w^2-1)^{3/2}|V_{cb}|^2|{\cal G}(w)|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant. In this form, lattice results for the form factor ${\cal G}(1)$ provide the normalization required to extract $|V_{cb}|$ from experimental data. Incorporating the slope of the form factor, $\rho^2(w)$, helps further tighten experimental determinations of $|V_{cb}|$. An even more powerful approach incorporates the full kinematic dependence on the scalar and vector form factors, in combination with experimental data over a range of momentum transfer [@Na:2015kha; @Huschle:2015rga]. When combined with our form factor results, future experimental data for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay will provide a new method to extract $|V_{cb}|$ and may shed light on the long-standing tension between exclusive and inclusive determinations of $|V_{cb}|$.
Form factor error budget
------------------------
We tabulate the errors in the form factors at zero momentum transfer, Equation , in Table \[tab:f0errors\].
[cc]{} Type & Partial uncertainty (%)\
\
\
Statistical & 1.22\
Chiral extrapolation & 0.80\
Quark mass tuning & 0.66\
Discretization & 2.47\
Kinematic & 0.71\
Matching & 2.21\
\
\
total & 3.70
The sources of uncertainty listed in Table \[tab:f0errors\] are:
#### Statistical
The statistical uncertainties include the two- and three-point correlator fit errors and those associated with the lattice spacing determination, $r_1$ and $r_1/a$.
#### Chiral extrapolation
This uncertainty includes the valence and sea quark mass extrapolation errors and chiral logarithms in the chiral-continuum extrapolation. These effects correspond to the fit parameters $c_j^{i}$ in Equation .
#### Quark mass tuning
Uncertainties arising from tuning errors in the light and strange quark masses at finite lattice spacing, including partial quenching effects between the HISQ valence and AsqTad sea quarks. These uncertainties are generally very small.
#### Discretization
Discretization effects incorporate the $(am_c)^n$ and $(aE_{D_s}/\pi)^n$ terms in the modified $z$-expansion. These effects are the dominant source of uncertainty in our results.
#### Kinematic
These uncertainties stem from the $z$-expansion coefficients and the locations of the poles in the Blaschke factors.
#### Matching
Matching errors arise from the $m_{\perp,\parallel}$ fit parameters discussed in the previous section. Perturbative matching uncertainties are the second-largest source of uncertainty in our final results. We propagate these uncertainties from the large momentum-transfer region, for which we have lattice results, to zero momentum-transfer.
The uncertainties associated with physical meson mass input errors and finite volume effects, which are both less than $0.01\%$, are not included in these estimates, because they are negligible contributions to the final error budget. In our error budget, we also neglect uncertainties from electromagnetic effects, isospin breaking, and the effects of quenching in the charm quark in the gauge ensembles.
In Table \[tab:fratioerrors\] we list the uncertainties in the form factor ratios, Equations and . These uncertainties are dominated by those coming from the $B\to D\ell\nu$ decay [@Na:2015kha].
[ccc]{} Type &\
& $\frac{\vphantom{\big[}f_0^{B_s\to
D_s}(M_\pi^2)}{\vphantom{\big[}f_0^{B\to D}(M_K^2)}$ & $\frac{\vphantom{\big[}f_0^{B_s\to
D_s}(M_\pi^2)}{\vphantom{\big[}f_0^{B\to D}(M_\pi^2)}$\
\
\
Statistical & 2.28 & 2.32\
Chiral extrapolation & 1.22 & 1.22\
Quark mass tuning & 0.81 & 0.81\
Discretization & 3.48 & 3.49\
Kinematic & 1.38 & 1.43\
Matching & 0.07 & 0.05\
\
\
total & 6.15 & 6.18
Semileptonic decay phenomenology
--------------------------------
With our results for the ratio of the form factors, $f_0^{B_s\to
D_s}/f_0^{B\to D}$, in Equations and , we can now determine the ratio of fragmentation fractions. LHCb presents their measurement of the these ratios in the form [@Aaij:2011hi] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f_s}{f_d} ={} & 0.310(30)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}
\frac{1}{{\cal N}_a{\cal N}_F},\label{eq:fsfd1}\\
\frac{f_s}{f_d} ={} & 0.307(17)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(23)_{\mathrm{syst.}}
\frac{1}{{\cal N}_a{\cal N}_e{\cal N}'_F},\label{eq:fsfd2}\end{aligned}$$ where the ${\cal N}_a$ parameterize deviations from naive factorization and ${\cal N}_e$ is an electroweak correction factor to account for $W$-exchange. The dependence on the form factors is expressed in ${\cal N}_F$ and ${\cal N}'_F$, which are given in Equation . For convenience, we repeat those expressions here: $$\label{eq:ffrat2}
{\cal N}_F= \left [ \frac{f_0^{(s)}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{(d)}(M_K^2)} \right ]^2
\quad \mathrm{and} \quad
{\cal N}'_F = \left [ \frac{f_0^{(s)}(M_\pi^2)}{f_0^{(d)}(M_\pi^2)}
\right ]^2.$$ These ratios are relevant to the extraction of the fragmentation fraction ratios from the branching fraction ratios $$\frac{{\cal B}(\overline{B}_s^0\to
D_s^+\pi^-)}{{\cal B}(\overline{B}^0\to
D^+K^-)}\quad \mathrm{and} \quad \frac{{\cal B}(\overline{B}_s^0\to
D_s^+\pi^-)}{{\cal B}(\overline{B}^0\to
D^+\pi^-)},$$ respectively.
Using our results in Equations and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_F= {} & 1.00(12),\\
{\cal N}'_F ={} & 1.01(12).\end{aligned}$$ These results are uncorrelated with the other factors in Equations and , so that we can update the LHCb result for the fragmentation ratio directly. Using the values of ${\cal N}_a =
1.00(2)$ and ${\cal N}_e =
0.966(75)$ [@Fleischer:2010ay; @Fleischer:2010ca], we find $$\label{eq:fsfdK}
\frac{f_s}{f_d} =
0.310(30)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(6)_{theor.}(38)_{\mathrm{latt.}}$$ by using ${\cal N}_F$ for the ${\cal B}(\overline{B}_s^0\to
D_s^+\pi^-)/{\cal B}(\overline{B}^0\to
D^+K^-)$ channel. The uncertainties in this result are: the experimental statistical and systematic uncertainties; the uncertainty associated with ${\cal N}_a$; and the uncertainties in our lattice input, ${\cal N}_F$. We assume no correlations in these uncertainties. For the ${\cal
B}(\overline{B}_s^0\to
D_s^+\pi^-)/{\cal B}(\overline{B}^0\to
D^+\pi^-)$ channel, we obtain $$\label{eq:fsfdpi}
\frac{f_s}{f_d} =
0.307(16)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(23)_{\mathrm{theor.}}(44)_{
\mathrm{latt.}}$$ from ${\cal N}'_F$.
These results are in agreement with the result determined in [@Bailey:2012rr], $$\frac{f_s}{f_d} =
0.286(16)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(21)_{\mathrm{syst.}}(26)_{\mathrm{latt.}}(22)_{
\mathrm {Ne} }.$$ Both of these lattice results are a little higher than that quoted in [@CMS:2014xfa] of $f_s/f_d = 0.259(15)$ or the average value of $f_s/f_d =
0.267^{+22}_{-20}$ determined in [@Aaij:2011jp], but all results agree within the quoted uncertainties.
The ratio $$R(D) = \frac{{\cal B}(B\to D\tau \nu)}{{\cal B}(B\to D\ell \nu)}$$ measures the ratio of branching fraction of the semileptonic decay to the $\tau$ lepton to the branching fraction to an electron or muon (represented by $\ell$). The experimental measurements of this branching fraction ratio are currently in tension with the Standard Model result. The global experimental average is [@Lees:2012xj; @Lees:2013uzd; @Huschle:2015rga; @hfag:2016rds] $$R(D)_{\mathrm{exp.}} = 0.391(41)_{\mathrm{stat.}}(28)_{\mathrm{sys.}},$$ a value that is approximately 4$\sigma$ from the theoretical expectation $$R(D)_{\mathrm{theor.}} = 0.299(7),$$ where we have taken the mean of the results in [@Kamenik:2008tj; @Bailey:2012rr; @Na:2015kha], and combined uncertainties in quadrature, neglecting any correlations for simplicity, because a full analysis of this result is beyond the scope of this work.
We present the first calculation from lattice QCD of the corresponding ratio for the semileptonic $B_s\to D_s\ell \nu$ decay, $$R(D_s) = \frac{{\cal B}(B_s\to D_s\tau \nu)}{{\cal B}(B_s\to D_s\ell \nu)}.$$ This ratio has not been experimentally measured and this provides an opportunity for lattice QCD to make a clear prediction of the value expected from the Standard Model. Using the form factor results of the previous section, we find $$\label{eq:rdsresult}
R(D_s) = 0.314(6).$$ We provide a complete error budget for this ratio in Table \[tab:rdserrors\] and plot the differential branching fractions for $B_s\to D_s\mu \nu$ and $B_s\to D_s \tau\nu$ as functions of the momentum transfer in Figure \[fig:dgdq\].
![\[fig:dgdq\]Differential branching fractions for the $B_s\to
D_s\mu \nu$ (hatched magenta band) and $B_s\to D_s \tau\nu$ (purple band) decays.](rds_q2.png){width="42.00000%"}
This result is larger, and about three time more precise, than the prediction of $R(D_s) = 0.274^{+20}_{-19}$ [@Bhol:2014jta], where the form factors were determined from a relativistic quark model.
[cc]{} Type & Partial uncertainty (%)\
\
\
Statistical & 0.90\
Chiral extrapolation & 0.16\
Quark mass tuning & 0.19\
Discretization & 0.84\
Kinematic & 1.13\
Matching & 1.05\
\
\
total & 1.94
\[sec:summary\]Summary
======================
We have presented a lattice study of the $B_s \to
D_s\ell\nu$ semileptonic decay over the full kinematic range of momentum transfer and determined the form factors, $f_0^{B_s \to
D_s}(q^2)$ and $f_+^{B_s \to D_s}(q^2)$. Combining these results with a previous determination of the corresponding form factors for the $B\to D\ell\nu$ decay [@Na:2015kha], we extracted the ratios $f_0^{B_s \to
D_s}(M_\pi^2)/f_0^{B \to D}(M_K^2)$ and $f_0^{B_s \to
D_s}(M_\pi^2)/f_0^{B \to D}(M_\pi^2)$. From these ratios we computed the fragmentation fraction ratio $f_s/f_d$, an important ingredient in experimental determinations of $B_s$ meson branching fractions at hadron colliders, particularly for the rare decay ${\cal B}(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+
\mu^-)$. In addition, we predict $R(D_s)$, the ratio of the branching fractions of the semileptonic $B_s$ decay to tau and to electrons and muons.
There are a number of tensions between experimental measurements and theoretical expectations for semileptonic decays of the $B$ meson. These tensions include the branching fraction ratios, $R(D^{(\ast)})$, and determinations of $|V_{cb}|$ from exclusive and inclusive decays. Future experimental measurements of semileptonic decays of $B_s$ mesons, in conjunction with our results for the form factors and for $R(D_s)$, may provide some insight into these tensions.
Our result for the form factor at zero recoil, ${\cal G}(1)$, presented in Equation , is consistent with an earlier determination by the ETM collaboration [@Atoui:2013zza]. Moreover, our results for the form factor ratios $f_0^{B_s \to D_s}(M_\pi^2)/f_0^{B \to D}(M_K^2)$ and $f_0^{B_s
\to D_s}(M_\pi^2)/f_0^{B \to D}(M_\pi^2)$, given in Equations and , are in agreement with the values obtained by the FNAL/MILC collaborations. Our determination of this ratio incorporates correlations between the form factors for both decay channels, but the quoted uncertainty does not include the statistical correlations between the raw correlator data, which are negligible at the current level of precision. We determine values for the fragmentation fraction ratio, $f_s/f_d$, Equations and . These results have larger uncertainties associated with the form factor inputs than those determined in [@Bailey:2012rr]. Finally, we give the branching fraction ratio, $R(D_s)$, in Equation .
The dominant uncertainty in the form factors for the $B_s \to
D_s\ell\nu$ decay arises from the discretization effects, with a significant contribution from the matching to full QCD. Higher order calculations in lattice perturbation theory with the highly improved actions employed in this calculation are currently unfeasible, so we are exploring ways to reduce matching errors by combining results calculated using NRQCD with those determined with an entirely relativistic formulation for the $b$-quark. This approach is outlined in [@Bouchard:2014ypa; @Na:2015kha].
The LHC is scheduled to significantly improve the statistical uncertainties in experimental measurements of $B_s$ decays with more data over the next decade. Currently, the most precise determinations of the fragmentation fraction ratio, $f_s/f_d$, are those measured in situ at the LHC. To improve the theoretical calculations of this ratio requires several advances. At present the lattice form factor results are the largest source of uncertainty in the theoretical result for the ratio, but this could be improved with a suitable global averaging procedure, such as that undertaken in [@Aoki:2016frl].
Further improvements in the uncertainty in the Standard Model expectation of the ratio of the fragmentation fractions will ultimately require concerted effort to reduce all sources of uncertainty, not just those from lattice QCD. Improved theoretical determinations of the fragmentation fraction ratio will be necessary to take full advantage of the better statistical precision of future experimental results and shed light on current tensions in the heavy quark flavor sector.
Numerical simulations were carried out on facilities of the USQCD collaboration funded by the Office of Science of the DOE and at the Ohio Supercomputer Center. Parts of this work were supported by the National Science Foundation. J.S. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-SC0011726. C.J.M. and H.N. were supported in part by NSF grant PHY1414614. We thank the MILC collaboration for use of their gauge configurations.
\[sec:ffdetails\]Reconstructing form factors
============================================
In this appendix we provide our fit results for the coefficients of the $z$-expansion, for both the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay and the ratio of the $B\to D\ell \nu$ and $B_s\to D_s\ell \nu$ decays. We also tabulate our choice of priors for the chiral-continuum extrapolation for the $B_s\to D_s\ell\nu$ decay.
[cccccccc]{} $a_0^{(0)}$ & $a_1^{(0)}$ & $a_2^{(0)}$ & $P_0$ & $a_0^{(+)}$ & $a_1^{(+)}$ & $a_2^{(+)}$ & $P_+$\
\
\
0.658(31) & -0.10(30) & 1.3(2.8) & 6.330(9) & 0.858(32) & -3.38(41) & 0.6(4.7) & 6.43(10)\
\
\
9.53401$\times 10^{-4}$ & -3.03547$\times 10^{-3}$ & -5.42391$\times 10^{-3}$ & 8.76501$\times 10^{-4}$ & 5.94503$\times 10^{-4}$ & 1.58251$\times 10^{-3}$ & 1.60091$\times 10^{-2}$ & 6.15598$\times 10^{-6}$\
& 9.03097$\times 10^{-2}$ & -0.101760 & -1.69040$\times
10^{-2}$ & 4.46248$\times 10^{-4}$ & 2.36283$\times 10^{-2}$ & 4.56659$\times 10^{-2}$ & -1.29286$\times
10^{-4}$\
& & 8.02283 & 3.96101$\times 10^{-3}$ & 8.48079$\times
10^{-3}$ & 0.104246 & 0.760797 & -8.23960$\times 10^{-7}$\
& & & 1.06275$\times 10^{-2}$ & -3.65165$\times 10^{-5}$ &-1.30241$\times 10^{-3}$ & -3.70251$\times 10^{-3}$ & 8.06159$\times 10^{-5}$\
& & & & 1.00761$\times 10^{-3}$ & -4.23358$\times
10^{-3}$ & -2.64511$\times 10^{-2}$ & 9.42502$\times 10^{-6}$\
& & & & & 0.165251 & -0.617234 & -1.88031$\times
10^{-4}$\
& & & & & & 22.49292 & 6.83236$\times 10^{-5}$\
& & & & & & & 8.09911$\times 10^{-5}$\
[ccc]{} Coefficient &\
& $B_s\to D_s\ell \nu$ & $B\to
D\ell \nu$\
\
\
$a_0^{(0)}$ & 0.663(32) & 0.639(32)\
$a_1^{(0)}$ & -0.10(30) & 0.18(33)\
$a_2^{(0)}$ & 1.3(2.8) & -0.2(2.9)\
$P_0$ & 6.43(10) & 6.43(10)\
\
$a_0^{(+)}$ & 0.868(34) & 0.870(38)\
$a_1^{(+)}$ & -3.35(43) & -3.27(59)\
$a_2^{(+)}$ & 0.6(4.7) & 0.5(4.8)\
$P_+$ & 6.330(9) & 6.330(9)\
[ccccc]{} & Prior $[f_0]$ & Fit result $[f_0]$ & Prior $[f_+]$ & Fit result $[f_+]$\
\
\
$a_0$ & 0.0(3.0) & 0.663(32) & 0.0(5.0) & 0.868(34)\
$a_1$ & 0.0(3.0) & -0.10(30) & 0.0(5.0) & -3.35(43)\
$a_2$ & 0.0(3.0) & 1.3(2.8) & 0.0(5.0) & 0.6(4.7)\
$c_1^{(1)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.28(15) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.43(15)\
$c_1^{(2)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & -0.20(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.48(62)\
$c_1^{(3)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.03(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.003(1.0)\
$c_2^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.20(13) & 0.00(30) & 0.31(13)\
$c_2^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.02(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.05(29)\
$c_2^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.005(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.0002(0.3)\
$d_1^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.19(28) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(29)\
$d_1^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.003(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.002(0.3)\
$d_1^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.002(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -7$\times10^{-5}$(0.3)\
$d_2^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.04(30) & 0.00(30) & 0.05(30)\
$d_2^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.0002(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.003(0.3)\
$d_2^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 2$\times10^{-5}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -1$\times10^{-5}$(0.3)\
$e_1^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.22(24) & 0.00(30) & 0.08(24)\
$e_1^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.005(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(30)\
$e_1^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.004(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0001(0.3)\
$e_2^{(1)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 1.42(53) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.70(73)\
$e_2^{(2)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & -0.02(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.07(99)\
$e_2^{(3)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.009(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.0002(1.0)\
$m_1^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.007(0.236) & 0.00(30) & -0.05(22)\
$m_1^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.001(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.10(29)\
$m_1^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.009(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0002(0.3)\
$m_2^{(1)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & -0.43(42) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.17(38)\
$m_2^{(2)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0003(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.77(85)\
$m_2^{(3)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.04(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.0004(1.0)\
[ccc]{} Quantity & Prior & Fit result\
\
\
$r_1/a$ & 2.6470(30) & 2.6474(30)\
& 2.6180(30) & 2.6179(30)\
& 2.6440(30) & 2.6437(30)\
& 3.6990(30) & 3.6992(30)\
& 3.7120(40) & 3.7116(39)\
$aM_B$ & 3.23019(25) & 3.23018(25)\
& 3.26785(33) & 3.26783(33)\
& 3.23585(38) & 3.23579(38)\
& 2.30884(17) & 2.30885(17)\
& 2.30163(23) & 2.30162(22)\
$aE_D(0,0,0)$ & 1.18750(15) & 1.18750(15)\
& 1.20126(21) & 1.20125(20)\
& 1.19031(24) & 1.19028(24)\
& 0.84680(10) & 0.84680(10)\
& 0.84410(12) & 0.84410(12)\
$aE_D(1,0,0)$ & 1.21497(19) & 1.21506(19)\
& 1.24055(30) & 1.24075(28)\
& 1.23055(35) & 1.23060(31)\
& 0.87579(16) & 0.87582(15)\
& 0.87340(19) & 0.87338(19)\
$aE_D(1,1,0)$ & 1.24264(19) & 1.24276(19)\
& 1.27942(29) & 1.27953(27)\
& 1.26974(35) & 1.26948(32)\
& 0.90397(16) & 0.90399(15)\
& 0.90138(18) & 0.90135(18)\
$aE_D(1,1,1)$ & 1.26988(22) & 1.26999(22)\
& 1.31755(46) & 1.31737(40)\
& 1.30768(48) & 1.30738(41)\
& 0.93131(21) & 0.93132(20)\
& 0.92861(24) & 0.92864(23)\
$aM_\pi$ & 0.15990(20) & 0.15990(20)\
& 0.21110(20) & 0.21110(20)\
& 0.29310(20) & 0.29310(20)\
& 0.13460(10) & 0.13460(10)\
& 0.18730(10) & 0.18730(10)\
$aM_{\eta_s}$ & 0.41113(18) & 0.41113(18)\
& 0.41435(22) & 0.41435(22)\
& 0.41185(22) & 0.41185(22)\
& 0.29416(12) & 0.29416(12)\
& 0.29311(18) & 0.29311(18)\
$aM_K$ & 0.31217(20) & 0.31217(20)\
& 0.32851(48) & 0.32850(48)\
& 0.35720(22) & 0.35721(22)\
& 0.22855(17) & 0.22855(17)\
& 0.24596(14) & 0.24596(14)\
$aM_K^{\mathrm{MILC}}$ & 0.36530(29) & 0.36530(29)\
& 0.38331(24) & 0.38331(24)\
& 0.40984(21) & 0.40984(21)\
& 0.25318(19) & 0.25318(19)\
& 0.27217(21) & 0.27217(21)\
$aM_\pi^{\mathrm{MILC}}$ & 0.15971(20) & 0.15971(20)\
& 0.22447(17) & 0.22447(17)\
& 0.31125(16) & 0.31125(16)\
& 0.14789(18) & 0.14789(18)\
& 0.20635(18) & 0.20635(18)\
$1+m_\parallel$ & 1.000(30) & 1.001(30)\
$1+m_\perp$ & 1.000(30) & 1.000(30)
[ccc]{} Quantity & Prior (GeV) & Fit result (GeV)\
\
\
$r_1$ & 0.3133(23) & 0.3130(23)\
$m_{\eta_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 0.6858(40) & 0.6858(40)\
$m_\pi^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 0.13500000(60) & 0.13500000(60)\
$m_{B_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 5.36679(23) & 5.36679(23)\
$m_{D_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 1.96830(10) & 1.96830(10)\
$m_{K_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 0.4957(20) & 0.4957(20)\
$M_+$ & 6.3300(90) & 6.3300(90)\
$M_0$ & 6.398(99) & 6.42(10)\
[ccccccccc]{} & Prior $[f_0^{B_s}]$ & Fit result $[f_0^{B_s}]$ & Prior $[f_+^{B_s}]$ & Fit result $[f_+^{B_s}]$ & Prior $[f_0^{B}]$ & Fit result $[f_0^{B}]$ & Prior $[f_+^{B}]$ & Fit result $[f_+^{B}]$\
\
\
$a_0$ & 0.0(3.0) & 0.663(32) & 0.0(5.0) & 0.639(32) & 0.0(3.0) & 0.868(34) & 0.0(5.0) & 0.870(38)\
$a_1$ & 0.0(3.0) & -0.10(30) & 0.0(5.0) & 0.18(33) & 0.0(3.0) & -3.35(43) & 0.0(5.0) & -3.27(59)\
$a_2$ & 0.0(3.0) & 1.3(2.8) & 0.0(5.0) & -0.2(2.9) & 0.0(3.0) & 0.6(4.7) & 0.0(5.0) & 0.5(4.8)\
$c_1^{(1)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.28(15) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.10(23) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.43(15) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.50(25)\
$c_1^{(2)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & -0.2(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.08(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.48(62) & 0.0(1.0) & -1.13(79)\
$c_1^{(3)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.03(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.002(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.003(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.004(1.0)\
$c_2^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.20(13) & 0.00(30) & -0.11(19) & 0.00(30) & 0.31(13) & 0.00(30) & 0.38(20)\
$c_2^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.02(30) & 0.00(30) & 0.008(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.05(29) & 0.00(30) & 0.13(29)\
$c_2^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.005(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0003(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.0002(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0005(0.3)\
$d_1^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.19(28) & 0.00(30) & 0.01(28) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(29) & 0.00(30) & -0.06(28)\
$d_1^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.003(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.0005(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.002(0.299) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(0.3)\
$d_1^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.002(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 2$\times10^{-5}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -7$\times10^{-5}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 9$\times10^{-5}$(0.3)\
$d_2^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.04(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(30) & 0.00(30) & 0.05(30) & 0.00(30) & 0.06(30)\
$d_2^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.0002(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0003(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.003(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.002(0.3)\
$d_2^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 2$\times10^{-5}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 3$\times10^{-6}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 2$\times10^{-5}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -1$\times10^{-6}$(0.3)\
$e_1^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.22(24) & 0.00(30) & 0.27(25) & 0.00(30) & 0.08(24) & 0.00(30) & 0.05(25)\
$e_1^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.005(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.006(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.02(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.01(30)\
$e_1^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.004(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -$8\times10^{-5}$(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0001(0.3) & 0.00(30) & $4\times10^{-5}$(0.3)\
$e_2^{(1)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 1.42(53) & 0.0(1.0) & 1.49(66) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.70(73) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.12(82)\
$e_2^{(2)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & -0.02(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.02(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.07(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.02(99)\
$e_2^{(3)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.009(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.0003(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.0002(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & $3\times10^{-5}$(1.0)\
$m_1^{(1)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.007(0.236) & 0.00(30) & -0.10(24) & 0.00(30) & -0.05(22) & 0.00(30) & 0.03(24)\
$m_1^{(2)}$ & 0.00(30) & -0.001(0.3) & 0.00(30) & 0.02(30) & 0.00(30) & -0.10(29) & 0.00(30) & -0.03(29)\
$m_1^{(3)}$ & 0.00(30) & 0.009(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0003(0.3) & 0.00(30) & -0.0002(0.3) & 0.00(30) & $5\times10^{-5}$(0.3)\
$m_2^{(1)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & -0.43(42) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.31(44) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.17(38) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.19(40)\
$m_2^{(2)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.0003(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & 0.1(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.77(85) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.12(89)\
$m_2^{(3)}$ & 0.0(1.0) & 0.04(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.002(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & -0.0004(1.0) & 0.0(1.0) & $5\times10^{-5}$(1.0)\
[ccccc]{} Quantity & Prior $[B_s\to D_s\ell \nu]$ & Fit result $[B_s\to D_s\ell \nu]$ & Prior $[B\to D\ell \nu]$ & Fit result $[B\to D\ell \nu]$\
\
\
$aM_{B_{(s)}}$ & 3.23019(25) & 3.23017(25) & 3.18937(62) & 3.18933(62)\
& 3.26781(33) & 3.26782(33)& 3.23194(88) & 3.23211(87)\
& 3.23575(38) & 3.23578(38) & 3.21199(77) & 3.21193(77)\
& 2.30906(26) & 2.30905(26) & 2.28120(49) & 2.28117(48)\
& 2.30122(16) & 2.30122(16) & 2.28102(40) & 2.28112(40)\
$aE_{D_{(s)}}(0,0,0)$ & 1.18750(15) & 1.18750(15) & 1.13904(97) & 1.13927(84)\
& 1.20126(21) & 1.20126(20) & 1.16001(73) & 1.16026(71)\
& 1.19031(24) & 1.19026(24) & 1.16339(54) & 1.16333(54)\
& 0.84675(12) & 0.84674(10) & 0.81448(35)& 0.81444(35)\
& 0.84419(10) & 0.84421(10) & 0.81995(27) & 0.82005(26)\
$aE_{D_{(s)}}(1,0,0)$ & 1.21497(19) & 1.21505(19) & 1.1682(10) & 1.16794(90)\
& 1.24055(30) & 1.24076(28) & 1.19896(99) & 1.19915(94)\
& 1.23055(35) & 1.23058(31) & 1.20399(76) & 1.20448(69)\
& 0.87579(16) & 0.87580(15) & 0.84377(56)& 0.84399(50)\
& 0.87353(16) & 0.87344(15) & 0.85102(40) & 0.85086(38)\
$aE_{D_{(s)}}(1,1,0)$ & 1.24264(19) & 1.24275(19) & 1.19863(85) & 1.19853(82)\
& 1.27942(29) & 1.27953(27) & 1.24009(87) & 1.23987(83)\
& 1.26974(35) & 1.26945(32)& 1.24476(78)& 1.24471(72)\
& 0.90397(16) & 0.90398(15) & 0.87274(56) & 0.87267(52)\
& 0.90144(16) & 0.90146(15)& 0.87943(38) & 0.87950(36)\
$aE_{D_{(s)}}(1,1,1)$ & 1.26988(22) & 1.26998(22) & 1.22850(85) & 1.22833(83)\
& 1.31755(46) & 1.31732(40) & 1.27838(93) & 1.27815(91)\
& 1.30768(48) & 1.30751(42) & 1.28312(97) & 1.28316(90)\
& 0.93126(24) & 0.93126(24) & 0.89996(74) & 0.90037(66)\
& 0.92873(24) & 0.92879(20) & 0.90647(50)& 0.90645(47)\
[ccc]{} Quantity & Prior & Fit result\
\
\
$r_1/a$ & 2.6470(30) & 2.6474(30)\
& 2.6180(30) & 2.6174(30)\
& 2.6440(30) & 2.6442(30)\
& 3.6990(30) & 3.6990(30)\
& 3.7120(40) & 3.7121(39)\
$1+m_\parallel$ & 1.000(30) & 0.998(30)\
$1+m_\perp$ & 1.000(30) & 1.003(30)\
\
\
Quantity & Prior (GeV) & Fit result (GeV)\
\
\
$r_1$ & 0.3132(23) & 0.3130(23)\
$m_{\eta_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 0.6858(40) & 0.6858(40)\
$m_\pi^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 0.13500000(60) & 0.13500000(60)\
$m_{B_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 5.36679(23) & 5.36679(23)\
$m_{D_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 1.96830(10) & 1.96830(10)\
$m_{K_s}^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 0.4957(20) & 0.4957(20)\
$m_B^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 5.27941(17) & 5.27942(17)\
$m_D^{\mathrm{phys}}$ & 1.86690(40) & 1.86690(40)\
$M_+$ & 6.3300(90) & 6.3300(90)\
$M_0$ & 6.42(10) & 6.42(10)\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Given a composite quantum system in which the states of the subsystems are independently (but not necessarily identically) prepared, we construct separate measurements on the subsystems from any given joint measurement such that the former always give at least as large information as the latter. This construction offers new insights into the understanding of measurements on this type of composite systems. Moreover, this construction essentially proves the intuition that separate measurements on the subsystems are sufficient to extract the maximal information about the separately prepared subsystems, thus making a joint measurement unnecessary. Furthermore, our result implies that individual attacks are as powerful as collective attacks in obtaining information on the raw key in quantum key distribution.'
author:
- 'Chi-Hang Fred Fung'
- 'H. F. Chau'
bibliography:
- 'paperdb.bib'
title: ' Getting Information on Independently Prepared Quantum States — When Are Individual Measurements as Powerful as Joint Measurements? '
---
Introduction
============
Quantum states can be used to convey information. A sender, Alice, may prepare a few quantum particles, whose states depend on the message itself, and send them through a quantum channel to the receiver, Bob. To determine the message, Bob performs a quantum measurement on his received quantum states. When the quantum states live in multiple quantum subsystems, Bob may perform separate quantum measurements on the subsystems to learn about the message. Alternatively, he may perform a joint quantum measurement on all subsystems together. In general, performing separate quantum measurements on the subsystems is not powerful enough to extract maximal information on the input state. In fact, the capacities of certain quantum channels [@Holevo1998; @Schumacher1997] and the maximum information that can be extracted from certain unentangled but classically correlated states [@Bennett1999] can only be attained via joint measurements. But what if each subsystem is independently used to convey information? Perhaps measuring each subsystem separately is already good enough to extract maximum amount of information on the states in each subsystem. Here we prove this intuition by explicitly constructing an individual measurement from a given joint measurement such that information gain from former is at least as large as the latter. This construction offers new insights into the understanding of measurements on this type of composite systems. Furthermore, we explain the operational meaning of such construction and discuss its implication to quantum key distribution (QKD).
Precise definition of our problem
=================================
Suppose that there are $K$ subsystems. For each subsystem $k$, Alice selects a state indexed by $a_k$ from a set of normalized density matrices $\{ \phi^{(k)}_{a_k}\}$ with probability $p^{(k)}_{a_k}$. (In other words, $\operatorname{Tr}(\phi^{(k)}_{a_k})=1$ and $\sum_{a_k} p^{(k)}_{a_k}=1$. Furthermore, we do not limit the the number of subsystems $K$, the Hilbert space dimension of each subsystem and the number of elements in the set $\{ \phi^{(k)}_{a_k} \}$ for each $k$. These three numbers may well be infinite.) The state in each subsystem is selected independently but not necessarily identically. Suppose that Bob uses a particular joint positive operator-valued measure (POVM) to measure the $K$ subsystems. In general, this POVM may contain elements that are entangled with the $K$ subsystems. The purpose of this paper is to construct an individual measurement in the $K$ subsystems that can extract no less Shannon mutual information about Alice’s states than the original joint POVM. Here individual measurement refers to the one composed of $K$ independent POVM’s each operating on one subsystem. Thus, by showing that such an individual measurement exists, we confirm the intuition that maximal information on separately prepared subsystems can be extracted separately.
We present two methods for constructing such an individual measurement from the original joint measurement. Both methods draw on the observation that knowing the states of the other subsystems gives rise to a projected measurement on a subsystem. The first method is simpler to apply, while the second one admits an intuitive explanation for why it gives at least as large information as the original joint measurement. We also provide the operational meaning for the second method.
Construction 1
==============
Without lost of generality, let us consider the case of having two subsystems (that is, $K = 2$) and denote the original joint POVM as $\{M_b: \forall b\}$. The case of $K > 2$ can be constructed and proven in a similar way. The key idea of constructing the individual measurement is to focus on measuring one particular subsystem and look at what effective measurement is performed on it. Thus, let us focus, say, on subsystem $1$ (${\mathbb S}_1$). If Alice always prepares subsystem 2 (${\mathbb S}_2$) in the state $\phi$, then the effective measurement on ${\mathbb S}_1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-effective-measure-1}
\{
\operatorname{Tr}_2 [(\mathbb{I} \otimes \phi) M_b]
: \forall b
\} .\end{aligned}$$ More generally, if Alice may prepare the state in ${\mathbb S}_2$ in more than one way, then for each state sent by Alice in ${\mathbb S}_2$, there corresponds a set of POVM elements similar to [Eq. ]{}. The entire POVM is then composed of all these sets. One may regard the set of POVM elements corresponding to a state in ${\mathbb S}_2$ as the effective measurement on ${\mathbb S}_1$ when Alice sends that state. Therefore, how likely Bob uses this set of POVM elements should be weighted by the *a priori* probability of the corresponding state being sent. In summary, the effective POVM for ${\mathbb S}_1$ is $\{ M^{(1)}_{b_1} : \forall b_1\}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-sep-povm-1}
M^{(1)}_{b_1}=\operatorname{Tr}_2 [(\mathbb{I} \otimes \phi^{(2)}_{a_2}) M_b] p^{(2)}_{a_2} ,\end{aligned}$$ and $b_1 \equiv (a_2,b)$ is the index of the POVM element specifying an input state in ${\mathbb S}_2$ and an element of the original joint POVM. Using the same argument, the effective POVM $\{ M^{(2)}_{b_2} : \forall b_2\}$ for ${\mathbb S}_2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-sep-povm-2}
M^{(2)}_{b_2}=\operatorname{Tr}_1 [(\phi^{(1)}_{a_1} \otimes \mathbb{I} ) M_b] p^{(1)}_{a_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $b_2 \equiv (a_1,b)$ is similarly defined.
\[thm-construction1\] [Suppose Alice prepares the states of subsystems $k=1,2$ independently. Then, the amount of Shannon mutual information provided by an individual measurement on the two subsystem using the POVM’s $\{ M^{(k)}_{b_k} \}, k=1,2$ whose elements are given in [Eq. ]{} and [Eq. ]{} is at least as large as the Shannon mutual information provided by the original joint POVM $\{M_b\}$. ]{}
Let the capitalized symbols $A_1$, $A_2$, and $B$ denote the random variables for the input states $a_1$ and $a_2$ and the original joint POVM outcome $b$, respectively. Since the two subsystems are independent, the mutual information for the original joint POVM $\{M_b\}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1+2} &\triangleq I(A_1, A_2 ; B) = H(A_1, A_2 )-H(A_1, A_2 | B) \nonumber \\
&= H(A_1) + H( A_2 )-H(A_1, A_2 | B) .\end{aligned}$$ Here, the functions $I(\cdot;\cdot)$ and $H(\cdot)$ are the mutual information between its arguments and the entropy of its argument, respectively. The mutual information between the input and the output of subsystem $k=1,2$ is $$I_k \triangleq I(A_k; B_k) = H(A_k)-H(A_k | B_k) . \label{eqn-mutual-information_Ik}$$ To prove this theorem, it suffices to show that $I_1 + I_2 \geq I_{1+2}$ which can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
&H(B_1)-H(A_1 , B_1)+
H(B_2)-H(A_2 , B_2) \nonumber \\
\geq &
H(B)-H(A_1, A_2 , B).
\label{eqn-inequality-to-prove}\end{aligned}$$ We proceed by establishing a crucial relationship between the joint probability of the overall system and that of each subsystem. The former, with inputs $A_1$ and $A_2$ and output $B$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-joint-prob-overall-system}
&\text{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,A_2=a_2,B=b\} \nonumber \\
= &\operatorname{Tr} [(\phi^{(1)}_{a_1} \otimes \phi^{(2)}_{a_2} )M_b] p^{(1)}_{a_1} p^{(2)}_{a_2},\end{aligned}$$ while the latter, with input $A_k$ and output $B_k$ for subsystem $k$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-joint-prob-system1}
\text{Pr} \{A_k=a_k,B_k=b_k\}=\operatorname{Tr} [\phi^{(k)}_{a_k} M^{(k)}_{b_k}] p^{(k)}_{a_k} .\end{aligned}$$ Here, the POVM element $ M^{(k)}_{b_k}$ is given in [Eq. ]{} or [Eq. ]{}. We relate these two probabilities for say ${\mathbb S}_1$ by expanding the POVM element in [Eq. ]{} as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\operatorname{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,B_1=(a_2,b)\} \nonumber \\
=&\operatorname{Tr}_1 [\phi^{(1)}_{a_1} (\operatorname{Tr}_2 [(\mathbb{I} \otimes \phi^{(2)}_{a_2}) M_b] p^{(2)}_{a_2})] p^{(1)}_{a_1} \nonumber \\
=&\operatorname{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,A_2=a_2,B=b\} .
\label{eqn-joint-prob-rel-1}\end{aligned}$$ This crucial relationship between the probabilities directly translates into a relationship between the entropies: $$\begin{aligned}
H(A_1 , B_1)&=\sum_{a_1,b_1} f(
\text{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,B_1=b_1\}
) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{a_1,(a_2,b)} f(
\text{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,B_1=(a_2,b)\}
) \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{a_1,a_2,b} f(
\text{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,A_2=a_2,B=b\}
) \nonumber \\
&=H(A_1,A_2,B)\end{aligned}$$ where $f(x)=-x \log_2 x$. Replacing ${\mathbb S}_1$ by ${\mathbb S}_2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-entropy-A1B1}
H(A_1 , B_1) = H(A_1,A_2,B) = H(A_2 , B_2).\end{aligned}$$ By the same token, we know that $$\begin{aligned}
H(B_1)
&= \sum_{a_2,b} f( \sum_{a_1}
\text{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,A_2=a_2,B=b\}
) \nonumber \\
&= H(A_2,B)
\label{eqn-entropy-B1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-entropy-B2}
H(B_2)= H(A_1,B).\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. -, Eq. is reduced to the well-known entropy inequality in (classical) information theory [@Cover2006] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-mutualinfo-ineq3}
H(A_1|B) \geq H(A_1|A_2,B) .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, this theorem is proved.
Construction 2
==============
Recall that the effective POVM for each subsystem (given in [Eq. ]{} and [Eq. ]{}) is a mixture of sub-POVM’s each corresponding to a state sent in the other subsystem. Now the key observation is that Bob can use any of these sub-POVM’s on one subsystem irrespective of the actual state sent in the other. That is to say, Bob can use on ${\mathbb S}_2$ the sub-POVM corresponding to one state in ${\mathbb S}_1$ even though Alice has really sent another state in ${\mathbb S}_1$. Therefore, among all sub-POVM’s for a particular subsystem, we can pick the one that provides the highest mutual information. This sub-POVM, alone, then constitutes the effective POVM for that subsystem. And this construction results in the effective POVM $\{M^{(1)}_{b}:\forall b\}$ for ${\mathbb S}_1$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-sep-povm-construction2-1}
M^{(1)}_{b}=\operatorname{Tr}_2 [(\mathbb{I} \otimes \phi^{(2)}_{a_2}) M_b] ,\end{aligned}$$ and $\phi^{(2)}_{a_2}$ is chosen to be one of the possible states of ${\mathbb S}_2$ so that $\{M^{(1)}_{b}\}$ maximizes the mutual information for ${\mathbb S}_1$. Similarly, the elements of the effective POVM $\{M^{(2)}_{b}:\forall b\}$ for ${\mathbb S}_2$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn-sep-povm-construction2-2}
M^{(2)}_{b}=\operatorname{Tr}_1 [(\phi^{(1)}_{a_1} \otimes \mathbb{I}) M_b] ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi^{(1)}_{a_1}$ is chosen to be one of the possible states of ${\mathbb S}_1$ so that $\{M^{(2)}_{b}\}$ maximizes the mutual information for ${\mathbb S}_2$.
\[thm-construction2\] [Suppose Alice prepares the states of subsystems ${\mathbb S}_1, {\mathbb S}_2$ independently. Then, the amount of Shannon mutual information provided by an individual measurement using the POVM’s whose elements are defined in [Eq. ]{} for ${\mathbb S}_1$ and in [Eq. ]{} for ${\mathbb S}_2$ is at least as large as the Shannon mutual information provided by the original joint POVM $\{M_b\}$. ]{}
We focus on ${\mathbb S}_1$ as the case of ${\mathbb S}_2$ is similar. It suffices to show that the mutual information for the POVM whose elements are defined in [Eq. ]{} is no less than that in [Eq. ]{}, and invoke Theorem \[thm-construction1\]. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
I(A_1;B_1)
&= H(A_1)-[H(A_1 , B_1)-H(B_1)] \nonumber \\
&= H(A_1)-[H(A_1 , A_2,B)-H(A_2,B)] \nonumber \\
&= H(A_1|A_2)-[H(A_1 , B|A_2)-H(B|A_2)] \nonumber \\
&= \sum_{a_2} p^{(2)}_{a_2} I(A_1;B|A_2=a_2) \nonumber \\
&\leq \max_{a_2} I(A_1;B|A_2=a_2) ,
\label{eqn-sep-povm-construction2-weighted1}\end{aligned}$$ where the second line is due to Eqs. and , and the third line is due to the fact that the states in the two subsystems are independent and that one can arbitrarily add and subtract $H(A_2)$. We proceed to verify that $I(A_1;B|A_2=a_2)$ is indeed the mutual information for the sub-POVM consisting of elements given in [Eq. ]{}. The probability of observing outcome $b$ with input $A_1=a_1$ corresponding to [Eq. ]{} equals $\operatorname{Tr}_1 [\phi^{(1)}_{a_1} (\operatorname{Tr}_2 [(\mathbb{I} \otimes \phi^{(2)}_{a_2}) M_b] )] p^{(1)}_{a_1} = \text{Pr} \{A_1=a_1,B=b|A_2=a_2\}$. This means that the corresponding mutual information for this POVM is $I(A_1;B|A_2=a_2)$. Therefore, [Eq. ]{} shows that indeed the POVM of [Eq. ]{} can be broken down into sub-POVM’s each corresponding to one value of $a_2$. Thus, when Bob always uses the sub-POVM corresponding to the $a_2$ that maximizes $I(A_1;B|A_2=a_2)$, the resulting mutual information is no less than that of using the weighted average of the sub-POVM’s.
Intuitive explanation of Construction 2
========================================
\
\
\
Let us introduce two phantom subsystems (intended to be thrown away later) in addition to the two real subsystems. The phantom subsystem ${\mathbb P}_k$ serves to replicate real subsystem ${\mathbb S}_k$ for $k = 1,2$ in the sense that they share the same set of states in which Alice may send with the same *a prior* probabilities. Nevertheless, they are independent of each other and of other subsystems. Since all the states sent by Alice in the four subsystems are independent, the pair consisting of ${\mathbb S}_1$ and ${\mathbb S}_2$ and the pair consisting of ${\mathbb S}_1$ and ${\mathbb P}_2$ appear to be identical to Bob. Thus, the amount of information Bob can learn about ${\mathbb S}_1$ from measuring the first pair and that from measuring the second pair using the same joint measurement must be same. Because of this, we may consider that Bob performs the joint measurement on ${\mathbb S}_1$ and ${\mathbb P}_2$ (see Fig. \[fig-virtual-a\]).
Now suppose that Alice tells Bob exactly which state was sent in ${\mathbb P}_2$ (and we will show that delaying this announcement indefinitely turns out to have no bearing on Bob). Using this extra piece of information, Bob can pick the corresponding POVM elements that are consistent with the phantom state and project it onto ${\mathbb S}_1$ as a measurement operator (see Fig. \[fig-virtual-b\]). Interestingly, this projected measurement turns out to be the effective measurement we have constructed in [Eq. ]{} for various values of $a_2$. Essentially, for each state in ${\mathbb P}_2$ announced by Alice, there corresponds an effective POVM for ${\mathbb S}_1$. Clearly, with the aid of the extra information in the state of ${\mathbb P}_2$, Bob’s information on ${\mathbb S}_1$ in this case is at least as large as that could be obtained with the original joint measurement on the two systems when Alice did not disclose the state of ${\mathbb P}_2$.
Now the key point is that Bob can use any of these effective POVM’s on ${\mathbb S}_1$ irrespective of the actual state sent in ${\mathbb P}_2$. This is because Bob’s information on ${\mathbb S}_1$ obtained from using a particular effective POVM does not depend on the state of ${\mathbb P}_2$ as ${\mathbb P}_2$ and ${\mathbb S}_1$ are independent. Therefore, we can regard that Bob always ignores Alice’s announcement of the state in ${\mathbb P}_2$ and uses the effective POVM on ${\mathbb S}_1$ that gives him the maximum amount of information (see Fig. \[fig-virtual-c\]). When Bob always uses only one effective POVM on ${\mathbb S}_1$, the existence of ${\mathbb P}_2$ is irrelevant and thus we can completely discard ${\mathbb P}_2$ along with the announcement of its state (see Fig. \[fig-virtual-d\]). Since Bob always uses the best effective POVM on ${\mathbb S}_1$, the amount of information he gets on ${\mathbb S}_1$ is at least as large as that when he chooses the POVM based on Alice’s announcement, which we have already argued is no worse than that when he uses the original joint measurement.
We repeat the previous argument on the pair ${\mathbb S}_2$ and ${\mathbb P}_1$ to obtain the best effective POVM for ${\mathbb S}_2$. Finally, the independence of ${\mathbb S}_1$ and ${\mathbb S}_2$ allows us to conclude that using the best effective POVM for each of them gives no less information on both as the original joint POVM.
Multipartite systems
====================
Our results for the bipartite case given by Theorems \[thm-construction1\] and \[thm-construction2\] can easily be extended to the multipartite case (including the case of an infinite number of subsystems). In particular, the POVM elements corresponding to Theorem \[thm-construction1\] for a $K$-partite system are $$\begin{aligned}
M^{(k)}_{b_k}&=\operatorname{Tr}_{\ell \neq k} \left[\bigotimes_{\ell=1}^K \phi^{(\ell,k)}_{a_\ell} M_b \right] \prod_{\ell\neq k} p^{(\ell)}_{a_\ell} \: \: \: \forall k ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi^{(\ell,k)}_{a_\ell} = \phi^{(\ell)}_{a_\ell}$ if $\ell\neq k$ and $\phi^{(\ell,k)}_{a_\ell} = {\mathbb I}$ otherwise.
Implication to quantum key distribution
=======================================
The result in this paper sheds some light on the various types of eavesdropping attacks in QKD [@Bennett1984; @Ekert1991]. In most QKD protocols such as the famous BB84 protocol [@Bennett1984], a legitimate party (Alice) sends a sequence of quantum states each independently chosen from a set of states to another legitimate party (Bob) through a hostile channel controlled by an eavesdropper (Eve). The goal of Alice and Bob is to derive a secret key from Alice’s states and Bob’s states. Eve, on the other hand, attempts to steal their secret by launching an eavesdropping attack. Two types of keys can be distinguished: the raw key and the final secret key. Alice’s raw key is the bit string corresponding to the quantum states she sends to Bob; whereas Bob’s raw key corresponds to his measurement results on the received qubits[^1]. Their raw keys may not be secure and error-free; and they derive their final keys from their raw keys via privacy amplification. For QKD protocols in which Alice sends out independent states (such as BB84 [@Bennett1984], SARG04 [@Scarani2004], and Gaussian-modulated coherent states QKD [@Grosshans2003]), Eve’s probes become independent and our result in this paper implies that individual attacks are as powerful as collective attacks in obtaining information on Alice’s raw key[^2]. In contrast, Smith [@Smith2007] shows that when the key generation rate is concerned, collective attacks are strictly more powerful. This makes sense since privacy amplification correlates Alice’s raw keys in order to obtain the final secret key.
Conclusions
===========
We show that individual measurement is sufficient to obtain optimal amount of information on the states in which each subsystem is prepared independently but not necessary identically based on the observation that knowing the state of the other subsystems gives rise to a projected measurement on a subsystem. Applying our result to the QKD setting shows that individual and collective attacks are equally powerful in obtaining information on the raw key. Our work uses Shannon mutual information as the information measure.
We note that Wootters has proved the same result as ours that the accessible information is additive for independently prepared subsystems [@DiVincenzo2002b]. However, implementing his proof idea will result in an ensemble of individual measurements (each with a fixed probability of being drawn) for each subsystem. In contrast, both our construction methods lead to a single measurement for each subsystem.
Constructing individual measurements from a joint one giving at least as large information in terms of other information measures may be possible. For example, the Csiszár measure (see, e.g., [@Ferentinos1981; @Zografos1986]), which is a generalization of Shannon information, allows such a construction in a special case[^3].
We thank Debbie W. Leung, Hoi-Kwong Lo, Xiongfeng Ma, Marco Piani, and Ming-Yong Ye for enlightening discussions. This work is supported by the RGC grant No. HKU 701007P of the HKSAR Government and the Postdoctoral Fellowship program of NSERC of Canada.
[^1]: We do not consider noisy pre-processing here. See Refs. [@Csiszar1978; @Kraus2005; @Renner2005] for discussions on noisy pre-processing.
[^2]: We assume that Eve only uses her probes and Alice’s announcement of the basis information to learn about Alice’s raw key; in particular, she does not make use of the error correction information that Alice may reveal publicly. Note that error correction information may be transmitted by Alice in encrypted form, as is the case of Koashi’s security proof [@Koashi2005b]. In this case, Eve is unable to use the error correction information.
[^3]: The Csiszár measure (see, e.g., [@Ferentinos1981; @Zografos1986]) is defined as $I^C (f,g) = \sum_x g(x) \Phi\left(\frac{f(x)}{g(x)}\right)$ where $\Phi$ is convex. Shannon mutual information $I(X;Y)$ is recovered with $I(X;Y)=I^C(p(x)p(y),p(x,y))$ and $\Phi(x)=-\log x$. Keeping the Csiszár measure in the form $I^C(p(x)p(y),p(x,y))=:I^C(X;Y)$, if $\Phi$ satisfies the condition $\Phi(x)+\Phi(y) \geq \Phi(xy)$ with $x,y\geq0$, then we have $I^C(A_1;E|A_2) + I^C(A_2;E) \geq I^C(A_1, A_2; E)$. By borrowing techniques in our paper and also that due to Wootters, it is not difficult to construct the desired individual measurements for the Csiszár measure from this inequality.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
This paper is split in three parts: first, we use labelled trade data to exhibit how market participants decisions depend on liquidity imbalance; then, we develop a stochastic control framework where agents monitor limit orders, by exploiting liquidity imbalance, to reduce adverse selection. For limit orders, we need optimal strategies essentially to find a balance between fast execution and avoiding adverse selection: if the price has chances to go down the probability to be filled is high but it is better to wait a little more to get a better price. In a third part, we show how the added value of exploiting liquidity imbalance is eroded by latency: being able to predict future liquidity consuming flows is of less use if you do not have enough time to cancel and reinsert your limit orders. There is thus a rationale for market makers to be as fast as possible to reduce adverse selection. Latency costs of our limit order driven strategy can be measured numerically.
To authors’ knowledge this paper is the first to make the connection between empirical evidences, a stochastic framework for limit orders including adverse selection, and the cost of latency. Our work is a first step to shed light on the role played by latency and adverse selection in optimal limit order placement.
author:
- 'Charles-Albert Lehalle[^1] and Othmane Mounjid[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'lehalle.bib'
date: Printed the
title: |
Limit Order Strategic Placement\
with Adverse Selection Risk\
and the Role of Latency.
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
With the electronification, fragmentation, and increase of trading frequency, orderbook dynamics is under scrutiny. Indeed, a deep understanding of orderbook dynamics provides insights on the price formation process. There is essentially two approaches for modelling the price formation process. First, *general equilibrium models* based on interactions between rational agents who take optimal decisions. General equilibrium models focus on agents behaviours and interactions. For example, investors split their metaorders into large collections of limit orders (i.e. liquidity providing) and market orders (i.e. liquidity consuming) (see [@citeulike:3320208], [@citeulike:13177976], [@citeulike:13497373]) while (high frequency) market makers mostly use limit orders to provide liquidity to child orders of investors (see [@citeulike:13675263; @citeulike:13497022]). Second, *statistical models* where the orderbook is seen as a random process (see [@citeulike:6032638], [@citeulike:6659908], [@citeulike:12810809] and references herein). Statistical models focus on reproducing many salient features of real markets rather than agents’ behaviours and interactions. In this paper, we consider a statistical model where the arrival and cancellation flows follow size dependent Poisson processes. Using this model, we setup an optimal control for one agent targeting to obtain the “best price” by maintaining optimally a limit order in the orderbook .\
In practice, market participants use optimal trading strategies to find a balance between at least three factors: the price variation uncertainty, the market impact and the inventory risk. For example, an asset manager who took the decision to buy or sell a large number of shares needs to adapt its execution speed to price variations. The simplest case would be to accelerate execution when price moves in its favor. He needs to consider the market impact too and in particular the price pressure of large orders: fast execution of huge quantities consumes orderbook liquidity and increases transaction costs. Finally, there is an inventory risk associated to the orders size: it is riskier to hold a large position than a small one during the same period of time. A fast execution reduces this inventory risk. The asset manager should then find the optimal balance between trading slow and fast. Models for these strategies are now well known (see [@citeulike:9304794] and [@GLFT] ). Recent papers introduce a risk term in their optimisation problem. Moreover, some papers combine even short term anticipations of price dynamics inside these risk control frameworks. For example, in [@ALOR06], authors include a Bayesian estimator of the price trend in a mean-variance optimal trading strategy. In [@citeulike:13587586], authors include an estimate of futur liquidity consumption – $\mu$ in their paper shoud be compared to our consuming intensities $\lambda^{\cdot,-}$ – in macroscopic optimal execution.
In this paper, we consider an optimal control problem where the agent faces the price variation uncertainty and the market impact but there is no inventory risk since we consider one limit order. The idea is to propose optimal strategies that can be plugged into any large scale strategy (see [@citeulike:12047995 Chapter 3] for a practitioner viewpoint on splitting the two time scales of metaorders executions) by taking profit of a short term anticipation of price moves.
After some considerations about short time price predictions and empirical evidences showing that market participants decisions depend on the imbalance (see Section \[sec:empirics\]), we show that optimal control can add value to any short term predictor (see Section \[sec:understanding\]) in the context of simple control (cancel or insert a limit order) for a “large tick” stock. This result can thus be used by investors or market makers to include some predictive power in their optimal trading strategies.
Then we show how latency influences the efficient use of such predictions. Indeed, the added value of the optimal control is eroded by latency. It allows us to link our work to regulatory questions. First of all: what is the “value” of latency? Regulators could hence rely on our results to take decisions about “slowing down” or not the market (see [@citeulike:13586167] and [@citeulike:12721030] for discussions about this topic). It sheds also light on maker-taker fees since the real value of limit orders (including adverse selection costs), are of importance in this debate (see [@harris2013maker] for a discussion).
This paper can be seen as a mix of two early works presented at the “Market Microstructure: Confronting Many Viewpoints” conference (Paris, 2014): a data-driven one focused on the predictive power of orderbooks [@sasha14imb], and an optimal control driven one [@moa14hjb]. Our added values are first a proper combination of the two aspects (inclusion of an imbalance signal in an optimal control framework for limit orders), and then the construction of our cost function. Unlike in the second work, we do not value a transaction with respect to the mid-price at $t=0$, but with respect to the microprice (i.e. the expected future price given the liquidity imbalance) at $t=+\infty$. We will argue the difference is of paramount importance since it introduces an effect close to adverse selection aversion, that is crucial in practice.
As an introduction of our framework, we will use a database of labelled transactions on NASDAQ OMX (the main Nordic European regulated markets) to show how orderbook imbalance is used by market participants in a way that can be seen as compatible with our theoretical results.
Hence the structure of this paper is as follows: Section \[sec:empirics\] presents orderbook imbalance as a microprice and illustrates the use of imbalance by market participants thanks to the NASDAQ OMX database. Once these elements are in place, Section \[sec:dpp\] presents our model and \[sec:understanding\] shows how to numerically solve the control problem and provides main results, especially the influence of latency on the efficiency of the strategy.
Main Hypothesis and Empirical Evidences {#sec:empirics}
=======================================
Database presentation
---------------------
The data used here are a direct feed on NASDAQ-OMX, that is the primary market[^3] on the considered stock. Capital Fund Management feed recordings for AstraZeneca accounts for 72% of market share (in traded value) for the continuous auction on this stock over the considered period. Surprisingly, there is currently no academic paper comparing the predictive power of imbalances of different trading venues on the same stock. It is outside of the scope of this paper to elaborate on this. We will hence consider the liquidity on our primary market is representative of the state of the liquidity on other “large” venues (namely Chi-X, BATS and Turquoise on the considered stock). If it is not the case it will nevertheless not be difficult to adapt our result relying on statistics on each venue, or on the aggregation of all venues. We did not aggregated venues ourselves for obvious synchronization reasons: we do not know the capability of each market participant to synchronize information coming from all venues and do not want to add noise by making more assumptions. Our idea here is to use the state of liquidity at the first limits on the primary market as a proxy of information about liquidity really used by participants .\
Venue AstraZeneca Vodafone
---------------- ------------- ----------
BATS Europe 7.16% 7.63%
Chi-X 19.27% 20.02%
Primary market 72.24% 61.09%
Turquoise 1.33% 11.26%
: Fragmentation of AstraZeneca (compared to Vodafone) from the 2013-01-02 to the 2013-09-30[]{data-label="tab:frag"}
We focus on NASDAQ-OMX because this European market has an interesting property: market members’ identity is known. It implies transactions are labeled by the buyer’s and the seller’s names. Almost all trading on NASDAQ Nordic stocks was labelled this way until end of 2014 (more details are available in [@citeulike:13497022], because this whole paper is based on this labelling). Note members’ identity is not investors’ names; it is the identity of brokers or market participants large enough to apply for a membership. High Frequency Participants (HFP) are of this kind. Of course some participants (like large asset management institutions) use multiple brokers, or a combination of brokers and their own membership. Nevertheless, one can expect to observe different behaviours when members are different enough. We will here focus on three classes of participants: High Frequency Participants (HFP), global investment banks, and regional investment banks.
Stylized fact 1: the predictive power of the orderbook imbalance
----------------------------------------------------------------
#### Short term price prediction utility.
Academic papers (see [@citeulike:6659908] or [@citeulike:12810809]) and brokers’ research papers (see [@bes16imb]) document how the sizes at first limits of the public orderbook[^4] influence the next price move. It is worthwhile to underline that the identified effects are usually not strong enough to be the source of a statistical arbitrage: the expected value of buying and selling back using accurate predictions based on sizes at first limits does not beat transaction costs (bid-ask spread and fees). See [@citeulike:13027037] for a discussion. Nevertheless:
- For an investor who *already took the decision to buy or to sell*, this information can spare some basis points. For very large orders, it makes a lot of money and in any case it reduces implicit transaction costs.
- Market makers naturally use this kind of information to add value to their trading processes (see [@citeulike:12335801] for a model supporting a theoretical optimal market making framework including first limit prices dynamics).
The easiest way to summarize the state of the orderbook without destroying its informational content is to compute its *imbalance*: the quantity at the best bid minus the one at the best ask divided by the sum of these two quantities: $$\label{eq:imbdef}
\Imb_t := \frac{Q^{Bid}_t - Q^{Ask}_t}{Q^{Bid}_t + Q^{Ask}_t}.$$
#### The nature of the predictive power of the imbalance.
The predictive power of the orderbook imbalance is well known (see [@citeulike:12820703]). The rationale of this stylized fact (i.e. *the midprice will go in the direction of the smaller size of the orderbook*) is outside of the scope of this paper. We just give here some clues and intuitions to the reader:
- The future price move is positively correlated with the imbalance. In other terms $$\label{eq:imbpred}
\Esp( (P_{t+\delta t} - P_t) \times \mbox{sign}(\Imb_t) | \Imb_t) > 0,$$ where $P_t$ is the midprice (i.e. $P_t = (P^{Bid}_t + P_t^{Ask})/2$, where $P^{Bid}$ and $P^{Ask}$ are respectively the best bid ans ask prices) at $t$ for any $\delta t$. Obviously when $\delta t$ is very large, this expected price move is very difficult to distinguish from large scale sources of uncertainty. See for instance [@citeulike:12820703] for details on the “predictive power” of such an indicator (our Figure \[fig:predpowimb\] illustrates this predictive power on real data).
- Within a model in which the arrival and cancellation flows follow independent point processes of the same intensity, the smallest queue (bid or ask) will be consumed first, and the price will be pushed in its direction. See [@citeulike:12810809] for a more sophisticated point process-driven model and associated empirical evidences.
- Another viewpoint on imbalance would be that the bid vs. ask imbalance contains information about the direction of the net value of investors’ metaorders : first, in a direct way if one is convinced that investors post limit orders; second, indirectly if one believes investors only consume liquidity and in such a case bid and ask sizes are an indicators of market makers net inventory.
The focus of formula on two first limits weaken the predictive power of the bid vs. ask imbalance. For large tick assets[^5] it may be enough to just use the first limits, but for small tick ones it certainly increases the predictive power of our imbalance indicator to take more than one tick into account. Since a discussion on the predictive power of imbalance is outside the scope of the paper, we will stop here the discussion.
#### Empirical evidences on the predictive power of the imbalance.
Figure \[fig:predpowimb\].a shows the imbalance on the $x$-axis and the midprice move after 50 trades on the $y$-axis. In Figure \[fig:predpowimb\].a, we recover that the imbalance is highly linearly positively correlated to the price move after 50 trades. Figure \[fig:predpowimb\].b shows the distribution of imbalance just before a change in the orderbook state. In Figure \[fig:predpowimb\].b, agents are highly active at extreme imbalance values. People become highly active at extreme imbalances because they identify a profit opportunity to catch or at the opposite an adverse selection effect to avoid. Another explanation may come from the predictive power of the imbalance (see Figure \[fig:predpowimb\].a). In fact, participants start to anticipate the next price move when the signal imbalance is strong while they are inactive when they have no view on the next price move (i.e the signal imbalance is weak).
(a)(b) \
![(a) The predictive power of imbalance on stock Astra Zeneca: imbalance (just before a trade) on the $x$-axis and the expected price move (during the next 50 trades) on the $y$-axis. (b) distribution of the imbalance just before a trade. From the 2013-01-02 to the 2013-09-30 (accounts for 376,672 trades).[]{data-label="fig:predpowimb"}](p01_AZN_predict_imb_01 "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![(a) The predictive power of imbalance on stock Astra Zeneca: imbalance (just before a trade) on the $x$-axis and the expected price move (during the next 50 trades) on the $y$-axis. (b) distribution of the imbalance just before a trade. From the 2013-01-02 to the 2013-09-30 (accounts for 376,672 trades).[]{data-label="fig:predpowimb"}](p01_AZN_distrib_imb_01 "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}\
This paper provides a stochastic control framework to post limit orders using the information contained in the orderbook imbalance. In such a context, we will call the *microprice seen from $t$* and note $P_{+\infty}(t)$: $$\label{eq:micropricedef}
P_{+\infty}(t) = \lim_{\delta t\rightarrow+\infty}\Esp( P_{t+\delta t} | P_t, \Imb_t).$$
Stylized fact 2: Agent’s decisions depend on the orderbook liquidity
--------------------------------------------------------------------
### Agent’s decisions depend on the orderbook imbalance
We expect some market participants to invest in access to data and technology to take profit of the informational content of the orderbook imbalance. A very simple way to test this hypothesis is to look at the orderbook imbalance just before a transaction with a limit order for a given class of participant. We will focus on three classes of *agents* (i.e. market participants): Global Investment Banks, High Frequency Participants (HFP), and Regional Investment Banks or Brokers. Table \[tab:statdesa\] provides descriptive statistics on these classes of participants in the considered database.
Order type Participant type Order side Avg. Imbalance Nbe of events
------------ ------------------ ------------ ---------------- ---------------
Limit Global Banks Sell 0.35 62,111
Buy -0.38 63,566
HFP Sell 0.32 52,315
Buy -0.33 46,875
Instit. Brokers Sell 0.57 6,226
Buy -0.52 4,646
: Descriptive statistics for our three classes of agent. AstraZeneca (2013-01 to 2013-09).[]{data-label="tab:statdesa"}
We focus on limit orders since information processing, strategy and latency play a more important role for such orders than for market orders (market orders can be sent blindly, just to finish a small metaorder or to cope with metaorders late on schedule, see [@citeulike:12047995] for ellaborations on brokers’ trading strategies).
For the following charts, we use labelled transactions from NASDAQ-OMX[^6] and thanks to timestamps (and matching of prices and quantities) we synchronize them with orderbook data (recorded from direct feeds by Capital Fund Management). It enables us to snapshot the sizes at first limits on NASDAQ-OMX just before the transaction.
Say for a given participant (i.e. *agent*) $a$ the quantity at the best bid (respectively best ask) is $Q^{Bid}_\tau(a)$ (resp. $Q^{Ask}_\tau(a)$) just before a transaction at time $\tau$ involving a limit order owned by $a$. We note $Q^{same}_\tau(a):=Q^{Bid}_\tau(a)$ (respectively $Q^{opposite}_\tau(a):=Q^{Ask}_\tau(a)$) for a buy limit order and $Q^{same}_\tau(a):=Q^{Ask}_\tau(a)$ (respectively $Q^{opposite}_\tau(a):=Q^{Bid}_\tau(a)$) for a sell limit order.
We normalize the quantities by the best opposite to obtain $\rho_\tau(a)=\cfrac{Q^{same}_\tau(a)-Q^{opposite}_\tau(a)}{Q^{same}_\tau(a)+Q^{opposite}_\tau(a)}$. It is then easy to average over the transactions indexed by timestamps $\tau$ to obtain an estimate of this expected ratio for one class of agent: $$\label{eq:rhoa}
R(a)=\frac{1}{\cardT)} \sum_{\tau\in\calT} \rho_\tau(a),\; \lim_{\cardT)\rightarrow+\infty} R(a) = \Esp_\tau \left( \frac{Q^{same}_\tau(a)-Q^{opposite}_\tau(a)}{Q^{opposite}_\tau(a)+Q^{opposite}_\tau(a)} \right).$$ It is even possible to control a potential bias by using the same number of buy and sell executed limit orders to compute this “neutralized” average: $$\label{eq:rhoa}
R'(a)=\frac{1}{\cardT({\rm buy}))} \sum_{\tau\in\calT({\rm buy})} \rho_\tau(a) + \frac{1}{\cardT({\rm sell}))} \sum_{\tau\in\calT({\rm sell})} \rho_\tau(a). $$
(a)(b) \
![Comparison of neutralized orderbook Imbalance $R'(a)$ at the time of a trade via a limit order (a) for institutional brokers, global investment banks and High Frequency Participants. (b) Shows a split of HFP between market makers and proprietary traders. Data are the ones for AstraZeneca (2013-01 to 2013-09).[]{data-label="fig:imbNASDAQ"}](p01_AZN_avg_imb_01 "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![Comparison of neutralized orderbook Imbalance $R'(a)$ at the time of a trade via a limit order (a) for institutional brokers, global investment banks and High Frequency Participants. (b) Shows a split of HFP between market makers and proprietary traders. Data are the ones for AstraZeneca (2013-01 to 2013-09).[]{data-label="fig:imbNASDAQ"}](p01_AZN_avg_imb_01_mm "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}\
Figure \[fig:imbNASDAQ\].a shows the average state of the imbalance (via some estimates of $R'(a)$, on AstraZeneca from January 2013 to August 2013) for each class of agent (see Tables \[tab:compagents:HFT\], \[tab:compagents:GIB\], \[tab:compagents:brok\] for lists of NASDAQ-OMX memberships used to identify agents classes). One can see the state of the imbalance is different for each class given it “accepted” to transact via a limit order:
- Institutional brokers accept a transaction when the imbalance is largely negative, i.e. they buy using a limit order while the price is going down. It generates a large adverse selection: they would have wait a little more, the price would have been cheaper. They make this choice because they do not pay enough attention to the orderbook, or because they have to buy fast from risk management reasons on their clients’ orders.
- High Frequency Participants (HFP) accept a transaction when the imbalance is around one half of the one when Institutional brokers accept a trade. For sure they look more at the orderbook state before taking a decision. Moreover they can probably be more opportunistic: ready to wait the perfect moment instead of being lead by urgency considerations.
If we split HFP between more market making-oriented ones and proprietary trading ones on Figure \[fig:imbNASDAQ\].b we see
- market makers (probably for inventory reasons: they have to alternate buys and sells), accept to trade when the imbalance is more negative than the average of HFP. They are probably paid back from this adverse selection by bid-ask spread gains (see [@citeulike:8423311]);
- proprietary traders are the most opportunistic participants of our panel, leading them to have a less intense imbalance when they trade via limit orders: they seem to be the ones less suffering from adverse selection.
- Global Investment banks are in between. Three reasons may explain such behaviour : first, their activity is a mix of client execution and proprietary trading (hence we perceive the imbalance when they accept a trade as an average of the two categories); second, they have specific strategies to accept transactions via limit orders; third, they invest a little less than HFP in low latency technology, but more than institutional brokers.
The **main effect** to note is each class of agent seems to exploit differently the state of the orderbook before accepting or not a transaction.
### The added value of imbalance for market participants
Now we know classes of agents take differently into account the state of orderbook imbalance to accept or not a transaction via a limit order, one can ask what could be the value of such a “*high frequency market timing*”.
We attempt to measure this value with a combination of NASDAQ-OMX labelled transactions and our synchronized market data. To do this, we compute the midprice move immediately before and after a class of participant $a$ accepts to transact via a limit order: $$\label{eq:midmove}
\Delta P^{mid}_{\delta t}(\tau,a) = \frac{P^{mid}_{\tau+\delta t} - P^{mid}_\tau}{\bar\psi} \cdot \epsilon_\tau(a),$$ where $\epsilon_\tau(a)$ is the “sign” of the transaction (i.e. +1 for a buy and -1 for a sell) and $\bar\psi$ is the average bid-ask spread on the considered stock.
A “price profile[^7]” around a trade is the averaging of this price move as a function of $\delta t$ (between -5 minutes and +5 minutes); it is an estimate of the “expected price profile” around a trade: $$p_a(\delta t) = \frac{1}{\cardT)} \sum_{\tau\in\calT} \Delta P^{mid}_{\delta t}(\tau,a),\; \lim_{\cardT)\rightarrow+\infty} p_a(\delta t) = \Esp_\tau \Delta P^{mid}_{\delta t}(\tau,a).$$
(a)(b) \
![Midprice move relative to its position when a limit order is executed for (a) an High Frequency Market Maker, a regional investment bank, and an institutional broker; (b) makes the difference between HF market makers and HF proprietary traders. AstraZeneca (2013-01 to 2013-09).[]{data-label="fig:deltaPNASDAQ"}](p01_AZN_price_profile_02 "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![Midprice move relative to its position when a limit order is executed for (a) an High Frequency Market Maker, a regional investment bank, and an institutional broker; (b) makes the difference between HF market makers and HF proprietary traders. AstraZeneca (2013-01 to 2013-09).[]{data-label="fig:deltaPNASDAQ"}](p01_AZN_price_profile_02_mm2 "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}\
Figure \[fig:deltaPNASDAQ\].a and \[fig:deltaPNASDAQ\].b show the price profiles of our three classes of participants, exhibiting real differences beween them. First of all, it confirms the conclusions we draw from Figure \[fig:imbNASDAQ\]. Since it is always interesting to have a look at dynamical measures of liquidity (see [@citeulike:13616374] for a defense of the use of more dynamical measures of liquidity instead of plain averages):
- It is clear that Institutional brokers (green line) are buying while the price is going down. Would they have bought later, they would have obtained a cheaper price. As underlined early they probably do it by purpose: they can have urgency reasons or they are using a “trading benchmark” that does pay more attention to peg to the executed volume than to the execution price (see [@citeulike:12047995 Chapter 3] for details about brokers’ benchmarks).
- We can see that the difference between High Frequency Participants (HFP) and Global investment banks comes from the price dynamics *before the trade via a limit order*: for Investment banks the price is more or less stable before the execution and goes down when the limit order is executed. For HFP the price clearly go up *before they bought with a limit order*. It implies that they inserted their limit order shortly before the trade. In our framework we will see how cancelling and reinserting limit orders can be a way to implement an optimal strategy.
- On Figure \[fig:deltaPNASDAQ\].b we see the difference between HF market makers and HF proprietary traders: the latter succeed in inserting buy (resp. sell) limit orders and obtaining transaction while the price is clearly going up (resp. down). After the trade, one can read a difference between them and HF market makers: proprietary traders suffer from less adverse selection (the cyan curve is a little higher than the red one).
These charts show that there is a value in taking liquidity imbalance into account. In Section \[sec:understanding\], we show the added of monitoring a limit order by exploiting the orderbook imbalance.
#### The role of latency.
Without a fast enough access to the servers of exchanges, a participant could know the best action to perform (insert or cancel a limit order), but not be able to implement it before an unexpected transaction. Since low latency has a cost, some participants may decide to ignore this information and do not access to fast market feeds, orderbooks states, etc.
In the following sections we will not only provide a theoretical framework to “optimally” exploit oderbook dynamics for limit order placement, but also study its sensitivity to latency, showing how latency can destroy the added value of understanding orderbook dynamics.
In our theoretical framework, we can explore situations in which the participant knows the best action but cannot implement it on time.
The Dynamic Programming Principle Applied to Limit Order Placement {#sec:dpp}
==================================================================
To setup a discrete time framework for optimal control of one limit order with imbalance, we focus on the simple case (but complex enough in terms of modelling) of one atomic quantity $q_{\epsilon}$ to be executed in $T_f$ units of time (can be orderbook events, trades, or seconds). It will be a buy order, but it is straightforward for the reader to transpose our result for a sell order.
From zero to $T_f$ the trader (or software) in charge of this limit order can : cancel it (i.e. remove it from the orderbook) and insert it at the top of the bid queue (if it is not already in the book), or do nothing. If the trader did not obtain an execution thanks to its optimal posting policy at $T_f$, we force him to cancel his order (if any) and to send a market order to obtain a trade.
For simplicity, we consider a model adapted to large tick stocks (i.e for which the spread equals to one tick). However, our construction can be adapted to a small tick stock by enlarging the control space. For example, we can add the possibility to post a limit order in between the best bid and the best ask. Since we consider a small size order, sending a limit order in between first limits highly increases the adverse selection risk. Consequently, we neglect, as a first approximation, such a control in our model. In a more general framework, other limits should be taken into account and more controls can be considered.
Formalisation of the Model
--------------------------
Let $q_{\epsilon}$ be a small limit order inserted at the first bid limit of the orderbook. The orderbook state is modeled by $U^{\mu}_t = \left(Q^{Before,\mu}_t , Q^{After,\mu}_t, Q^{Opp,\mu}_t,P^{\mu}_t \right)$ where $Q^{Before,\mu}$ is the quantity having priority on the order $q_{\epsilon}$, $Q^{After,\mu}$ is the quantity posted after the order $q_{\epsilon}$, $Q^{Opp,\mu}$ is the first opposite limit quantity, $P^{\mu}_t$ is the mid price and $\mu$ is the control of the agent. For simplicity, we neglect the quantity $q_{\epsilon}$: $$Q^{Same,\mu}= Q^{Before,\mu}+Q^{After,\mu}.$$
#### Limit order book dynamics.
Since we don’t differentiate between a cancellation and market orders, the orderbook dynamics can be modeled by four counting processes (see Figure \[fig:lob:flows\]):
- $N_t^{Opp , +}$ (respectively $N_t^{Same , +}$) with an intensity $\lambda^{Opp,+}(Q^{Opp}, Q^{Same})$ (resp. $\lambda^{Same,+}(Q^{Opp}, Q^{Same})$) representing the inserted orders in the opposite limit (resp. same limit).
- $N_t^{Opp,-}$ (resp. $N_t^{Same , -}$) with an intensity $\lambda^{Opp,-}(Q^{Opp}, Q^{Same})$ (resp. $\lambda^{Same,-}(Q^{Opp}, Q^{Same})$) representing the canceled orders in the opposite limit (resp. same limit).
In this model, these four counting processes depend only on quantities at first limits. At each event time, an atomic quantity **q** is added or canceled from the orderbook. Moreover, we assume the bid-ask symmetry relation: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\lambda^{Opp,+}(Q^{Opp}, Q^{Same}) =\lambda^{Same,+}(Q^{Same},Q^{Opp}) \\
\lambda^{Opp,-}(Q^{Opp}, Q^{Same}) =\lambda^{Same,-}(Q^{Same},Q^{Opp}).
\end{array} \right.$$
(3.5,0) – ++(0,-0.5); (3.5,-5.5) – ++(0,-0.5); (6.5,-1) – ++(0,-0.5); (6.5,-5.5) – ++(0,-0.5); (3,-1) rectangle (4,-5); (3,-3) rectangle (4,-3.3); (6,-2) rectangle (7,-5); (0,-5) – ++(10,0); (5,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (3.5,-5) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (6.5,-5) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (3,-4) node\[left\][$Q^{Before}$]{} ; (3,-3.15) node\[left\][$ \text{q} $]{} ; (3,-2) node\[left\][$Q^{After}$]{} ; (7,-4) node\[right\][$Q^{Opp}$]{} ; (5,-5) node\[below\][$ P(t) $]{} ; (10,-5) node\[right\][$Price$]{} ; (3.5,-0.25) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Same,+ }$]{} ; (3.5,-5.75) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Same,- }$]{} ; (6.5,-1.25) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Opp,+}$]{} ; (6.5,-5.75) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Opp,-}$]{} ;
Hence, the size of the first limits can be written as long as none of them turns to be negative : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
Q^{Opp,\mu}_{t} & = & Q^{Opp,\mu}_{t^{-}} + q\Delta N_t^{Opp,+} - q\Delta N_t^{Opp,-} \\
Q^{Before,\mu}_{t} & = & \big(Q^{Before,\mu}_{t^{-}} - q\Delta N_t^{Same,-}\big)\mathrm{1}_{Q^{Before,\mu}_{t^{-}}\geq q} \\
Q^{After,\mu}_{t} & = & Q^{After,\mu}_{t^{-}} + q\Delta N_t^{Same,+} - q\mathrm{1}_{0 \leq Q^{Before,\mu}_{t^{-}}< q}\Delta N_t^{Same,-}.
\end{array} \right.
\label{Eq:LOBDyn}$$
##### What happens when $Q^{After,\mu}$,$Q^{Before,\mu}$ or $Q^{Opp,\mu}$ is totally consumed :
First of all, we neglect the probability that at least two of these three events happen simultaneously. When one of the two queues fully depletes, we assume that the price moves in its direction, and we introduce a *discovered quantity* $Q^{Disc}$ to replace the deleted first queue, and an *inserted quantity* $Q^{Ins}$ to be put in front of the opposite one. These quantities are random variables and their law are conditioned by the orderbook state before the depletion. In detail:
1. [When $ Q^{Opp,\mu}_t = 0 $]{}. The price increases by one tick (keep in mind for a buy order, the *opposite* is the ask side). Then, we discover a new opposite limit and a new bid quantity is inserted into the bid-ask spread (on the bid side) by other market participants (see Figure \[fig:lod:down\]). It reads $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
Q^{Opp,\mu}_t &=& Q^{Disc}(Q^{Opp,\mu}_{t^-},Q^{Same,\mu}_{t^-}) \\
Q^{Before,\mu}_t &=& Q^{Ins}(Q^{Opp,\mu}_{t^-},Q^{Same,\mu}_{t^-}) \\
Q^{After,\mu}_t &=& 0.
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ $Q^{Disc}$ is the “*discovered quantity*” and $Q^{Ins}$ the “*inserted quantity*”.
x (3.5,0) – ++(0,-0.5); (3.5,-6.5) – ++(0,-0.5); (6.5,-1) – ++(0,-0.5); (6.5,-6.5) – ++(0,-0.5); (3,-1) rectangle (4,-5); (3,-3) rectangle (4,-3.3); (6,-2) rectangle (7,-5); (0,-5) – ++(10,0); (5,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (3.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (6.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (3,-4.5) node\[left\][$Q^{Before}$]{} ; (3,-3.15) node\[left\][$ \text{q} $]{} ; (3,-2) node\[left\][$Q^{After}$]{} ; (7,-4) node\[right\][$Q^{Opp}$]{} ; (5,-5) node\[below\][$ P(t) $]{} ; (10,-5) node\[below\][$Price$]{} ; (3.5,-0.25) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Same,+}$]{} ; (3.5,-6.75) node\[below\][$\lambda^{Same,-}$]{} ; (6.5,-1.25) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Opp,+}$]{} ; (6.5,-6.75) node\[below\][$\lambda^{Opp,-}$]{} ; (2,1) node\[right\][Before price moves up]{} ;
\
(6,-3) – ++(0.5,0); (1,-1) rectangle (2,-5); (8,-3) rectangle (9,-5); (8,-3) rectangle (9,-3.3); (4,-2) rectangle (5,-5); (11,-1) rectangle (12,-5); (0,-5) – ++(15,0); (3,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (10,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (8.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (11.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (8,-4.5) node\[left\][$Q^{Ins}$]{} ; (8,-3.15) node\[left\][$ \text{q} $]{} ; (12,0) node[$Q^{Disc}$]{} ; (3,-5) node\[below\][$ P(t) $]{} ; (10,-5) node\[below\][P(t)+1]{} ; (15,-5) node\[below\][$Price$]{} ; (4,1) node\[right\][After price moved up]{} ;
2. [When $ Q^{Before,\mu}_t = 0 $]{}. The limit order is executed. This case is considered in equation \[Eq:LOBDyn\].
3. [When moreover $ Q^{After,\mu}_t = 0 $]{}. The price decreases by one tick. Then, we discover a new quantity on the bid side and market makers insert a new quantity on the opposite side : $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
Q^{Opp,\mu}_t &=& Q^{Ins}(Q^{Opp,\mu}_{t^-},Q^{Same,\mu}_{t^-}) \\
Q^{Before,\mu}_t &=& Q^{Disc}(Q^{Opp,\mu}_{t^-},Q^{Same,\mu}_{t^-}) \\
Q^{After,\mu}_t &=& 0
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ If the limit order was in the orderbook: it has been executed. Otherwise the price moves down and the trader has the opportunity to reinsert a limit order on the top of $Q^{Disc}$ (see Figure \[fig:lob:model:upward\] for a diagram).
(3.5,-2.25) – ++(0,-0.5); (3.5,-6.5) – ++(0,-0.5); (6.5,-1) – ++(0,-0.5); (6.5,-6.5) – ++(0,-0.5); (3,-3) rectangle (4,-5); (6,-2) rectangle (7,-5); (0,-5) – ++(10,0); (5,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (3.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (6.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (3,-4) node\[left\][$Q^{After}$]{} ; (7,-4) node\[right\][$Q^{Opp}$]{} ; (5,-5) node\[below\][$ P(t) $]{} ; (10,-5) node\[below\][$Price$]{} ; (3.5,-2.25) node\[left\][$\lambda^{Same,+}$]{} ; (3.5,-6.75) node\[below\][$\lambda^{Same,-}$]{} ; (6.5,-1.25) node\[right\][$\lambda^{Opp,+}$]{} ; (6.5,-6.75) node\[below\][$\lambda^{Opp,-}$]{} ; (2,1) node\[right\][Before price moves down]{} ;
\
(7,-3) – ++(-0.5,0); (8,-3) rectangle (9,-5); (1,-3) rectangle (2,-5); (11,-1) rectangle (12,-5); (4,-1) rectangle (5,-5); (0,-5) – ++(15,0); (3,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (10,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (1.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (4.5,-5.2) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (1,-4.5) node\[left\][$Q^{Disc}$]{} ; (4.5,0) node[$Q^{Ins}$]{} ; (3,-5) node\[below\][$ \text{P(t)-1}$]{} ; (10,-5) node\[below\][P(t)]{} ; (15,-5) node\[below\][$Price$]{} ; (4,1) node\[right\][After price moved down]{} ;
\
##### The control.
We consider two types of control $ C = \left\{s ,c \right\} $:
- $c$ (like *continue*): stay in the orderbook.
- $s$ (like *stop*): cancel the order and wait for a better orderbook state to reinsert it at the top of $Q^{same}$ ($Q^{bid}$ for our buy order). This control is essentially used to avoid adverse selection, i.e. avoid to buy just before a price decrease.
#### Optimal control problem.
We fix a finite time horizon $T_f<\infty$ and we want to compute : $$V_{T}(0,U) = \underset{\mu}{\sup}\, \Esp \big[ \Delta P^{\mu}_{\infty} \big].$$ Where :
- $U = (q^{before},q^{after},q^{opp},p)$ is the initial state of the orderbook.
- $T^{\mu}_{Exec} = \inf\big\{t \geq 0, \, s.t \, Q^{Before,\mu}_t < q, \, \mu_t = c\big\}\wedge T_f$ represents the first execution time. Once the order executed, the orderbook is frozen.
- $\Delta P^{\mu}_{\infty} = \underset{t \rightarrow \infty}{\lim} \big(P^{\mu}_{t} - P^{Exec,\mu}_{T^{\mu}_{Exec}} \big) $ represents the gain of the trader, where the execution price $P^{Exec,\mu}_{t}$ satisfy $P^{Exec,\mu}_{t} = P^{\mu}_{t} - \frac{1}{2}$ when the limit order is executed before $T_f$ and $P^{Exec,\mu}_{t} = P^{\mu}_{t} + \frac{1}{2}$ otherwise. Indeed, if at $T_f$ the order hasn’t been executed, we cross the spread to guarantee execution.
#### Choice of a benchmark.
We compare the value of the obtained shares at $t$ to *its expected value at infinity*, i.e. $\Esp (P_{+\infty}(t) | \Imb_t) $ since it is not attractive to buy at the best bid if we expect the price to continue to go down. Indeed, it is possible to expect a better future price thanks to the observed imbalance. It thus induces an *adverse selection cost* in the framework.
This is not a detail since the *trader will have no insentive to put a limit order at the top of a very small queue if the opposite side of the book is large*. We will see in Section \[sec:understanding\] using empirical evidences that this is a realistic behaviour. Such a behaviour cannot be captured by other linear frameworks like [@moa14hjb].
To solve the control problem, we introduce in the next section a discrete time version of the initial problem whose value function can be computed numerically. In this discrete framework, $\underset{t \rightarrow \infty}{\lim} \big(P^{\mu}_{t} - P^{Exec,\mu}_{T^{\mu}_{Exec}} \big) $ is computed using the imbalance.
Discrete time framework
-----------------------
We set the time step to $\Delta_t$ and the final time to $T_{f}$. Let $t_0=0 < t_1 \cdots t_{f-1} < t_{f}= T_f$ different instants at which the orderbook is observed, such that $ t_n = n\Delta_t $ for all $ n \in \left\{0 ,1, \cdots ,f \right \} $.
Under the assumption that between two consecutive instants $t_n$ and $t_{n+1}$ for all $ n \in \left\{0 ,1, \cdots ,f-1 \right \} $, only five cases can occur:
- 1 unit quantity is added at the bid side;
- 1 unit quantity is consumed at the bid side;
- 1 unit quantity is added at the opposite side;
- 1 unit quantity is consumed at the opposite side;
- nothing happens.
We neglect the situation where at least two cases occur during the same time interval (the probability of such conjunctions are of the orders of $\lambda^2$, hence our approximation remains valid as far as $\lambda^2 dt$ is small compared to $\lambda dt$).
In short, our main assumptions are:
- only one limit order of small quantity $\textbf{q}_{\epsilon}$ is controlled, it is small enough to have no influence on orderbook imbalance;
- decrease of queue sizes at first limits is caused by transactions only (i.e. no difference between cancellation and trades);
- queues decrease or increase by one quantity only;
- the intensities of point processes (including the ones driving quantities inserted into the bid-ask spread, and driving the quantity discovered when a second limit becomes a first limit) are functions of the quantities at best limits only;
- no notable conjunction of multiple events.
We introduce the following Markov chain $ U^{\mu}_n = \left( Q^{Before,\mu}_n, Q^{After,\mu}_n, Q^{ Opp,\mu}_n, P^{\mu}_n , \text{Exec}_n \right)$ where:
- $Q^{Before,\mu}_n$ is the $Q^{Before,\mu}$ size at time $t_n$ that takes value in $\mathbb{N}$.
- $Q^{After,\mu}_n$ is the $Q^{After,\mu}$ size at time $t_n$ that takes value in $\mathbb{N} $.
- $Q^{Opp,\mu}_n$ is the $Q^{Opp,\mu}$ size at time $t_n$ that takes value in $\mathbb{N}$.
- $P^{\mu}_n$ is the mid price at time $t_n$.
- $\text{Exec}_n$ is an additional variable taking values in $ \{-1,0,1 \} $. $\text{Exec}_n$ equals to 1 when the order is executed at time $t_n$, 0 when the order is not executed at time $t_n$ and -1 (a “*cemetery state*”) when the order has been already executed before $t_n$. We set $ \text{Exec}_0=0 $.
In the same way, we define $N^{Same,+}_{n}$, $N^{Same,-}_{n} $, $N^{Opp,+}_{n} $ and $N^{Opp,-}_{n}$ as the values of the counting processes $N^{Same,+}_{t}$, $N^{Same,-}_{t} $, $N^{Opp,+}_{t} $ et $N^{Opp,-}_{t}$ at time $t_n$. The transition probabilities of the markov chain $U_n$ are detailed in Appendix \[sec:app:transition\].
#### The terminal constraint.
The microprice $P_{\infty,k} \approx \Esp (P_{\infty}|\mathcal{F}_k) $ is defined such as: $$P_{\infty,k} =F(Q^{Opp}_{k},Q^{Same}_{k},P_{k}) = P_{k} + \frac{\alpha}{2} \cdot \frac{Q^{Same}_{k} - Q^{Opp}_{k} }{ Q^{Opp}_{k}+Q^{Same}_{k} } \quad \forall k \in \{0,1, \cdots , f \}.
\label{Eq:TermConstr1}$$ Where $\mathcal{F}_k$ is the filtration associated to $U_k$ such that $\mathcal{F}_k = \sigma \left(U_n , n\leq k \right)$ and $\alpha$ is a parameter that represents the sensitivity of futur prices to the imbalance.\
The execution price $P_{\text{Exec},k} $ is defined $\forall k \in \{0,1, \cdots , f \} $ such that : $$P_{\text{Exec},k} = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
P_{k} + \frac{1}{2} \qquad \text{when} \; \text{Exec}_k = 0\\ P_{k} + \frac{1}{2} \qquad \text{when}\; \text{Exec}_k \in \left\{-1,1\right\}\, \text{and}\, P_{k+1} - P_k \ne 0 \\
P_{k} - \frac{1}{2} \qquad \text{when}\; \text{Exec}_k \in \left\{-1,1\right\}\, \text{and}\, P_{k+1} - P_k = 0.
\end{array} \right.$$
Let $k_0$ be the execution time: $k_0 = \inf \left(k \geq 0 , \text{Exec}_k = 1 \right) \wedge f$. Then, the terminal valuation can be written: $$Z_{k_0} = P_{\infty,k_0} - P_{\text{Exec},k_0}
\label{Eq:FinalConst02}$$
Let $\mathcal{U}$ the set of all progressively measurable processes $ \mu := \left\{\mu_k , k < f \right\}$ valued in $ \left\{s,c\right\} $ This problem can be written as a stochastic control problem : $$V_{U_0,f} = \underset{\mu \in \mathcal{U}}{\sup} \underset{U_0,\mu}{\Esp} \left( Z_{k_0}\right) = \underset{\mu \in \mathcal{U}}{\sup} \underset{U_0,\mu}{\Esp} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{f-1} g_i(U_i,\mu_i) + g_f(U_f)\right).$$ Where $ g_i(U_i,\mu_i) = Z_{i}$ when $\text{Exec}_i =1 $ and $\mu_i = c $ and 0 otherwise for all $i \in \left\{1,\cdots,f-1 \right\}$, and $g_f(U_f) = Z_f$ when $\text{Exec}_f \in \left\{ 0,1\right\} $ and 0 otherwise.
We want to compute $V_{U_0,f}= \underset{\mu \in \mathcal{U}}{\sup} \, \underset{U_0,\mu}{\Esp}(Z_{k_0})$ using dynamic programming algorithm: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
G_f = Z_f \\
G_n = \max \left( P^{c}_{n}G_{n+1} , P^{s}_{n}G_{n+1} \right) \quad \forall \, n \in \{0,1, \cdots , f-1 \}.
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:loigenerale}$$ Where $P_n$ represents the transition matrix of the markov chain $U_n$.
A Qualitative Understanding {#sec:understanding}
===========================
Equation (\[eq:loigenerale\]) provides an explicit forward-backward algorithm that can be solved numerically:
- *Step 1 Forward simulation :* Starting from an initial state $u$, we simulate all the reachable states during $f$ periods.
- *Step 2 Backward simulation:* At the final period $f$, we can compute $G_f$ for each reachable state. Then, using the backward equation (\[eq:loigenerale\]), we can compute, recursively, $G_i$ knowing $G_{i+1}$ to get $G_0$.
In this section, we present and comment the simulation results. For more details about the forward-backward algorithm see Appendix \[sec:app:transition\]. We are going to compare two situations:
- The first one called **(NC)** [currentlabel[NC]{}\[txt:NC\]]{} corresponds to the case when no control is adopted (i.e we always stay in the orderbook and “join the best bid” each time it changes).
- The second one called **(OC)** [currentlabel[OC]{}\[txt:OC\]]{} corresponds to the optimal control case: controls “c” and “s” are considered.
Moreover, our simulation results are given for two different cases :
- **Framework (CONST):** [currentlabel[CONST]{}\[txt:CONST\]]{} intensities of insertion and cancellation are constant: $\lambda^{Same,+}_k = \lambda^{Opp,+}_k = 0.06 $ and $\lambda^{Same,-}_k = \lambda^{Opp,-}_k = 0.5 \,$ $\forall k \in \left\{0,1,\cdots,f\right\}$. Under (\[txt:CONST\]), the inserted quantities $Q^{Ins}$ and discovered quantities $Q^{Disc}$ are constant too.
- **Framework (IMB):** [currentlabel[IMB]{}\[txt:IMB\]]{} intensities of cancellation and insertion are functions of the imbalance such as $\forall k \in \left\{0,1,\cdots,f\right\}$ :
$$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda^{Opp,+}_k\left(Q^{Opp}_k,Q^{Same}_k\right)= \lambda^{Same,+}_k\left(Q^{Same}_k,Q^{Opp}_k\right) = \lambda^{+}_0 + \beta^{+}\frac{Q^{Opp}_k}{(Q^{Opp}_k+Q^{Same}_k)} \\
\lambda^{Opp,-}_k\left(Q^{Opp}_k,Q^{Same}_k\right)= \lambda^{Same,-}_k\left(Q^{Same}_k,Q^{Opp}_k\right) = \lambda^{-}_0 + \beta^{-}\frac{Q^{Same}_k}{ (Q^{Opp}_k+Q^{Same}_k)} \\
\end{array}$$
Where $\lambda^{\pm}_0$ are basic insertion and cancellation intensties and $\beta^{\pm}$ are predictability parameters representing the sensitivity of order flows to the imbalance.
Moreover, under (\[txt:IMB\]), inserted and discovered quantities are computed in the following way:
- **When $Q^{Opp}_k$ is totally consumed**, we set $Q^{Disc}_k = \lceil q^{disc}_0 + \theta_{disc} \cdot Q^{Same}_k \rceil $ and $Q^{Ins} = \lceil q^{ins}_0 + \theta_{ins} \cdot Q^{Same}_k \rceil$. Where $\theta_{disc}$ and $\theta_{ins}$ are coefficients associated to liquidity and $\lceil . \rceil $ is the upper rounding. $q^{disc}_0$ and $q^{ins}_0$ are the basic discovered and inserted quantities.
- Similarly **when $Q^{Same}_k$ is totally consumed**, we set $Q^{Disc} = \lceil q^{disc}_0 + \theta_{disc} \cdot Q^{Opp}_k \rceil $ and $Q^{Ins} = \lceil q^{ins}_0 + \theta_{ins} \cdot Q^{Opp}_k \rceil $.
This kind of relations is compatible with empirical findings of [@citeulike:12810809] and different from [@citeulike:8531765] in which $Q^{Disc}= Q^{Ins}$ is independant of liquidity imbalance.
Numerically Solving the Control Problem
---------------------------------------
### Anticipation of Adverse Selection
The cancellation is used by the optimal strategy to avoid adverse selection. For instance, when the quantity on the same side is extremely lower than the one on the opposite side, it is expected to cancel the order to wait for a better future opportunity. The optimal control takes in consideration this effect and cancels the order when such a high adverse selection effect is present.
We keep notations of Section \[sec:dpp\]. Let $\mu := \left\{ \mu_k, k<f \right\}$ a control, we define $ \Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right) = \Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( Z_{k_0} \right) $. $ \Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec}\right)$ depends on the control $\mu$, the initial state of the orderbook $U_0$ and the terminal period $f$. The quantity $\Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ can be directly computed by a forward algorithm that visits all the possible states of the markov chain $U^{\mu}_n$. For more details about the transition probabilities of the Markov chain $U^{\mu}_n$ see Appendix \[sec:app:transition\].
The quantity $\Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right) $ is interesting since it corresponds to the quantity to maximize in our optimal control problem and it represents as well the profitability/trade of an agent.
Let $\mu^c$ the control where the agent always stays in the orderbook (i.e \[txt:NC\]) and $\mu^*$ the optimal control (i.e \[txt:OC\]). The Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a represents the variation of $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ and $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ when the initial imbalance of the orderbook moves under (\[txt:CONST\]). In Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a, blue points are initial states where it is optimal to stay in the orderbook since the beginning (i.e $t=0$) while red points are initial states where it is optimal to cancel the order at $t=0$. Initial parameters are fixed such that $\lambda^{Same,+} = \lambda^{Opp,+} = 0.06 $, $\lambda^{Same,-} = \lambda^{Opp,-} = 0.5$, $\alpha =4$, $Q^{Disc} =6$, $Q^{Ins} = 4$, $f=20$, $q=1$ and $P_0 = 10$. Moreover, initial imbalance values are obtained by varying $Q^{Opp}_0$ from 2 to 12 and $Q^{After}_0$ from 1 to 11 while $Q^{Before}_0$ is kept constant equal to 1.
Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b is the analogous of Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a but under the framework (\[txt:IMB\]). In Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b, initial parameters are fixed such that $\lambda^{+}_0 = 0.06$, $\lambda^{-}_0 = 0.5$, $\beta^{+} = 0.075$, $\beta^{-} = 0.25$, $q^{disc}_0 = 6$, $q^{ins}_0 = 2$, $\theta_{disc} = 3$, $\theta_{disc} = 0.5$, $\alpha =4$, $f=20$ and $P_0 = 10$. Similarly, initial imbalance values are obtained by varying $Q^{Opp}_0$ from 2 to 12 and $Q^{After}_0$ from 1 to 11 while $Q^{Before}_0$ is kept constant equal to 1.
(a)(b) \
![(a) (resp. (b)) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ and $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ when intensities are constant (\[txt:CONST\]) (resp . (\[txt:IMB\])).[]{data-label="fig:deltaPImbalanceNC_Vs_OC"}](CsteIntensPriceMoveImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![(a) (resp. (b)) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ and $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ when intensities are constant (\[txt:CONST\]) (resp . (\[txt:IMB\])).[]{data-label="fig:deltaPImbalanceNC_Vs_OC"}](VarIntensPriceMoveImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}
The **main effect** to note on these curves is the way the optimal control anticipates adverse selection. When imbalance is highly negative, we cancel first the order (red points) to take advantage from a better futur opportunity. We notice that under the framework (\[txt:IMB\]), the agent cancels earlier than under the framework (\[txt:CONST\]) since more weights are given to cancellation events. This point is detailed in \[IMBIntensInf\].
Appendix \[sec:extremb\] explains the downward slopes at the left of Figures \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a and \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b.
### Price Improvement comes from avoiding adverse selection
As expected, results obtained in the optimal control (\[txt:OC\]) case are better than the ones in the non-controlled (\[txt:NC\]) case : by cancelling and taking into account liquidity imbalance, one can be more efficient than just staying in the orderbook.
Figure \[fig:deltaPErrorImbalance\].a shows the variation of the price improvement (resp. $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right) - \Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$) when the initial imbalance moves, under both frameworks (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). We kept the same initial parameters of Figures \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a and \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b.
Similarly, Figure \[fig:deltaPErrorImbalance\].b represents the variation $ \Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( P_{k_0} | \text{Exec} \right) - \Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left(P_{k_0} | \text{Exec} \right)$ when the initial imbalance moves, under both frameworks (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). $P_{k_0}$ is the mid price at the execution time $k_0$. We kept the same initial parameters of Figures \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a and \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b.
(a)(b) \
![ (a) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right) - \Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ move relative to initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). (b) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left(P_{k_0} | \text{Exec} \right) - \Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( P_{k_0} | \text{Exec} \right)$ move relative to initial imbalance move relative to initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). []{data-label="fig:deltaPErrorImbalance"}](VarIntensDiffPriceMoveImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![ (a) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right) - \Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ move relative to initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). (b) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left(P_{k_0} | \text{Exec} \right) - \Esp_{U_0,\mu^c} \left( P_{k_0} | \text{Exec} \right)$ move relative to initial imbalance move relative to initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). []{data-label="fig:deltaPErrorImbalance"}](VarIntensDiffPriceImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:deltaPErrorImbalance\] deserves the following comments. As expected, the optimal control provides better results than a blind “join the bid” strategy. In Figure \[fig:deltaPErrorImbalance\].a the price improvement is non-negative since our control maximizes $\Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( \Delta \text{P}\right)$. When the initial imbalance is highly positive, the price improvement is close to 0 however when the initial imbalance is highly negative the price improvement becomes higher than 0 by avoiding adverse selection. Similarly, Figure \[fig:deltaPErrorImbalance\].b shows that the optimal strategy allows to buy with a low average price when imbalance is highly negative by preventing from adverse selection [^8].
### Average Duration of Optimal Strategies
In brief, the optimal strategy aims to obtain an execution in the best market conditions (i.e. with a low adverse selection risk). It can be read on the average lifetime (i.e. “duration”) of the strategy. Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].a compares the average strategy duration in both frameworks (\[txt:NC\]) and (\[txt:OC\]) when intensities are constant (\[txt:CONST\]). We kept the same initial parameters of Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a. Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].b is the analogous of Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].a but under framework (\[txt:IMB\]). Finally, Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].c shows the “stay ratio” (i.e. the proportion of trajectories for which the optimal strategy chooses to not cancel its limit order) under both frameworks (\[txt:NC\]) and (\[txt:OC\]) when intensities depend on the imbalance (\[txt:IMB\]). Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].b and \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].c are computed with the same initial parameters of Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b.
(a)(b) \
![Average strategy duration as a function of (a) the initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (b) the initial imbalance under (\[txt:IMB\]). (c) Stay ratio as a function of the initial imbalance under (\[txt:IMB\]). []{data-label="fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance"}](CsteIntensAverageStratDurationImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"} ![Average strategy duration as a function of (a) the initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (b) the initial imbalance under (\[txt:IMB\]). (c) Stay ratio as a function of the initial imbalance under (\[txt:IMB\]). []{data-label="fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance"}](VarIntensAverageStratDurationImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}\
(c) \
![Average strategy duration as a function of (a) the initial imbalance under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (b) the initial imbalance under (\[txt:IMB\]). (c) Stay ratio as a function of the initial imbalance under (\[txt:IMB\]). []{data-label="fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance"}](VarIntensStayRatioImbalance20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".45\linewidth"}
In both Figures \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].a and \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].b, the average strategy duration of the optimal control is always higher than the non-optimal one. It is an expected result since the optimal control cancels the order and hence postpone the execution. Moreover, the algorithm cancels the order when high adverse selection is present (i.e the imbalance is highly negative under \[txt:IMB\] [^9]). In such case, the average strategy duration of the optimal control is strictly greater than the non-optimal one (see Figures \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].a and \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].b).
\*\*[currentlabel[\*\*]{}\[IMBIntensInf\]]{} In Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].b, when intensities depend on the imbalance (\[txt:IMB\]), the average strategy duration has an increasing trend. In fact, under (\[txt:IMB\]), when imbalance is highly positive, more weights are given to events delaying the execution. For example, when imbalance is highly positive, the bid queue is a way larger than the opposite one. Then, the probability to obtain an execution on the bid side is low : that’s why it is expected to wait more. Moreover, Figure \[fig:MeanExecTimeImbalance\].c shows that the agent become more active when high adverse selection is present. Indeed, when the imbalance is negative (i.e. high adverse selection), the “stay ratio” decreases and consequently the “cancel ratio” increases.
### Influence of the Terminal Constraint
In this section, we want to shed light on two stylized facts:
1. the optimal strategy performs better under good market condition when there is more time left.
2. the optimal strategy becomes highly active close to the terminal time.
(a)(b) \
![ (a) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ move relative to remaining time under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). (b) stay cancel ratio move relative to remaining time to maturity under (\[txt:IMB\]).[]{data-label="fig:deltaPImbalance"}](VarIntensOptiGainRemainingTime20Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".4\linewidth"} ![ (a) $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ move relative to remaining time under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). (b) stay cancel ratio move relative to remaining time to maturity under (\[txt:IMB\]).[]{data-label="fig:deltaPImbalance"}](VarIntensStayRatioRemainingTime20Period2.pdf "fig:"){width=".4\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].a compares the variation of $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ as a function of the remaining time under frameworks (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). Initial imbalance is fixed equal to 0.5. Thanks to the Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].a, we can see that the more time remaining, the better for the optimal strategy. However, the concavity of the curve shows that the marginal performance $ \frac{\partial \Esp \left( \Delta \text{P} \right)_t}{\partial t} $ is decreasing. Moreover, Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].a shows also that $\Esp_{U_0,\mu^*} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ may converge to a limit value when maturity time tends to infinity. Since the markov chain $U_n$ is ergodic (cf. [@citeulike:12810809]), we believe that this limit value is unique and independent of the initial state of the orderbook and could lead to an “almost ergodic” regime.
In Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].b, we represent the percentage of times where the optimal strategy cancels its order and the percentage of times where it decides to stay in the orderbook as a function of remaining time under (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]). The initial imbalance is fixed to 0.5. Thanks to Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].b, we conclude that it is optimal to be more active close to $t=T_f$. In Figures \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].a and \[fig:deltaPImbalance\].b, we kept the same initial parameters of Figures \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a and \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b
The Price of Latency
--------------------
In Section \[sec:dpp\], we defined the Markov chain $U^{\mu}_n$ that corresponds to a market participant enabled to change his control at each period. A slower participant will not react at each limit orderbook move. Hence, he can be modelled by the markov chain $U^{\mu}_{\tau n}$ where $\tau$ corresponds to a latency factor such as $\tau \in \mathbb{N}^{*}$.
Using notations of previous sections, we define $Z_{\tau,f}$ as the final constraint associated to the Markov chain $U^{\mu}_{\tau n}$. Thus, we define the latency cost of a participant with a latency factor $\tau$ such as :
$$Latency_{U_0,f} ( \tau)= V_{U_0,f} - V_{U_0,f,\tau} \qquad \forall\tau \in \mathbb{N}^{*}$$
Where $V_{U_0,f,\tau}= \underset{\mu \in \mathcal{U}}{\sup} \Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left(Z_{\tau,f}\right) $.
By adapting the same numerical forward-backward algorithm, the cost of latency can be computed numerically. This cost can be converted into a value: it is the value a trader should accept to pay in technology since he will be rewarded in term of performance.
Figures \[fig:LatencyCost\].a and \[fig:LatencyCost\].b show the variation of the latency cost with respect to the latency factor $\tau$ under both frameworks (\[txt:CONST\]) and (\[txt:IMB\]) for different values of $\alpha$. The initial imbalance is fixed equal to 0.5 with an initial state $Q^{After}_0=2$,$Q^{Before}_0=1$ and $Q^{Opp}_0=1$. We kept the same initial parameters of Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a and Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b.
\(a) (b) \
![ (a) Latency cost as a function of the latency factor $\tau$ under (\[txt:CONST\]). (b) Latency cost as a function of the latency factor $\tau$ under (\[txt:IMB\]) for different values of $\alpha$.[]{data-label="fig:LatencyCost"}](CsteIntensLatencyTimeRemaining10Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".4\linewidth"} ![ (a) Latency cost as a function of the latency factor $\tau$ under (\[txt:CONST\]). (b) Latency cost as a function of the latency factor $\tau$ under (\[txt:IMB\]) for different values of $\alpha$.[]{data-label="fig:LatencyCost"}](VarIntensLatencyTimeRemaining10Period.pdf "fig:"){width=".4\linewidth"}
Numerical results show :
- The latency cost increases with the latency factor $\tau$ (cf. Figure \[fig:LatencyCost\].a).
- The latency cost is higher when sensitivity to adverse selection increases (i.e $\alpha$ is big) (cf. Figures \[fig:LatencyCost\].a and \[fig:LatencyCost\].b).\
Consequently, the added value of exploiting a knowledge on liquidity imbalance is eroded by latency: being able to predict future liquidity consuming flows is of less use if you can’t cancel and reinsert your limit orders at each change of the orderbook state. For instance, when two agents act optimally according the same criterion, the faster will have more profits than the slower.
Conclusion
==========
We have used NASDAQ-OMX labelled data to show how market participants accept or refuse transactions via limit orders as a function of liquidity imbalance. It is not an exhaustive study on this exchange from the north of Europe (we focus on AstraZeneca from January 2013 to September 2013). We first show that the orderbook imbalance has a predictive power on future mid price move. We then focus on three types of market participants: Institutional brokers, Global Investment Banks (GIB) and High Frequency Participants (HFP). Data show that the former accept to trade when the imbalance is more negative (i.e. they buy or sell while the price pressure is downward or upward) than GIB, themselves accepting a more negative imbalance than HFP. Moreover, when we split HFP between high frequency market makers and high frequency proprietary traders (HFPT), we see that HFPT achieve to buy via limit orders when the imbalance is very small. We complete this analysis with the dynamics of prices around limit orders execution, showing how strategically participants use their limit orders.
Then we proposed a theoretical framework to control limit orders where liquidity imbalance can be used to predict future price moves. Our framework includes potential adverse selection via a parameter $\alpha$. We use the dynamic programming principle to provide a way to solve it numerically and exhibit simulations. We show that solutions of our framework have commonalities with our empirical findings.
In a last Section we show how the capability of exploiting imbalance predictability using optimal control decreases with latency: the trader has less time to put in place sophisticated strategies, hence he cannot take profit of any strategy gain.
The difficult point of using limit orders is adverse selection: if the price has chances to go down the probability to be filled is high but it is better to postpone execution to get a better price. However, when a market participant cancels his limit order (to postpone execution), he takes the risk to never obtain a transaction: the reinsertion of the order will be on the top of the bid queue. Furthermore, the price may go up again before the execution of the limit order.
Our framework includes all these effects and our optimal strategy makes the choice between waiting in the queue or leaving it when the probability the price will go down is too high. To do this, the position of the limit order in the queue is taken into account by our controller.
This leads to a quantitative way to understand market making and latency: if a market maker is fast enough, he will be able to play this insert, cancel and re-insert game to react to his observations of liquidity imbalance. In our framework we use the difference between the sizes of the first bid and ask queues as a proxy of liquidity imbalance, in the real word market participants can use a lot of other information (like liquidity imbalance on correlated instruments, or realtime news feeds).
In such a context speed can be seen as a protection to adverse selection, potentially reducing transaction costs. Within this viewpoint, high frequency actions do not add noise to the price formation process (as opposite to the viewpoint of [@citeulike:12721030]) but allows market makers to offer better quotes. At this stage, we do not conclude speed is good for liquidity because:
- We only focussed on one limit order, we should go towards a framework similar to the one of [@citeulike:9304794] to conclude on the added value of imbalance for the whole market making process, but it will be too sophisticated at this stage.
- It is not fair to draw conclusions from a knowledge of the theoretical optimal behaviour of one market participant; to go further we should model the game played by all participants, similarly to what have been done in [@citeulike:12386824]. Again it is a very sophisticated work. Nevertheless, this paper is a first step. We are convinced it is possible to obtain partially explicit formula, to enable more systematic explorations of the influence of parameters (currently our simulations are highly memory consuming). It should allow to confront our results to observed behaviors with accuracy (especially using observed values for our parameters $\alpha,\beta,Q^{Disc},Q^{Ins}$ and $\lambda$s).
- Last but not least, any conclusion on the added value of low latency and high frequency market making should take into account market conditions. Its value could change with the level of stress of the price formation.
This work shows that imbalance is used by participants, and provides a theoretical framework to play with limit order placement. It can be used by practitioners. More importantly, we hope other researchers will extend our work in different directions to answer to more questions, and we will ourselves continue to work further to understand better liquidity formation at the smallest time scales thanks to this new framework.
#### Acknowledgements.
Authors would like to thank Sasha Stoïkov and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud for discussions about orderbook dynamics and optimal placement of limit orders that motivated this paper. Moroever, authors would like to underline the work of Gary Sounigo (during his Masters Thesis) and Felix Patzelt (during a post-doctoral research), who worked hard at Capital Fund Management (CFM) to understand how to align NASDAQ-OMX labeled transactions to direct datafeed of orderbook records. Long lasting discussions about limit order placement with Capital Fund Management execution researchers (especially with Bence Toth and Mihail Vladkov) influenced very positively our work.
Transition probabilities of the markov chain $U_n$ {#sec:app:transition}
==================================================
When first limits are totally consumed, new quantities $Q^{Disc}_n $ and $Q^{Ins}_n$ are inserted in the orderbook. We introduce then $\phi_n $ the joint distribution of the random variables $Q^{Disc}_n $ et $Q^{Ins}_n$ at time $t_n$. We assume these two variables are independent from their past and independent from the counting processes $N^{Same,+}$, $ N^{Same,-}$, $N^{Opp,-}$ and $N^{Opp,+}$. However, $Q^{Disc}_n $ and $Q^{Ins}_n$ can be correlated at time $t_n$.
Let $ n \in \left\{0 ,1, \cdots ,f \right \} $, $p \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$, $q^{bef} \in \mathbb{N}$, $q^{aft} \in \mathbb{N}$, $q^{opp} \in \mathbb{N}$, $q^{disc} \in \mathbb{N}$, $q^{ins} \in \mathbb{N}$ and $e \in \left\{-1, 0, 1 \right\} $
- **When the order has been executed before $t_n$ (i.e $e=1$ or $ e=-1$)**,then : $$\mathbb{P}\left(U_{n+1}=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},-1) / U_n =(p,q^{bef},q^{aft} ,q^{opp},e) \right) = 1.$$ When the order is executed a dead center is reached and both quantities and the price remain unchanged. In such case, the control has no more infuence.
- **When the order isn’t executed at $t_n$ (i.e $e=0$)**, and :
##### A unit quantity is added to $Q^{Opp}$.
Under control “c”, the transition probability is the following : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},\left(q^{opp}+1\right),e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft} ,q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \mathbb{P} ( \left\{N^{Opp,+}_{n+1}-N^{Opp,+}_{n} =1 \right\} \cap \left\{N^{Opp,-}_{n+1} - N^{Opp,-}_{n} =0 \right\} \\
&\quad \quad \cap \left\{N^{Same,+}_{n+1}-N^{Same,+}_{n} =0\right\} \cap \left\{N^{Same,-}_{n+1}-N^{Same,-}_{n} =0\right\}) \\
& = \lambda^{Opp,+}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$ Under control “s” : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(s)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,\left(q^{bef}+q^{aft}\right),0,\left(q^{opp}+1\right),e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft} ,q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Opp,+}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$
##### A unit quantity is cancelled from $Q^{Opp}$.
We differentiate between two cases:
1. **When $q^{opp}>1$**, under control “c” : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},\left(q^{opp}-1\right),e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft} ,q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \mathbb{P} ( \left\{N^{Opp,+}_{n+1}-N^{Opp,+}_{n} =0 \right\} \cap \left\{N^{Opp,-}_{n+1}-N^{Opp,-}_{n} =1 \right\} \\
& \quad \quad \cap \left\{N^{Same,+}_{n+1}-N^{Same,+}_{n} =0\right\} \cap \left\{N^{Same,-}_{n+1}-N^{Same,-}_{n} =0\right\}) \\
& = \lambda^{Opp,-}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left(1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Under control “s”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(s)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,\big(q^{bef}+q^{aft}\big),0,\left(q^{opp}-1\right),e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft} ,q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Opp,-}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left(1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).
\end{aligned}$$
2. **When $q^{opp}\leq1$**, the price increases by one tick under control ’c’ : $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1} = (p+1,q^{ins},0,q^{disc},e)\; |\; U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft} ,1,e) \big) \\ &=\lambda^{Opp,-}_n\Delta_{t} \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right) \phi_{n+1} (q^{disc},q^{ins}) .
\end{split}$$ Under control “s”, the last formula does not change.
##### A unit quantity is added to $Q^{Same}$
, under control “c” we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft}+1,q^{opp},e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
&= \lambda^{Same,+}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$ Under control “s”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(s)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,\big(q^{bef}+q^{aft}+1\big),0,q^{opp},e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
&= \lambda^{Same,+}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$
##### A unit quantity is cancelled from $Q^{Same}$.
We distinguish again three cases :
1. **When $\left( q^{bef}>1 \, \text{and} \, q^{aft}\geq 0 \right)$ or $\left( q^{bef}=1 \, \text{and} \, q^{aft}\geq 1 \right)$**, under control “c”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,q^{bef}-1,q^{aft},q^{opp},e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t\left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$ We suppose that our order is executed when $Q^{After}_n$ is consumed. Under control “s”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(s)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,\big(q^{bef}+q^{aft}-1\big),0,q^{opp},e) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t\left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$
2. **When $q^{bef}=0 \, \text{and} \, q^{aft}> 1$**, under control “c”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,0,\left(q^{aft}-1\right),q^{opp},1) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$ Under control “s”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(s)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,\left(q^{aft}-1\right),0,q^{opp},0) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).\end{aligned}$$
3. **When $ q^{bef} + q^{aft} = 1 $**, under control “c” : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,q^{disc},0,q^{ins},1) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right) \phi_{n+1} (q^{disc},q^{ins}).\end{aligned}$$ Under control “s”: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{(s)}\big(&U_{n+1}=(p,q^{disc},0,q^{ins},0) | U_n=(p,q^{bef},q^{aft},q^{opp},e) \big) \\
& = \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right) \phi_{n+1} (q^{disc},q^{ins}).\end{aligned}$$
##### Nothing happens
in the limit order book with probability $$\mathbb{P}^{(c)}\big(U_{n+1}=U_n| U_n \big) = \left(1-\lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t \right) \left(1-\lambda^{Opp,+}_n \Delta_t \right)\left (1-\lambda^{Opp,-}_n \Delta_t \right) \left (1-\lambda^{Same,+}_n \Delta_t \right).$$
- For all the remaining cases we assume the transition probability neglectibe. We hence set it to zero.
##### Remark.
By taking in consideration the different cases and neglecting the terms with order strictly superior than 1 in $\Delta_t$, we have for any control $ i \in \{c,s\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}\text{states} \, U_n\\\text{states} \, U_{n+1}\end{array}} \int_{(\mathbb{N}_{+})^2} \mathbb{P}^{(i)}(U_{n+1}| U_n) \;\mu_{n+1} (\mathrm{d}\, q^{disc},\mathrm{d} \, q^{ins}) \\
\approx 1 + \lambda^{Same,+}_n\Delta_t + \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t +\lambda^{Opp,+}_n\Delta_t +\lambda^{Opp,-}_n\Delta_t .\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, if $ \lambda^{Same,+}_n\Delta_t + \lambda^{Same,-}_n\Delta_t +\lambda^{Opp,+}_n\Delta_t +\lambda^{Opp,-}_n\Delta_t = \text{o} (1)$ ( which is true when $\Delta_t $ is small), we end up with for any control $ i \in \{c,s\}$: $$\sum_{\begin{array}{c}\text{states} \, U_n\\\text{states} \, U_{n+1}\end{array}} \int_{{(\mathbb{N}_{+})^2}} \mathbb{P}^{(i)}(U_{n+1}/U_n) \phi_{n+1} (\mathrm{d} \, q^{disc},\mathrm{d} \, q^{ins}) \approx 1.$$
Composition of market participants groups
=========================================
\
-------------------------------- ----------------- -------- --------
Name NASADQ-OMX Market Prop.
member code(s) Maker Trader
All Options International B.V. AOI
Hardcastle Trading AG HCT
IMC Trading B.V IMC, IMA Yes
KCG Europe Limited KEM, GEL Yes
MMX Trading B.V MMX
Nyenburgh Holding B.V. NYE
Optiver VOF OPV Yes
Spire Europe Limited SRE, SREA, SREB Yes
SSW-Trading GmbH IAT
WEBB Traders B.V WEB
Wolverine Trading UK Ltd WLV
-------------------------------- ----------------- -------- --------
: Composition of the group of HFT used for empirical examples, and the composition of our “high frequency market maker” and “high frequency proprietary traders” subgroups.[]{data-label="tab:compagents:HFT"}
\
----------------------------------------- ----------------
Name NASADQ-OMX
member code(s)
Barclays Capital Securities Limited Plc BRC
Citigroup Global Markets Limited SAB
Commerzbank AG CBK
Deutsche Bank AG DBL
HSBC Bank plc HBC
Merrill Lynch International MLI
Nomura International plc NIP
----------------------------------------- ----------------
: Composition of the group of Global Investment Banks used for empirical examples.[]{data-label="tab:compagents:GIB"}
\
------------------------------------- ----------------
Name NASADQ-OMX
member code(s)
ABG Sundal Collier ASA ABC
Citadel Securities (Europe) Limited CDG
Erik Penser Bankaktiebolag EPB
Jefferies International Limited JEF
Neonet Securities AB NEO
Remium Nordic AB REM
Timber Hill Europe AG TMB
------------------------------------- ----------------
: Composition of the group of Institutional Brokers used for empirical examples.[]{data-label="tab:compagents:brok"}
Extreme Imbalances {#sec:extremb}
==================
**The decreasing slope at the right of the curve** in Figure \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].a and \[fig:deltaPImbalanceNC\_Vs\_OC\].b when imbalance is highly positive (i.e $Q^{Same} \gg Q^{Opp} \approx 1$ ). In this situation, the order will be executed in general before the final time $T_f$ without being followed by a price move (1) or will be executed at $T_f$ and followed by a price move (2). In both cases, the final constraint $\Delta \text{P} $ is positive (see graph \[fig:deltaPImbalanceSignPos\]). Given that $\Delta \text{P}$ in case (2) is lower than $\Delta \text{P}$ in case (1) and situation (2) occurs more frequently when imbalance is highly positive, it is expected to find a decreasing slope at the right of the curve.
(2,0) rectangle (3,-5); (2,-4.7) rectangle (3,-5); (7,-4.7) rectangle (8,-5); (0,-5) – ++(11,0); (5,-5) node[$|$]{}; (6.75,-5) circle (0.25); (6.75,-6.5) – ++(0,0.75); (2.5,-6.5) – ++(0,0.75); (2.75,-6.5) – ++(3.75,0); (2,-4.7) node\[left\][$ \text{q} $]{} ; (2,-2) node\[left\][$Q^{After}$]{} ; (8,-4.7) node\[right\][$Q^{Same}$]{} ; (2.5,-5) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (7.5,-5) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (11,-5) node\[below\][$Price$]{} ; (5,-5) node\[below\][$ P(t) $]{} ; (2.5,-6.5) node\[below\][$P_{\text{Exec}}$]{} ; (6.75,-6.5) node\[below\][$P_{\infty}$]{} ; (4.75,-6.5) node\[below\][$\Delta \text{P} >0 $]{} ; (3,1) node\[right\][if order executed before $T_f$ (1)]{} ;
\
(1,0) rectangle (2,-5); (1,-4.7) rectangle (2,-5); (5,-4.7) rectangle (6,-5); (7,-3) rectangle (8,-5); (11,-2) rectangle (12,-5); (3.5,-2) – ++(0.5,0); (0,-5) – ++(14,0); (3.5,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (9.5,-5) node\[sloped\][$|$]{}; (9.3,-5) circle (0.2); (7.5,-6.5) – ++(0,0.75); (9.3,-6.5) – ++(0,0.75); (7.6,-6.5) – ++(1.6,0); (3.5,-5) node\[below\][$P(t)$]{} ; (7,-6.5) node\[below\][$P_{\text{Exec}}$]{} ; (9.8,-6.5) node\[below\][$P_{\infty}$]{} ; (8.6,-7.1) node\[below\][$\Delta \text{P}>0$]{}; (1.5,-5) node\[below\][$ Same $]{} ; (5.5,-5) node\[below\][$ Opp $]{} ; (11.5,-2) node\[above\][$Q^{Disc}$]{} ; (7.5,-3) node\[above\][$Q^{Ins}$]{} ; (5.5,-4.7) node\[above\][$Q^{Opp}$]{} ; (1,-2) node\[left\][$Q^{After}$]{} ; (1,-4.7) node\[left\][$ \text{q} $]{} ; (13.5,-5) node\[below\][$Price$]{} ; (3,1) node\[right\][if order executed at $T_f$ (2)]{} ;
\
The linear increasing trend of the curve can also be explained by the expression of $\Delta P = \pm 0.5 + \frac{\alpha}{2} \times Imb $ especially when the imbalance effect is not significant (far from the extreme points). The linear increasing trend of the curve is coherent with the empirical result in Figure \[fig:predpowimb\].
[^1]: Capital Fund Management, Paris and Imperial College, London
[^2]: Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris
[^3]: i.e. the *regulated exchange* in the MiFID sense, see [@citeulike:12047995] for details.
[^4]: Limit orderbooks are used in electronic market to store unmatched liquidity, the *bid size* is the one of passive buyers and the *ask size* the one of passive sellers; see [@citeulike:12047995] for detailed.
[^5]: For a focus on tick size, see [@doi:10.1142/S2382626615500033].
[^6]: For each transaction, we have a buyer ID, seller ID, a size, a price and a timestamp.
[^7]: Note this “price profiles” are now used as a standard way to study the behaviour of high frequency traders in academic papers, see for instance [@citeulike:11858957] or [@citeulike:13675263].
[^8]: Indirectly, maximizing $\Esp_{U_0,\mu} \left( \Delta \text{P} | \text{Exec} \right)$ leads to the minimization of the price.
[^9]: close to $t=0$, the optimal strategy is free to cancel its limit order; but when $T_f$ is close, it has to think about the cost of having to cross the spread in few steps.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The global phase diagram of a doped Kitaev-Heisenberg model is studied using an $SU(2)$ slave-boson mean-field method. Near the Kitaev limit, $p$-wave superconducting states which break the time-reversal symmetry are stabilized as reported by You [*et al.*]{} \[Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 085145 (2012)\] irrespective of the sign of the Kitaev interaction. By further doping, a $d$-wave superconducting state appears when the Kitaev interaction is antiferromagnetic, while another $p$-wave superconducting state appears when the Kitaev interaction is ferromagnetic. This $p$-wave superconducting state does not break the time-reversal symmetry as reported by Hyart [*et al.*]{} \[Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 140510 (2012)\], and such a superconducting state also appears when the antiferromagnetic Kitaev interaction and the ferromagnetic Heisenberg interaction compete. This work, thus, demonstrates the clear difference between the antiferromagnetic Kitaev model and the ferromagnetic Kitaev model when carriers are doped while these models are equivalent in the undoped limit, and how novel superconducting states emerge when the Kitaev interaction and the Heisenberg interaction compete.'
author:
- Satoshi Okamoto
title: 'Global phase diagram of a doped Kitaev-Heisenberg model'
---
Introduction
============
There has been considerable attention paid to the Kitaev model whose ground state is a gapless $Z_2$ spin liquid (SL).[@Kitaev06] If such a model is realized, fault tolerant quantum computations can be possible.
The Kitaev model consists of local (iso)spins $S=1/2$ on a honeycomb lattice as $$H_K = J_K \sum_{\langle \vec r \vec r' \rangle } S_{\vec r}^\gamma S_{\vec r'}^\gamma .
\label{eq:HK}$$ Here, the spin component $\gamma$ depends on the bond specie as shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\]. $A_2$IrO$_3$ ($A$=Li or Na) have been proposed as possible candidates to realize the Kitaev model as Ir$^{4+}$ ions having the effective angular momentum $j_{eff}=1/2$ form the honeycomb lattice.[@Chaloupka10] In fact, if the correlation effects are strong enough to realize a Mott insulating state, the low-energy electronic state is described by the combination of the anisotropic Kitaev interaction \[Eq. (\[eq:HK\])\] and the symmetric Heisenberg interaction, $H_J = J_H \sum_{\langle \vec r \vec r' \rangle } \vec S_{\vec r} \cdot \vec S_{\vec r'}$, called the Kitaev-Heisenberg (KH) model. Alternatively, density-functional-theory calculations for Na$_2$IrO$_3$ predicted the quantum spin Hall effect.[@Shitade09] Later experimental measurements for Na$_2$IrO$_3$ confirmed a magnetic long-range order with a “zigzag” antiferromagnetic (AFM) pattern.[@Singh10; @Liu11] As this magnetic pattern is not realized in the model first proposed for Na$_2$IrO$_3$, where the Kitaev interaction was introduced as a ferromagnetic (FM) interaction ($J_K<0$) and the Heisenberg interaction was introduced as an AFM interaction ($J_H>0$),[@FMKitaevAFHeisenberg] the importance of additional contributions such as longer-range magnetic couplings[@Kimchi11; @Singh12; @Choi12; @Ye12] and lattice distortions[@Bhattacharjee12] were suggested. Recently, the sign of Kitaev and Heisenberg terms was reconsidered[@Chaloupka12] by including the direct hybridization between neighboring Ir $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ orbitals.[@Khaliullin05] It is found that, when the Kitaev interaction is AFM and the Heisenberg interaction is FM, zigzag-type AFM ordering could be stabilized in accordance with the experimental report.
![(Color online) Schematic view of the Kitaev-Heisenberg model. $\gamma=x,y,z$ in the left figure show the spin components for the Kitaev interaction. $\vec r_{x,y,z}$ are unit vectors connecting the nearest-neighbor sites. On the right, the first Brillouin zone is shown.[]{data-label="fig:structure"}](structure.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
While the Kitaev SL state is not realized in Na$_2$IrO$_3$, there could appear novel states by carrier doping if this system is described by the KH model. Specifically, considering the FM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg model, such an effect was studied in Refs. and . Both studies found the triplet ($p$) superconductivity (SC) by carrier doping, but the $SU(2)$ slave-boson mean-field (SBMF) study found a state which breaks the time-reversal symmetry (termed $p$ SC$_1$),[@You11] while the $U(1)$ SBMF study found a time-reversal symmetric state (termed $p$ SC$_2$).[@Hyart12] Exotic triplet pairing was also suggested from a low-energy effective model for layered cobaltate.[@Khaliullin04] Recently, artificial bilayers of perovskite transition-metal oxides (TMOs) grown along the \[111\] crystallographic axis were proposed as new platforms to explore a variety of quantum effects.[@Xiao11] It was pointed out[@Okamoto12] that such a bilayer involving SrIrO$_3$ (Ref. ) could also realize the KH model when the correlation effects are strong enough to yield a Mott insulating state. But, both the Kitaev interaction and the Heisenberg interaction were found to be AFM. Doping carriers into such an AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model was also shown to stabilize the $p$ SC$_1$ state but such a state becomes unstable against a singlet SC state by further doping. Doping effects in the general KH model have not been studied, including the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg interaction as alternatively suggested for Na$_2$IrO$_3$.
In this paper, we consider a general KH model in which both Kitaev interaction and Heisenberg interaction can be either FM or AFM. Doping effects are considered by introducing hopping terms which conserve isospin index $\sigma$ with the double occupancy prohibited as in the $tJ$ model for high-$T_c$ cuprates. The Hamiltonian is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
H \!\!&=&\!\! -t \sum_{\langle \vec r \vec r' \rangle } \bigl(c_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag c_{\vec r' \sigma} + H.c. \bigr)
+ H_K + H_H.
\label{eq:model}\end{aligned}$$ We investigate the global phase diagram of this model using an $SU(2)$ SBMF method. We start from solving the undoped KH model defined on a finite cluster using the Lanczos exact diagonalization method. We then introduce a mean-field decoupling scheme that can be applied for both symmetric Heisenberg interaction and the anisotropic Kitaev interaction. Mean-field ans[ä]{}tze are constructed motivated by such exact solutions. Our results demonstrate the clear difference between the AFM Kitaev model and the FM Kitaev model when carriers are doped, even though the undoped cases are equivalent. We confirmed novel triplet superconducting states reported previously. Yet, their relative stability is found to depend on the sign of the Kitaev interaction and the competition between the Kitaev interaction and the Heisenberg interaction. Additionally, $s$-wave and $d$-wave superconducting states in the AFM Heisenberg limit and the FM state in the FM Heisenberg limit are found. Our results could become guidelines for a materials search to realize specific properties and further theoretical analyses. As the present model is simple, testing or refining the current results by using more sophisticated methods is also possible and desirable.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:undoped\], we examine the undoped KH model by using the Lanczos exact diagonalization method. The results are useful for selecting mean-field ans[ä]{}tze to be used later. A mean-field method is introduced in Sec. \[sec:SBMF\], and our results are presented in Sec. \[sec:results\]. Section \[sec:summarydiscussion\] is devoted to summary and discussion.
Undoped case {#sec:undoped}
============
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
We first analyze the undoped KH model in detail. This analysis will be helpful for considering mean-field ans[ä]{}tze and understanding the phases arising by carrier doping.
Before going into the detailed analysis, it is instructive to perform the four-sublattice transformation.[@Chaloupka10; @Khaliullin05] The four-sublattice transformation leads to the change in the sign of the Heisenberg term with $J_H \rightarrow - J_H$ and $J_K \rightarrow J_K + 2 J_H$. When the Kitaev term and the Heisenberg term have the different sign, $J_K$ vanishes at $J_K = -2 J_H$. As the resulting Heisenberg model is AFM for the FM Heisenberg case and FM for the AFM Heisenberg case, the spin ordering around $J_K= -2 J_H$ is “zigzag AFM” for the former and “stripy AFM” for the latter. Due to the larger quantum fluctuation, the total “staggered spin” in the rotated spin basis is reduced, and the parameter regime for this zigzag AFM is expected to be wider than that for the stripy AFM. When the Kitaev term and the Heisenberg term have the same sign, the cancellation does not occur in $J_K$. Thus, a direct transition is expected between the Kitaev SL in the large $|J_K|$ regime and other competing phase stabilized in the large $|J_H|$ regime: the N[é]{}el AFM or the FM.
We now employ the Lanczos exact diagonalization for the Hamiltonian for the undoped KH model $H_K+H_H$ defined on a 24-site cluster with periodic boundary condition. This cluster is compatible with the four-sublattice transformation[@Chaloupka10] which changes the original spin $S$ to $\widetilde S$. Numerical results for squared total spin and the nearest-neighbor (NN) spin correlations are shown in Fig. \[fig:lanczos\]. As expected, there are two phases, N[é]{}el AFM and SL, for the AFM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg case (upper left) and three phases, FM, zigzag AFM, and SL, for the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg case (upper right). The phase boundaries are also signaled as peaks in the second derivatives of the total energy (not shown). In both cases, the SL regime is rather narrow with the nearly identical critical value $|J_{K,c}| \sim 0.98$ separating it from magnetically ordered phases. For the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg case, the phase boundary between zigzag AFM and FM is shifted from the classical value $J_K=1/2$ to a smaller value $J_K \sim 0.4$ as discussed above. For the FM Kitaev case, the situation is just opposite to the AFM Kitaev case with the N[é]{}el ordering replaced by FM and the zigzag AFM by the stripy AFM. Here, the phase boundary between the N[é]{}el AFM and the stripy AFM is shifted from the classical value $J_K= - 1/2$ to $J_K \sim - 0.57$.
It is noted that the AFM Kitaev interaction is more destructive for the FM ordering than the FM Kitaev interaction for the FM ordering. All phase boundaries are consistent with the recent report in Ref. as obtained from the second derivative of the total energy.
Slave-boson mean-field theory {#sec:SBMF}
=============================
In this section, we introduce a SBMF method that can be applied for both Heisenberg and Kitaev interactions. As usual, an $S=1/2$ isospin operator is described by fermionic spinons $f_{\sigma}$ as $S_{\vec r}^\gamma = \frac{1}{2} f_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag \tau_{\sigma \sigma'}^\gamma f_{\vec r \sigma'}$ with the local constraint $\sum_\sigma f_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag f_{\vec r \sigma} =1$, which is normally approximated as the global constraint. $\hat \tau^\gamma$ is a Pauli matrix.
In order to deal with the doping effect near a Mott insulating state excluding the double occupancy, two bosonic auxiliary particles $b_{1,2}$ are introduced as $c_{\vec r \sigma} \Rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(b^\dag_{\vec r 1} f_{\vec r \sigma} + \sigma b^\dag_{\vec r 2} f_{\vec r \bar \sigma}^\dag )$ (Ref. ) with the $SU(2)$ singlet condition[@You11] $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\vec r}^\gamma = \frac{1}{4} {\rm Tr} \,
F_{\vec r} \hat \tau^\gamma F^\dag_{\vec r}
- \frac{1}{4} {\rm Tr} \, \hat \tau^z B^\dag_{\vec r} \hat \tau^\gamma B_{\vec r}= 0, \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\vec r} =
\Biggl({f_{\vec r \uparrow} \atop f_{\vec r \downarrow}}
{-f^\dag_{\vec r \downarrow} \atop f^\dag_{\vec r \uparrow}} \Biggr),
B_{\vec r} = \Biggl({b^\dag_{\vec r 1} \atop b^\dag_{\vec r 2}} {-b_{\vec r 2} \atop b_{\vec r 1}} \Biggr) .\end{aligned}$$ The global constraints $\langle K^\gamma \rangle=0$ are imposed by $SU(2)$ gauge potentials $a^\gamma$. Doped carriers can be either holes or electrons. As the current model has only NN hoppings \[see Eq. (\[eq:model\])\], there exists particle-hole symmetry about the zero doping, therefore the effect is symmetric. Focusing on the low-doping regime at zero temperature, we assume that all bosons are condensed, so that $\delta = \sum_\nu \langle b_{\nu \vec r}^\dag b_{\nu \vec r}\rangle
\approx \sum_\nu |\langle b_{\nu \vec r} \rangle|^2 $ and $\langle b_{\nu \vec r \in A} \rangle = (\pm i) \langle b_{\nu \vec r' \in B} \rangle$. Imaginary number $i$ appears when the Bose condensation acquires the sublattice-dependent phase.[@You11]
Decoupling scheme
-----------------
In order to apply the SBMF method for both AFM and FM Kitaev interactions and AFM and FM Heisenberg interactions, we employ the decoupling scheme introduced in Ref. . Here, a spin quadratic term is decoupled into several different channels as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\vec r}^\gamma S_{\vec r'}^\gamma \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
-\frac{1}{8} \bigl(\Delta_{\vec r \vec r'}^* \Delta_{\vec r \vec r'} + \chi_{\vec r \vec r'}^*\chi_{\vec r \vec r'}
+ t_{\vec r \vec r'}^{\gamma *}t_{\vec r \vec r'}^\gamma
+ e_{\vec r \vec r'}^{\gamma *}e_{\vec r \vec r'}^\gamma \bigr) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{1}{8} \sum_{\gamma' \ne \gamma} \bigl( t_{\vec r \vec r'}^{\gamma' *}t_{\vec r \vec r'}^{\gamma'}
+ e_{\vec r \vec r'}^{\gamma' *}e_{\vec r \vec r'}^{\gamma'} \bigr),
\label{eq:decoupling}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{\vec r \vec r'} = f_{\vec r \sigma} i \tau^y_{\sigma \sigma'} f_{\vec r' \sigma'} $ (singlet pairing), $t^\gamma_{\vec r \vec r'} = f_{\vec r \sigma} [i \hat \tau^\gamma \hat \tau^y]_{\sigma \sigma'} f_{\vec r' \sigma'} $ (triplet pairing), $\chi_{\vec r \vec r'} = f_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag f_{\vec r' \sigma'}$ (spin-conserving exchange term), and $e^\gamma_{\vec r \vec r'} = f_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag \tau^\gamma_{\sigma \sigma'} f_{\vec r' \sigma'}$ (spin-nonconserving exchange term). Summation over $\gamma$ in Eq. (\[eq:decoupling\]) gives a Heisenberg term. Then, terms having the negative coefficient are kept and the mean field decoupling is introduced to them. This recovers the previous mean-field schemes.[@Lee06; @Shindou09; @Schaffer12] Different decoupling schemes are also used in literature.[@Burnell11; @You11; @Hyart12]
In what follows, we use the simplified notation in which the subscript $\vec r \vec r'$ is replaced by the bond index $\rho=x, y, z$ connecting the sites $\vec r \in A$ and $\vec r' \in B$, for example, $\langle \chi_{\vec r \vec r'} \rangle$ for $\vec r'- \vec r=\vec r_\rho$ is written as $\langle \chi_\rho \rangle$. $\vec r_\rho$ is a unit vector connecting the nearest-neighboring sites along the $\rho$ bond as shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\]. These are explicitly given by $\vec r_x = (-\sqrt{3}/2,-1/2)$, $\vec r_y = (\sqrt{3}/2,-1/2)$ and $\vec r_z = (0,1)$.
Mean field Hamiltonian
----------------------
After the mean-field decoupling, the single-particle Hamiltonian is expressed as $$H^{MF}=\sum_{\vec k} \sum_{\sigma \sigma'} \varphi_{\vec k \sigma}^\dag \bigl\{\hat H_t (\vec k) + \hat H_K (\vec k) + \hat H_H (\vec k) \bigr\}
\varphi_{\vec k \sigma'}
+H_0.
\label{eq:HMF}$$ Here, a Nambu representation is used with 4-component spinors $\varphi^\dag_{\vec k \sigma}$ given by $\varphi^\dag_{\vec k \sigma} =
\bigl(f^\dag_{\vec k A \sigma}, f^\dag_{\vec k B \sigma}, f_{-\vec k A \sigma}, f_{-\vec k B \sigma}\bigr)$. $\hat H_{t,K,H}$ are $8 \times 8$ matrices. $\hat H_{t}$ includes both hopping terms and the chemical potential or the gauge field and is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_{t} (\vec k) =
\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
- a^z \, \delta_{\sigma \sigma'} & \chi (\vec k) \delta_{\sigma \sigma'} & (a^x + i a^y) \varepsilon_{\sigma \sigma'}
& \\
\chi^* (\vec k) \delta_{\sigma \sigma'} & - a^z \, \delta_{\sigma \sigma'} & &
(a^x + i a^y) \varepsilon_{\sigma \sigma'} \\
(a^x - i a^y) \varepsilon_{\sigma' \sigma}& & a^z \, \delta_{\sigma \sigma'} &
-\chi^* (-\vec k) \delta_{\sigma \sigma'}\\
& (a^x - i a^y) \varepsilon_{\sigma' \sigma} & -\chi^* (-\vec k) \delta_{\sigma \sigma'} &
a^z \, \delta_{\sigma \sigma'}
\end{array}
\right], \label{eq:Ht}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\chi (\vec k) = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_\rho e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\delta (i) t ,$$ and $\varepsilon_{\uparrow \downarrow}=-\varepsilon_{\downarrow \uparrow} = 1$ is the antisymmetric tensor. The prefactor $\frac{1}{2} \delta (i)$ for $t$ comes from the mean-field decoupling for the bosonic term $\langle b_{A 1} b^\dag_{B 1} - b^\dag_{A 2} b_{B 2} \rangle$.
Spin-spin interaction terms are both expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_{K,H} (\vec k) =
|J_{K,H}| \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
& \chi_{\sigma \sigma'} (\vec k) &
& \Delta_{\sigma \sigma'} (\vec k) \\
\chi^*_{\sigma' \sigma} (\vec k) & & -\Delta_{\sigma' \sigma} (-\vec k) &
\\
& -\Delta^*_{\sigma \sigma'} (-\vec k) & &
-\chi^*_{\sigma' \sigma} (-\vec k)\\
\Delta^*_{\sigma' \sigma} (\vec k) & & -\chi^*_{\sigma \sigma'} (-\vec k) &
\end{array}
\right]. \end{aligned}$$
For the AFM Kitaev interaction, the matrix elements are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \chi (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\! - \frac{1}{8} \sum_\rho e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle \chi_\rho^* \rangle \hat \tau^0
- \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho} e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle e^{\rho *}_\rho \rangle
\hat \tau^\rho ,
\label{eq:chiAFKitaev}\\
\hat \Delta (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho} e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle \Delta_\rho \rangle i \hat \tau^y
- \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho} e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle t^{\rho}_\rho \rangle
i \hat \tau^y \hat \tau^\rho , \quad
\label{eq:DeltaAFKitaev}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat \tau^0$ being the $2 \times 2$ unit matrix and, for the FM Kitaev interaction, these are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \chi (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\!
- \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho \gamma} (1- \delta_{\rho \gamma}) e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle e^{\gamma *}_\rho \rangle
\hat \tau^\gamma ,
\label{eq:chiFMKitaev}\\
\hat \Delta (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\!
- \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho \gamma} (1- \delta_{\rho \gamma}) e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle t^{\gamma}_\rho \rangle
i \hat \tau^y \hat \tau^\gamma.
\label{eq:DeltaFMKitaev}\end{aligned}$$ For the AFM Heisenberg interaction, we have the well known expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \chi (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\! - \frac{3}{8} \sum_\rho e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle \chi_\rho^* \rangle \hat \tau^0 ,
\label{eq:chiAFHeiisenberg}\\
\hat \Delta (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{3}{8} \sum_{\rho} e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle \Delta_\rho \rangle i \hat \tau^y ,
\label{eq:DeltaAFHeiisenberg}\end{aligned}$$ while, for the FM Heisenberg, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \chi (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\!
- \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho \gamma} e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle e^{\gamma *}_\rho \rangle
\hat \tau^\gamma ,
\label{eq:chiFMHeiisenberg}\\
\hat \Delta (\vec k) \!\!&=&\!\!
- \frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho \gamma} e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}
\langle t^{\gamma}_\rho \rangle
i \hat \tau^y \hat \tau^\gamma.
\label{eq:DeltaFMHeiisenberg}\end{aligned}$$
$H_0$ is a constant term for which the contributions from the AFM Kitaev and the FM Kitaev are given by $\frac{1}{8}\sum_{\rho} |J_K| \bigl(|\langle \chi_\rho \rangle |^2 + |\langle e^\rho_\rho \rangle|^2
+ |\langle \Delta_\rho \rangle |^2 + |\langle t^\rho_\rho \rangle |^2 \bigr)$ and $\frac{1}{8}\sum_{\rho \gamma} |J_K| (1-\delta_{\rho \gamma}) \bigl(|\langle e^\rho_\rho \rangle|^2
+ |\langle t^\rho_\rho \rangle |^2 \bigr)$, respectively, and the contributions from the AFM Heisenberg and the FM Heisenberg are given by $\frac{3}{8} \sum_{\rho} |J_H| \bigl(|\langle \chi_\rho \rangle|^2 + |\langle \Delta_\rho \rangle|^2 \bigr)$ and $\frac{1}{8} \sum_{\rho \gamma} |J_H| \bigl(|\langle e^\gamma_\rho \rangle|^2 + |\langle t^\gamma_\rho \rangle|^2 \bigr)$, respectively.
Mean-field Hamiltonians shown in this subsection might become useful for refining the results to be presented by using variational techniques. In principle, one can construct variational wave functions by (1) diagonalizing mean-field single-particle Hamiltonians without contributions from slave bosons and (2) projecting out the unphysical doubly occupied states. Then, the total energy is computed by using thus constructed variational wave functions and is minimized with respect to variational parameters.
Mean-field ans[ä]{}tze
----------------------
[*Undoped Kitaev limit*]{}. The undoped FM Kitaev model was studied using the SBMF theory in Ref. , and the undoped AFM Kitaev model was studied in Ref. . As expected from the true ground state of the Kitaev model which does not depend on the signs of exchange constants,[@Kitaev06] the two cases are shown to give the identical excitation spectrum.
Using the current definition, the mean-field solution for the FM Kitaev model is given by $- i \langle t_{x}^y \rangle = - i \langle t_{z}^y \rangle
= \langle t^x_y\rangle = \langle t^x_z\rangle = \langle e^z_x\rangle = \langle e^z_y\rangle = 0.3812 i$ and $\langle t^x_x\rangle = -i \langle t^y_y\rangle = \langle e^z_z\rangle = -0.1188 i$. The mean-field solution for the AFM Kitaev model is given by $- \langle \chi_{x,y,z} \rangle = - \langle e^z_z\rangle = \langle t^x_x\rangle = i \langle t^y_y\rangle = 0.3812 i$ and $- \langle e^z_x\rangle = - \langle e^z_y\rangle = \langle t^x_y\rangle = \langle t^x_z\rangle
= i \langle t^y_x\rangle = i \langle t^y_z\rangle = -0.1188 i$ As discussed in detail in Ref. , the first mean-field ansatz describes a $Z_2$ SL. The second ansatz uses the same gauge used in Refs. and , where the dispersive Majorana fermion mode is given by $\chi^0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(f_\uparrow + f_\uparrow^\dag)$. Thus, the mean-field ansatz for the AFM Kitaev model also describes a $Z_2$ SL.
In doped cases, a mean-field Hamiltonian has additional three gauge potentials. With possible magnetic orderings, a total of $\sim 30$ parameters have to be determined self-consistently. In order to make the problem tractable, we focus on the following five ans[ä]{}tze. The first four ans[ä]{}tze respect the sixfold rotational symmetry of the underlying lattice.
[*$p$ SC$_1$*]{}. This mean-field ansatz is adiabatically connected to the mean-field solution for the Kitaev limit as described above. Here, the relative phase $\pm i$ is required between the Bose condensation at sublattices $A$ and $B$ with the $SU(2)$ gauge potentials $a^x=a^y=a^z$.[@You11] Because of this constraint, the spinon density $\langle f_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag f_{\vec r \sigma} \rangle$ differs from the “real” electron density $\langle c_{\vec r \sigma}^\dag c_{\vec r \sigma}\rangle$ in the $p$ SC$_1$ phase and a normal phase ($\langle t_\rho^\gamma \rangle = \langle e_\rho^\gamma \rangle = \langle \Delta_\rho \rangle =0$) adjacent to it. In many cases, such a normal phase has slightly lower energy than the other SC ans[ä]{}tze, but this is an artifact of the constraint. In this work, we identify the upper bound for the $p$ SC$_1$ phase as the smaller $\delta$ where the order parameters for the $p$ SC$_1$ phase become zero or the $p$ SC$_1$ phase becomes higher in energy than the other phases.
[*$p$ SC$_2$*]{}. The second ansatz is also a $p$ SC. We assume the form of order parameters based on the leading pairing instability in the stability matrices $M_{x,y,z}$ (Refs. ) as $\mbox{\boldmath $d$} =
\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_x + \mbox{\boldmath $d$}_y + \mbox{\boldmath $d$}_z$. Here, $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_\gamma = \langle t^\gamma_x, t^\gamma_y, t^\gamma_z \rangle$, and we take $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_x = e^{i \theta_x} ( t_1, t_2, t_3 )$, $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_y = e^{i \theta_y} ( t_3, t_1, t_2 )$, and $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_z = e^{i \theta_z} ( t_2, t_3, t_1 )$ with $t_{1,2,3}$ being real. All solutions with $\theta_\gamma - \theta_{\gamma'}=0$ or $\pi$ for $\gamma \ne \gamma'$ are found to degenerate and are lower in energy than the other combinations for both the AFM Kitaev and the FM Kitaev cases as reported in Ref. . The details of the stability matrices and the symmetry of the order parameters are given in Appendix \[app:stabilitymatrix\].
[*$s$ SC*]{}. The third ansatz is a singlet SC with the $s$ wave paring. The SC order parameter is symmetric as $\langle \Delta_x \rangle= \langle \Delta_y \rangle = \langle \Delta_z \rangle = \Delta$.
[*$d+id$ SC*]{}. The fourth ansatz is also a singlet SC with the $d_{x^2-y^2} + i d_{xy}$ pairing (in short $d+id$ pairing).[@Black07] The spatial dependence of the SC order parameter is given by $\langle \Delta_x, \Delta_y, \Delta_z \rangle = \Delta (e^{-2 \pi i/3}, e^{2 \pi i/3}, 1)$.
For the latter three ans[ä]{}tze, we further introduce the following conditions: (1) Order parameters $\langle e^\gamma_\rho \rangle$ are assumed to be zero because these indeed become zero at large dopings and the fermionic dispersion relations generally break the hexagonal symmetry when both $\langle e^\gamma_\rho \rangle$ and pairing order parameters $\langle t^\gamma_\rho \rangle$ or $\langle \Delta_\rho \rangle$ are finite. (2) The Bose condensation does not introduce a phase factor. (3) The exchange term is symmetric $\langle \chi_\rho \rangle = \chi$ and real. Thus, these ans[ä]{}tze are regarded as BCS-type weak coupling SCs.
[*FM*]{}. Additionally, we consider the FM state. Here, we also introduce the local moment $m=\langle f_\uparrow^\dag f_\uparrow - f_\downarrow^\dag f_\downarrow \rangle$ as a mean-field order parameter to represent the FM long-range order. When this order parameter is finite, site-diagonal terms in the mean-field Hamiltonian have $ \frac{1}{4} (3J_H + J_K) m \tau_{\sigma \sigma'}^z$ for the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg case and $ \frac{3}{4} J_H m \tau_{\sigma \sigma'}^z$ for the FM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg case, with $H_0$ modified accordingly. The difference between AFM Kitaev and FM Kitaev accounts for the fact that the FM Kitaev alone does not stabilize the FM long-range ordering but the AFM Kitaev coupling competes with the FM long-range ordering strongly. The choice of the spin axis can be taken arbitrary because of the spin rotational symmetry. But, with the current choice, the sixfold rotational symmetry is explicitly broken.
Except for $p$ SC$_1$, the gauge potentials $a^{x,y}=0$ while $a^z \ne 0$, thus the gauge symmetry is broken from $SU(2)$ to $U(1)$.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Phase diagrams
--------------
Schematic phase diagrams for the KH model are shown in Fig. \[fig:delta\_jk\]. Here, to see various phases clearly, we chose the interaction strength as $|J_K|+|J_H|=2 t$. In what follows, $t$ is taken as the unit of energy.
For both the AFM Kitaev and the FM Kitaev cases, singlet SC states appear in the AFM Heisenberg side, $d+id$ at small $\delta$ and $s$ at large $\delta$, and FM states in the FM Heisenberg side. The difference between the AFM Kitaev and the FM Kitaev is most visible near the Kitaev limit, where doping-induced $p$ SC$_1$ states become unstable against the $d+id$ SC for the AFM Kitaev rather quickly and against the $p$ SC$_2$ for the FM Kitaev. The $d+id$ SC is continuously extended from the AFM Heisenberg limit, while the $p$ SC$_2$ for the FM Kitaev is only stable near the Kitaev limit. Further, the $p$ SC$_2$ for the FM Kitaev is more extended to the smaller doping regime than the $d+id$ for the AFM Kitaev. This difference can be understood from the different channels into which the Kitaev interaction is decoupled \[Eq. (\[eq:decoupling\])\]. For the AFM Kitaev, the singlet channel is weaker than the AFM Heisenberg by a factor of 3. On the other hand, for the FM Kitaev, the triplet channel is dominant as two components add up for one bond, for example $t^x$ and $t^y$ for $\gamma = z$. Moreover, the doping-induced kinetic energy is better gained for the $p$ SC$_1$ with the AFM Kitaev interaction because of the exchange term $\chi$ which is absent in the FM Kitaev interaction. As the AFM Kitaev interaction is decoupled into both the singlet and the triplet channels, the $p$ SC$_2$ could also be stabilized in the AFM Kitaev case. This happens when the singlet tendency is reduced by the finite FM Heisenberg interaction.
It is noted that the phase boundary between the $p$ SC$_1$ and the FM ($d+id$ SC) for the AFM (FM) Kitaev case intersects the horizontal axis in the middle of the zigzag (stripy) AFM phase. This is expected because all states used to construct the phase diagram do not break the sublattice symmetry. When the zigzag and the stripy AFM states are considered, these states should also be stabilized near the regimes indicated by the exact diagonalization analyses. However, such states with longer periodicity are expected to be destabilized immediately by carrier doping as is the N[é]{}el AFM. Interestingly, the mean-field boundary between the $p$ SC$_1$ phase and the $d+id$ SC phase for the AFM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg model in the limit of $\delta\rightarrow0$ agrees with the exact result on a finite cluster rather well \[Fig. \[fig:delta\_jk\] (a), left panel\]. This may indicate that the uniform resonating valence bond (RVB) state at $\delta =0$ (singlet SC order parameters become exponentially small for both $s$ SC and $d+id$ SC states) is a good approximation for the N[é]{}el AFM state on a honeycomb lattice.
In Ref. , the quantum phase transition between the Kitaev SL and the FM for the undoped FM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model (or equivalently between the Kitaev SL and the stripy AFM for the undoped FM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg model) was studied using the SBMF approximation. There, the phase boundary between the Kitaev SL and the FM is shown to be located at $J_K/J_H \sim 4$, which is consistent with the current result \[see Fig. \[fig:delta\_jk\] (b), right panel\].
In the following subsections, detailed discussions on the $p$ SC$_1$ and $p$ SC$_2$ phases and the relative stability between the $s$ SC and $d+id$ SC phases are presented.
$p$ SC$_1$
----------
{width="2\columnwidth"}
As discussed in Ref. for the doped FM Kitaev model, the $p$ SC$_1$ phase is characterized by the dispersive $\chi^0$ Majorana mode and the weakly dispersive $\chi^{x,y,z}$ modes.
Typical dispersion relations of the Majorana fermions are presented in Fig. \[fig:dispersion\] for various choices of parameters. In the undoped Kitaev limit (a1), only the gapless $\chi^0$ mode is dispersive for both the AFM and FM. With finite $J_H$ (b1,c1,d1), $\chi^{x,y,z}$ modes become dispersive while the $\chi^0$ mode remains gapless.
At finite doping $\delta$, $\chi^{x,y,z}$ modes become dispersive and the $\chi^0$ mode is gapped. All modes are gapped by the mixing between different Majorana modes due to the finite gauge potential $a^{x,y}$. For the FM Kitaev interaction with $\delta=0.02$ (a2,b2,c2), the gap amplitude is $\sim 2 \times 10^{-6}$ and is, therefore, invisible in Fig. \[fig:dispersion\]. The finite gap in the $\chi^0$ mode results in the finite Chern number, +1 at the low doping limit. Softening of the $\chi^{x,y,z}$ modes is increased with the increase in $\delta$. However, the softening is not strong enough to close a gap for the FM Kitaev interaction before the $p$ SC$_1$ phase becomes unstable against the $p$ SC$_2$ phase. Thus, the Chern number remains $+1$.
For the AFM Kitaev interaction, we do see the strong softening of the $\chi^{x,y,z}$ modes (d2). However, gap closing needed to change the Chern number from +1 takes place at relatively large Heisenberg interaction $|J_H/J_K| > 0.6$ and large doping $\delta > 0.1$. For such parameters, the current ansatz may not be a good approximation for the true ground state and/or the $SU(2)$ SBMF method may not be reliable.
For the FM Kitaev model, we notice that the softening of the $\chi^{1,2,3}$ modes in this work is weaker than that reported in Ref. . This is supposed to originate from the level of the mean-field decoupling. The current decoupling is done in terms of spinons, while in Ref. it is done in terms of Majorana fermions. Thus, it is possible that some order parameters, which are dropped off in the current scheme, are retained and have significant contributions. It is also noted that the $\chi^0$ mode and the $\chi^{1,2,3}$ modes are shown to overlap at the M points in Refs. and as in the current work, while they do not overlap at the M points in Ref. . Including these differences, further analyses might be necessary to fully understand the nature of the $p$ SC$_1$ phase.
![Comparison between the $p$ SC$_1$ and the $p$ SC$_2$ for the FM Kitaev with $J_K=-2$ and $J_H=0$. The total energy $E$ (a) and order parameters (b) as a function of $\delta$. $t_2$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq:t2\]). The light vertical line in (a) indicates the boundary between the $p$ SC$_1$ phase and the $p$ SC$_2$ phase. []{data-label="fig:pSC1vspSC2"}](pSC1vspSC2.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Comparison between the $p$ SC$_1$ and the $d+id$ SC for the AFM Kitaev with $J_K=2$ and $J_H=0$. The total energy $E$ (a) and order parameters (b) as a function of $\delta$. The light vertical line in (a) indicates the boundary between the $p$ SC$_1$ phase and the $d+id$ SC phase. []{data-label="fig:pSC1vsDID"}](pSC1vsDID.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Despite the subtlety in the mean-field scheme, the current study provides the “missing link” between the previous results in Refs. and near the FM Kitaev limit. The former describes the small-doping regime correctly, while the latter describes the large-doping regime. Therefore, the first-order transition between the two is expected unless other phases intervene. In the current study, the first-order transition takes place at rather small dopings. The instability of the SC$_1$ phase comes from its inability to gain the kinetic energy by carrier doping because $\chi$ is absent in the mean-field decouplings. As a result, the total energy has a positive slope as shown in Fig. \[fig:pSC1vspSC2\] (a). Similar phenomena appear to be happening in Refs. ; in Fig. 4, the order parameter $u_0$ remains constant within the SC$_1$ phase. On the other hand, for the AFM Kitaev case, the $p$ SC$_1$ phase benefits from the carrier doping like the $d$-wave SC in the $tJ$ model, and the total energy shows a normal behavior \[see Fig. \[fig:pSC1vsDID\] (a)\]. In Figs. \[fig:pSC1vspSC2\] (a) and \[fig:pSC1vsDID\] (a), one can see precursors of the unphysical behavior of the normal phase adjacent to the $p$ SC$_1$ phase; i.e., the sudden decrease in the total energy when the SC order parameters disappear. For the AFM Kitaev, this behavior starts to preempt transitions from the $p$ SC$_1$ to the $d+id$ or $p$ SC$_2$ by the finite FM Heisenberg interaction. A more reliable method such as variational Monte Carlo is necessary to locate the critical upper doping for the $p$ SC$_1$ phase more accurately.
$p$ SC$_2$
----------
Based on the analysis on the $d$ vector,[@Sigrist91] there are three possible phases within the $p$ SC$_2$ regime: time-reversal symmetric (TRS) even-parity trivial phase, TRS odd-parity trivial phase, and TRS odd-parity topologically nontrivial or topological phase. In our model, all these phases could appear depending on the interaction strength and the doping concentration.
With the choice of $\theta_\gamma = 0$, our triplet order parameters are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \langle t_x^x \rangle = \langle t_y^y \rangle = \langle t_z^z \rangle = t_1, \\
&& \langle t_y^x \rangle = \langle t_z^x \rangle = \langle t_x^y \rangle = \langle t_z^y \rangle
= \langle t_x^z \rangle = \langle t_y^z \rangle = t_2 \end{aligned}$$ for the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model and $$\begin{aligned}
\langle t_y^x \rangle = - \langle t_z^x \rangle = - \langle t_x^y \rangle = \langle t_z^y \rangle
= \langle t_x^z \rangle = - \langle t_y^z \rangle
= t_2
\label{eq:t2}\end{aligned}$$ for the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model.
For the AFM Kitaev case, the triplet SC order parameters are rather small as shown in Fig. \[fig:GAPandOP\_delta\_AFK\] (a), and therefore the interband pairing can be neglected. At small dopings, there are four TR invariant $k$ points (M$_{1,2,3}$ and $\Gamma$) below the Fermi level, thus this SC state is in the TRS odd-parity trivial phase. Phase transition takes place at $\delta \sim 0.25$, above which only one TR invariant $k$ point ($\Gamma$) exists below the Fermi level, to the topologically nontrivial SC in the class DIII.[@Hyart12; @Schnyder08] This transition is signaled by the gap closing with the SC order parameters remaining finite as shown in Fig. \[fig:GAPandOP\_delta\_AFK\] (b). For the AFM Kitaev case, the choice of phases $\theta_{x,y,z}=0$ is found to correspond to the $d$ vector rotating around the $(1,-1,1)$ direction (see Appendix \[sec:dvector\]). This corresponds to $k_x-ik_y$ pairing for spins pointing in the $(1,-1,1)$ direction and $k_x + ik_y$ pairing for spins pointing in the $(-1,1,-1)$ direction as in the B phase of superfluid $^3$He.
![$SU(2)$ SBMF results for the $p$ SC$_2$ phase in the doped AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model with $J_K=1.3$ and $J_H=-0.7$. (a) Order parameters and (b) SC gap amplitude as a function of doping concentration $\delta$. []{data-label="fig:GAPandOP_delta_AFK"}](GAPandOP_delta_AFK.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
For the FM Kitaev case, the situation was found to be more complicated because the interband pairing has finite contributions, as the triplet SC order parameters are much larger than those in the AFM Kitaev case as shown in Fig. \[fig:GAPandOP\_delta\_FMK\] (a). When the SC order parameters are artificially reduced as $\langle t_\rho^\gamma \rangle \Rightarrow r \langle t_\rho^\gamma \rangle$ with $r<1$, a clear transition can be seen between the TRS odd-parity trivial phase at $\delta <0.25$ and the TRS odd-parity topological phase at $\delta >0.25$ signaled by the gap closing \[see Fig. \[fig:GAPandOP\_delta\_FMK\] (b)\]. As the order parameters are gradually increased, an additional transition shows up at small $\delta$, indicating the appearance of the TRS even-parity trivial phase. When the order parameters are fully developed, the TRS odd-parity trivial phase is overcome by the TRS even-parity phase, and the TRS even-parity phase directly transitions to the odd-parity topological phase. Thus, as a function of temperature, the sequence of phase transition could appear within the mean-field approximation, although only phase transitions at zero temperature are meaningful for two-dimensional systems. As for the AFM Kitaev case, the choice of phases $\theta_{x,y,z}=0$ corresponds to the $d$ vector rotating around the $(-1,-1,1)$ direction in the TRS odd-parity phases.
![$SU(2)$ SBMF results for the $p$ SC$_2$ phase in the doped FM Kitaev model with $J_K=-2$ and $J_H=0$. (a) Order parameters and (b) SC gap amplitude as a function of doping concentration $\delta$. In (b), gap amplitudes obtained by using artificially reduced SC order parameters as $\langle t_\rho^\gamma \rangle \Rightarrow r \langle t_\rho^\gamma \rangle$ with $r<1$ are also shown with various $r$ indicated. For $r \alt 0.4$, there appear two gap minima, indicating the sequence of transitions from the even-parity trivial phase (small $\delta$) to the odd-parity trivial phase (intermediate $\delta$) and to the odd-parity topological phase (large $\delta$). []{data-label="fig:GAPandOP_delta_FMK"}](GAPandOP_delta_FMK.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
$s$ SC versus $d+id$ SC
-----------------------
As discussed in Ref. , $tJ$-type models on a honeycomb lattice have some preference for the $d+id$ SC over the $s$ SC in the weak-coupling limit or near the critical temperature because of the interference between singlet pairing on different bonds. For the actual $tJ$ model excluding the double occupancy, the stabilization of the $d+id$ state was recently reported by using the Grassmann tensor product state approach.[@Gu11] A similar effect was observed for an electronic model with repulsive interactions.[@Nadkishore12]
Within a slave-boson mean-field approach, the relative stability between $d+id$ and $s$ SC states is rather subtle.[@Hyart12] In Fig. \[fig:SvsDID\], we compare the $d+id$ SC and the $s$ SC states for the doped AFM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg model. As seen from the $E$-vs-$\delta$ curve, the $d+id$ SC state is stabilized at smaller $\delta$ regime, and the $s$ SC state is stabilized at larger $\delta$ regime. The $s$ SC state has the larger SC order parameter $\Delta$, while the $d+id$ SC state has the larger $\chi$. This indicates that the kinetic energy is better gained in the $d+id$ SC state, leading to its stabilization at small dopings.
In Fig. \[fig:delta\_jk\], the $d+id$ SC state is shown to be stabilized near the Kitaev limit compared with the $s$ SC state. This is because the singlet pairing strength is reduced as one moves away from the AFM Heisenberg limit. The FM Kitaev interaction is more effective to reduce the paring strength. As a result, the $d+id$ SC state is extended to larger dopings. This consideration also explains why the $s$ SC state is extended to the lower doping regime in Ref. . There, spin-conserving exchange terms $\chi$ are not considered for mean-field order parameters. Thus, the kinetic-energy gain by the Heisenberg term is underestimated for the $d+id$ state.
![Comparison between the $d+id$ SC and the $s$ SC for the AFM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg model with $J_K=0.8$ and $J_H=1.2$. The total energy $E$ (a) and order parameters (b) as a function of $\delta$. The light vertical line in (a) indicates the boundary between the $d+id$ SC phase and the $s$ SC phase. []{data-label="fig:SvsDID"}](SvsDID.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Summary and discussion {#sec:summarydiscussion}
======================
To summarize, we explored the possible novel phases induced by carrier doping into the KH model by using the $SU(2)$ SBMF method. Various mean-field ans[ä]{}tze are motivated by the exact diagonalization results of the undoped model defined on a finite cluster. It is shown that the AFM Kitaev model and the FM Kitaev model are rather different when carriers are doped, although the ground state of the Kitaev model does not depend on the sign of the interaction, whether it is AFM or FM. In both cases, the $d+id$ SC state is stabilized in the AFM Heisenberg limit, the FM state in the FM Heisenberg limit, and, near the Kitaev limit, carrier doping first induces triplet superconductivity, $p$ SC$_1$. With the AFM Kitaev interaction, $p$ SC$_1$ becomes unstable against a singlet SC states with the $d+id$ symmetry, while with the FM Kitaev interaction it becomes unstable against another triplet SC state, $p$ SC$_2$. $p$ SC$_1$ state breaks the TR symmetry and has the finite Chern number; in the current case the Chern number +1 is rather robust. This state is found to be more stable with the AFM Kitaev interaction than with the FM Kitaev interaction. Not only for the FM Kitaev interaction, but also for the AFM Kitaev interaction the $p$ SC$_2$ state is stabilized when the Kitaev interaction and the Heisenberg interaction compete. The $p$ SC$_2$ state does not break the TR symmetry, but within this phase a sequence of topological phase transitions could take place. For the AFM Kitaev case, the intraband pairing is robust and the topological transition is between the TRS odd-parity trivial phase and the TRS odd-parity topological phase. On the other hand, for the FM Kitaev case, the interband pairing contributes when the SC order parameters are developed, and, depending on the magnitude of the SC order parameters, the topological transition could be between the TRS even-parity trivial phase and the TRS odd-parity trivial phase, between the TRS odd-parity trivial phase and the TRS odd-parity topological phase, or between the TRS even-parity trivial phase and the TRS odd-parity topological phase.
In this study, we used ans[ä]{}tze which do not break the sublattice symmetry or the underlying hexagonal symmetry. “Zigzag” AFM and “stripy” AFM phases are, therefore, not considered, as such complicated magnetic orderings are expected to be destabilized immediately by carrier doping. But it remains to be explored whether novel SC states are realized by carrier doping or other states outside the ans[ä]{}tze are realized in the parameter regime where the Kitaev and the Heisenberg interactions compete.
It is an interesting and important question whether or not the present model can be realized in real materials. As discussed in Ref. , the AFM Kitaev-AFM Heisenberg model could be realized in artificial TMO heterostructures, e.g., a bilayer of SrIrO$_3$ grown along the \[111\] crystallographic axis, when the local Coulomb interaction is large enough. In this case, the Heisenberg interaction is relatively large compared with the Kitaev interaction, and therefore the possible SC state induced by carrier doping is of the $d+id$.
For (topological) quantum computations, triplet SC states, $p$ SC$_1$ or $p$ SC$_2$ in the nontrivial phase, are desired. To realize the topological $p$ SC$_2$ state, one should include the FM Kitaev interaction as the dominant interaction or the AFM Kitaev interaction with finite FM Heisenberg interaction to suppress the tendency towards the singlet formation. $A_2$IrO$_3$ with $A$=Li or Na was originally suggested as a candidate for realizing the FM Kitaev interaction. But, later it was experimentally shown to have zigzag AFM ordering, indicating the importance of the longer-range interaction or the Kitaev interaction is actually AFM with the finite FM Heisenberg interaction. If the latter situation is realized, carrier doping may induce triplet SCs. Yet, even in this case, the carrier hopping term does not conserve the isospin. Therefore, the stability of the triplet SC states depends on the strength of the isospin-nonconserving hopping.
We thank G. Khaliullin and R. Thomale for their fruitful discussions and comments. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division.
Stability matrix for the $p$ SC$_2$ phase {#app:stabilitymatrix}
=========================================
The symmetry of the superconducting order parameters at the critical temperature $T_c$ can be deduced by analyzing the stability matrices[@Hyart12; @Black07] which are derived from the linearized gap equations. For the triplet superconductivity $p$ SC$_2$, the stability matrices consist of three independent matrices corresponding to $\langle t^x_\rho \rangle, \langle t^y_\rho \rangle$ and $\langle t^z_\rho \rangle$. For $\langle t^x_\rho \rangle$, the stability matrix $M_x$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
M_x =
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
(J_K -J_H) B & -J_H C & -J_H C \\
(J_K -J_H) C & -J_H B & -J_H C \\
(J_K -J_H) C & -J_H C & -J_H B
\end{array}
\right]
\label{eq:Mx1}\end{aligned}$$ for the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model and $$\begin{aligned}
M_x =
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-J_H B & -(J_K + J_H) C & -(J_K + J_H) C \\
-J_H C & -(J_K + J_H) B & -(J_K + J_H) C \\
-J_H C & -(J_K + J_H) C & -(J_K + J_H) B
\end{array}
\right]
\label{eq:Mx2}\end{aligned}$$ for the FM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model. Here, $B=A_{\rho = \rho'}$ and $C=A_{\rho \ne \rho'}$, with the matrix $\hat A$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\rho \rho'} \!\!&=&\!\! \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\vec k} \biggl[ \biggl(
\frac{\tanh (\varepsilon_+/2 k_B T_c)}{2 \varepsilon_+}
+
\frac{\tanh (\varepsilon_-/2 k_B T_c)}{2 \varepsilon_-}
\biggr) \nonumber \\
&& \times
\sin (\vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho - \theta) \sin (\vec k \cdot \vec r_{\rho'} - \theta)
\nonumber \\
&&+
\frac{\sinh (\mu /k_B T_c) \cos (\vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho - \theta) \cos (\vec k \cdot \vec r_{\rho'} - \theta)}
{2 \mu \cosh (\varepsilon_+/2k_B T_c) \cosh (\varepsilon_-/2k_B T_c)}
\biggr]. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Considering a symmetric state with $\langle \chi \rangle$ being independent of the bond specie, $\varepsilon_\pm$ is given by $\varepsilon_\pm = \pm |\varepsilon (\vec k)|-\mu$ and $\theta = \arg [\varepsilon (\vec k)]$ with $\varepsilon (\vec k) = - t_{eff} \sum_\rho e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec r_\rho}$. Here, $t_{eff} = \frac{1}{2} \delta t + \frac{1}{8}
\{ J_K \Theta (J_K) + 3 J_H \Theta (J_H) \} \langle \chi^* \rangle$ with $\Theta$ being the Heaviside function. The leading pairing instability is determined by the eigenvector with the largest eigenvalue of Eq. (\[eq:Mx1\]) or (\[eq:Mx2\]). As $C<0$, such an eigenvector is expressed as $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_x = \langle t^x_x, t^x_y, t^x_z \rangle = (\sqrt{1-2 \eta^2},-\eta^2,-\eta^2)$ for the AFM Kitaev and $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_x = (0, 1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2})$ for the FM Kitaev. The stability matrices $M_{y,z}$ and the eigenvectors for $M_{y,z}$ with the largest eigenvalue, say $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_y$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_z$, can be obtained from $M_x$ and $\langle t^x_x, t^x_y, t^x_z \rangle$, respectively, by cyclically exchanging components. Any linear combinations of $\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_{x,y,z}$ give the same critical temperature. But, the stable pairing amplitude at low temperatures must be determined by solving the non-linear gap equations.
$d$ vector analysis for the $p$ SC$_2$ phase {#sec:dvector}
============================================
Here, we consider both intraband $d$ vectors ($\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_{11}$) and interband $d$ vectors ($\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_{12}$) (Refs. ) for our doped KH models by expanding the exponents in the anomalous terms \[Eqs. (\[eq:DeltaAFKitaev\]) and (\[eq:DeltaFMHeiisenberg\])\] in the mean-field Hamiltonian around $\vec k =0$. For the AFM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg model, the intraband pairing is found to be dominant and the $d$ vector is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_{11} \!\!&=&\!\! i D \biggl(
-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} k_x - \frac{1}{2} k_y,
-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} k_x + \frac{1}{2} k_y,
k_y \biggr) , \label{eq:dintra} \end{aligned}$$ where $D = \frac{1}{8} \{ (J_K - J_H) t_{1} + J_H t_{2} \}$ with $t_{1 (2)} = \langle t_\rho^\gamma \rangle$ for $\gamma = (\ne) \rho$. For the FM Kitaev-FM Heisenberg case, using the same procedure for Eqs. (\[eq:DeltaFMKitaev\]) and (\[eq:DeltaFMHeiisenberg\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_{11} \!\!&=&\!\! i D \biggl(
\frac{1}{2} k_x - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} k_y,
-\frac{3}{2} k_x - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} k_y,
- k_x \biggr) , \label{eq:dintra} \\
\mbox{\boldmath $d$}_{12}
\!\!&=&\!\! \frac{1}{2} D \biggl(
-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4} k_x^2 + \frac{1}{2} k_x k_y + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4} k_y^2, \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{2em} \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4} k_x^2 + \frac{1}{2} k_x k_y - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4} k_y^2,
- k_x k_y \biggr) , \end{aligned}$$ where $D=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{8} (J_K+J_H) t_2$ with $t_2 = \langle t_y^x \rangle = -\langle t_z^x \rangle = - \langle t_x^y \rangle = \langle t_z^y \rangle
= \langle t_x^z \rangle = - \langle t_y^z \rangle$.
When the intraband pairing is dominant, the $p$ SC$_2$ is in the TRS odd-parity phase. The choice of $\theta_{x,y,z}=0$ above describes the $d$ vector rotating around the $(1,-1,1) [(-1,-1,1)]$ direction for the AFM (FM) Kitaev case. This corresponds to $k_x-ik_y$ pairing for spins pointing in the $(1,-1,1) [(-1,-1,1)]$ direction and $k_x + ik_y$ pairing for spins pointing in the $(-1,1,-1) [(1,1,-1)]$ direction as in the B phase of superfluid $^3$He. For the FM Kitaev case, the contribution from the interband pairing becomes large when the SC order parameters are developed, resulting in the TRS even-parity phase in the small-doping regime.
[\*]{}
A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**321**]{}, 2 (2006).
J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 027204 (2010).
A. Shitade, H. Katsura, J. Kune[š]{}, X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 256403 (2009).
Y. Singh and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 064412 (2010).
X. Liu, T. Berlijn, W.-G. Yin, W. Ku, A. Tsvelik, Y.-J. Kim, H. Gretarsson, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, and J. P. Hill, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 220403 (2011)
This model, $J_K<0$ and $J_H>0$, was studied by using the Lanczos exact diagonalization method in Ref. and by a pseudofermion functional renormalization group method in J. Reuther, R. Thomale, and S. Trebst, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 100406(R) (2011).
I. Kimchi and Y.-Z. You, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 180407 (2011)
Y. Singh, S. Manni, J. Reuther, T. Berlijn, R. Thomale, W. Ku, S. Trebst, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 127203 (2012). S. K. Choi, R. Coldea, A. N. Kolmogorov, T. Lancaster, I. I. Mazin, S. J. Blundell, P. G. Radaelli, Y. Singh, P. Gegenwart, K. R. Choi, S.-W. Cheong, P. J. Baker, C. Stock, and J. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 127204 (2012).
F. Ye, S. Chi, H. Cao, B. C. Chakoumakos, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, R. Custelcean, T. F. Qi, O.B. Korneta, and G. Cao, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 180403 (2012).
S. Bhattacharjee, S.-S. Lee, and Y.-B. Kim, New J. Phys. [**14**]{}, 073015 (2012).
J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, arXiv:1209.5100. G. Khaliullin, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**160**]{}, 155 (2005).
Y.-Z. You, I. Kimchi, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. B, [**86**]{}, 085145 (2012). T. Hyart, A. R. Wright, G. Khaliullin, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 140510 (2012).
G. Khaliullin, W. Koshibae, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 176401 (2004).
D. Xiao, W. Zhu, Y. Ran, N. Nagaosa, and S. Okamoto, Nat. Commun. [**2**]{}, 596 (2011).
S. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**110**]{}, 066403 (2013).
G. Cao, V. Durairaj, S. Chikara, L. E. DeLong, S. Parkin, and P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 100402(R) (2007).
P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 17 (2006).
R. Shindou and T. Momoi, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 064410 (2009).
R. Schaffer, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y.-B. Kim, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 224417 (2012).
F. J. Burnell and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 125125 (2011).
A. M. Black-Schaffer and S. Doniach, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 134512 (2007).
M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**63**]{}, 239 (1991).
A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 195125 (2008).
Z.-C. Gu, H.-C. Jiang, D. N. Sheng, H. Yao, L. Balents, X.-G. Wen, arXiv:1110.1183.
R. Nandkishore, L. Levitov, A. Chubukov, Nat. Phys. [**8**]{}, 158 (2012).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'After the recent groundbreaking results of AlphaGo and AlphaZero, we have seen strong interests in deep reinforcement learning and artificial general intelligence (AGI) in game playing. However, deep learning is resource-intensive and the theory is not yet well developed. For small games, simple classical table-based Q-learning might still be the algorithm of choice. General Game Playing (GGP) provides a good testbed for reinforcement learning to research AGI. Q-learning is one of the canonical reinforcement learning methods, and has been used by (Banerjee $\&$ Stone, IJCAI 2007) in GGP. In this paper we implement Q-learning in GGP for three small-board games (Tic-Tac-Toe, Connect Four, Hex)[^1], to allow comparison to Banerjee et al.. We find that Q-learning converges to a high win rate in GGP. For the $\epsilon$-greedy strategy, we propose a first enhancement, the dynamic $\epsilon$ algorithm. In addition, inspired by (Gelly $\&$ Silver, ICML 2007) we combine online search (Monte Carlo Search) to enhance offline learning, and propose QM-learning for GGP. Both enhancements improve the performance of classical Q-learning. In this work, GGP allows us to show, if augmented by appropriate enhancements, that classical table-based Q-learning can perform well in small games.'
author:
- 'Hui Wang, Michael Emmerich, Aske Plaat'
title: 'Assessing the Potential of Classical Q-learning in General Game Playing'
---
Introduction
============
Traditional game playing programs are written to play a single specific game, such as Chess, or Go. The aim of [*General*]{} Game Playing [@Genesereth2005] (GGP) is to create adaptive game playing programs; programs that can play more than one game well. To this end, GGP uses a so-called Game Description Language (GDL) [@Love2008]. GDL-authors write game-descriptions that specify the rules of a game. The challenge for GGP-authors is to write a GGP player that will play any game well. GGP players should ensure that a wide range of GDL-games can be played well. Comprehensive tool-suites exist to help researchers write GGP and GDL programs, and an active research community exists [@Kaiser2007; @Genesereth2014; @Swiechowski2014]. The GGP model follows the state/action/result paradigm of learning [@Sutton1998], a paradigm that has yielded many successful problem solving algorithms. For example, the successes of AlphaGo are based on two reinforcement learning algorithms, Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) [@Browne2012] and Deep Q-learning (DQN) [@Mnih2015; @Silver2016]. MCTS, in particular, has been successful in GGP [@Mehat2008]. However, few works analyze the potential of Q-learning for GGP, not to mention DQN. The aim of this paper is to be a basis for further research of DQN for GGP.
Q-learning with deep neural networks requires extensive computational resources. Table-based Q-learning might offer a viable alternative for small games. Therefore, following Banerjee [@Banerjee2007], in this paper we address the convergence speed of table-based Q-learning. We use three small two-player zero-sum games: Tic-Tac-Toe, Hex and Connect Four, and table-based Q-learning. We introduce two enhancements: dynamic $\epsilon$, and, borrowing an idea from [@Gelly2007], we create a new version of Q-learning, inserting Monte Carlo Search (MCS) into Q-learning, using online search for offline learning.
Our contributions can be summarized as follows:
1. **Dynamic $\epsilon$:** We evaluate the classical Q-learning, finding (1) that Q-learning works and converges in GGP, and (2) that Q-learning with a dynamic $\epsilon$ can enhance the performance of TD($\lambda$) baseline with a fixed $\epsilon$ [@Banerjee2007].
2. **QM-learning:** To further improve performance we enhance classical Q-learning by adding a modest amount of Monte Carlo lookahead (QMPlayer) [@Robert2004]. This improves the convergence rate of Q-learning, and shows that online search can also improve the offline learning in GGP.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents related work and recalls basic concepts of GGP and reinforcement learning. Section 3 presents the designs of the QPlayer with fixed and dynamic $\epsilon$ and QMPlayer for two-player zero-sum games for GGP to assess the potential of classical Q-learning in detail. Section 4 presents the experimental results. Section 5 concludes the paper and discusses directions for future work.
Related Work and Preliminaries
==============================
GGP
---
A General Game Player must be able to accept formal GDL descriptions of a game and play games effectively without human intervention [@Genesereth2014], where the GDL has been defined to describe the game rules [@Thielscher2011]. An interpreter program [@Swiechowski2014] generates the legal moves (actions) for a specific board (state). Furthermore, a Game Manager (GM) is at the center of the software ecosystem. The GM interacts with game players through the TCP/IP protocol to control the match. The GM manages game descriptions and matches records and temporary states of matches while the game is running. The system also contains a viewer interface for users who are interested in running matches and a monitor to analyze the match process.
Reinforcement Learning
----------------------
Since Watkins proposed Q-learning in 1989 [@Watkins1989], much progress has been made in reinforcement learning [@Even-Dar2002; @Hu2003]. However, few works report on the use of Q-learning in GGP. In [@Banerjee2007], Banerjee and Stone propose a method to create a general game player to study knowledge transfer, combining Q-learning and GGP. Their aim is to improve the performance of Q-learning by transferring the knowledge learned in one game to a new, but related, game. They found knowledge transfer with Q-learning to be expensive. In [@Gelly2007], Gelly and Silver combine online and offline knowledge to improve learning performance. Recently, DeepMind published work on mastering Chess and Shogi by self-play with a deep, generalized reinforcement learning algorithm [@Silver2017a]. With a series of landmark publications from AlphaGo to AlphaZero [@Silver2016; @Silver2017a; @Silver2017b], these showcase the promise of general reinforcement learning algorithms. However, such learning algorithms are very resource-intensive and typically require special GPU/TPU hardware. Furthermore, the neural network-based approach is quite inaccessible to theoretical analysis. Therefore, in this paper we study performance of table-based Q-learning.
In General Game Playing, variants of MCTS [@Browne2012] are used with great success [@Mehat2008]. Méhat et al. combined UCT and nested MCS for single-player general game playing [@Mehat2010]. Cazenave et al. further proposed a nested MCS for two-player games [@Cazenave2016]. Monte Carlo techniques have proved a viable approach for searching intractable game spaces and other optimization problems [@Ruijl2014]. Therefore, in this paper we combine MCS to improve performance.
Q-learning
----------
A basic distinction between reinforcement learning methods is that of “on-policy” and “off-policy” methods. On-policy methods attempt to evaluate or improve the policy that is used to make decisions, whereas off-policy methods evaluate or improve a policy [*different*]{} from that used to make decisions [@Sutton1998]. Q-learning is an off-policy method. The reinforcement learning model consists of an *agent*, a set of states $S$, and a set of actions $A$ available in state $S$ [@Sutton1998]. The agent can move to the next state $s^\prime$, $s^\prime\in S$ from state $s$ after following action $a$, $a\in A$, denoted as $s\xrightarrow{a}s^\prime$. After finishing the action $a$, the agent gets an immediate reward $R(s, a)$, usually a numerical score. The cumulative return of current state $s$ by taking the action $a$, denoted as $Q(s, a)$, is a weighted sum, calculated by $R(s, a)$ and the maximum $Q(s^\prime,a^\prime)$ value of all next states: $$Q(s,a)=R(s,a)+\gamma\ max_{a^\prime}Q(s^\prime,a^\prime)$$ where $a^\prime \in A^\prime$ and $A^\prime$ is the set of actions available in state $s^\prime$. $\gamma$ is the discount factor of $max_{a^\prime}Q(s^\prime,a^\prime)$ for next state $s^\prime$. $Q(s,a)$ can be updated by online interactions with the environment using the following rule: $$Q(s,a)\leftarrow (1-\alpha)\ Q(s,a)+\alpha\ (\ R(s,a)+\gamma\ max_{a^\prime}Q(s^\prime,a^\prime))$$ where $\alpha \in [0,1]$ is the learning rate. The Q-values are guaranteed to converge after iteratively updating.
Design
======
Classical Q-learning for Two-Player Games
-----------------------------------------
GGP games in our experiments are two-player zero-sum games that alternate moves. Therefore, we can use the same rule, see Algorithm \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ\] line \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ:rule\], to create $R(s,a)$, rather than to use a reward table. In our experiments, we set $R(s,a)=0$ for non-terminal states, and call the $getGoal()$ function for terminal states. In order to improve the learning effectiveness, we update the $Q(s,a)$ table only at the end of the match. During offline learning, QPlayer uses an $\epsilon$-greedy strategy to balance exploration and exploitation towards convergence. While the $\epsilon$-greedy strategy is enabled, QPlayer will perform a random action. Otherwise, QPlayer will perform the best action according to Q(S,A) table. If no record matches current state, QPlayer will perform a random action. The pseudo code for this algorithm is given in Algorithm \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ\].
R(s,a) =$s^\prime$ is terminal state? getGoal($s^\prime$, myrole) : 0\[alg:algorithmclassicalQ:rule\] Update $Q(s,a)\leftarrow (1-\alpha)\ Q(s,a)+\alpha\ (\ R(s,a)+\gamma\ max_{a^\prime}Q(s^\prime , a^\prime))$ selected\_action = Random() selected\_action = SelectFromQTable() ***selected\_action = Random()*** \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ:random\] performAction($s$, selected\_action) $Q(S,A)$
Dynamic $\epsilon$ Enhancement
------------------------------
In contrast to the baseline of [@Banerjee2007], which uses a fixed $\epsilon$ value, we use a dynamically decreasing $\epsilon$-greedy Q-learning [@Even-Dar2002]. In our implementation, we use the function $$\label{equation3}
\epsilon(m)=\begin{cases}
a(\cos(\frac{m}{2l}\pi))+b & m\leq l\\
0& m>l
\end{cases}$$ for $\epsilon$, where $m$ is the current match count, and $l$ is a number of matches we set in advance to control the decaying speed of $\epsilon$. During offline learning, if $m=l$, $\epsilon$ decreases to 0. $a$ and $b$ is set to limit the range of $\epsilon$, where $\epsilon\in[b,a + b]$, $a, b \geq 0$ and $a + b \leq1$. The player generates a random number $num$ where $num \in[0,1]$. If $num < \epsilon$, the player will explore a random action, else the player will exploit best action from the currently learnt $Q(s,a)$ table. Note that in this function, in order to assess the potential of Q-learning in detail, we introduce $l$ for controlling the decay of $\epsilon$. This parameter determines the value and changing speed of $\epsilon$ in current match count $m$. Instances in our experiments are shown in Fig \[fig:figepsilon\]:
![Decaying Curves of $\epsilon$ with Different $l$. Every curve decays from 0.5 (learning start, explore $\&$ exploit) to 0 ($m\geq l$, fully exploit).[]{data-label="fig:figepsilon"}](epsilon){width="75.00000%"}
QM-learning Enhancement {#QM-learning}
-----------------------
The main idea of Monte Carlo Search [@Robert2004] is to make some lookahead probes from a non-terminal state to the end of the game by selecting random moves for the players to estimate the value of that state. To apply Monte Carlo in game playing, we use a time-limited version, since in competitive game playing time for each move is an important factor for the player to consider. The time limited MCS in GGP that we use is written as $\emph{\textbf{MonteCarloSearch(time\_limit)}}$.
In Algorithm \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ\] (line \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ:random\]), we see that a [*random action*]{} is chosen when QPlayer can not find an existing value in the $Q(s,a)$ table. In this case, QPlayer acts like a random player, which will lead to a low win rate and slow learning speed. In order to address this problem, we introduce a variant of Q-learning combined with MCS. MCS performs a time limited lookahead to find better moves. The more time it has, the better the action it finds will be. To achieve this, we use $\emph{\textbf{selected\_action\ =\ MonteCarloSearch(time\_limit)}}$ to replace the line \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ:random\], giving QM-learning. By adding MCS, we effectively add a local version of the last two stages of MCTS to Q-learning: the playout and backup stage [@Browne2012].
Experiments and Results
=======================
Dynamic $\epsilon$ Enhancement {#dynamic}
------------------------------
We create $\epsilon$-greedy Q-learning players ($\alpha=0.1$, $\gamma=0.9$) with fixed $\epsilon$=0.1, 0.2 and with dynamically decreasing $\epsilon \in [0, 0.5]$ to play 30000 matches first ($l$=30000) against a Random player, respectively. During these 30000 matches, the dynamic $\epsilon$ decreases from 0.5 to 0 based on the decay function, see equation \[equation3\]. The fixed values for $\epsilon$ are 0.1 and 0.2, respectively. After 30000 matches, fixed $\epsilon$ is also set to 0 to continue the competition. For Tic-Tac-Toe, results in Fig.\[fig:figfixedepsilon\] show that dynamically decreasing $\epsilon$ performs better. We see that the final win rate of dynamically decreasing $\epsilon$ is 4% higher than fixed $\epsilon$=0.1 and 7% higher than fixed $\epsilon$=0.2. Therefore, in the rest of the experiments, we use dynamic $\epsilon$ for further improvements.
![Win Rate of the Fixed and Dynamic $\epsilon$ Q-learning Player vs a Random Player Baseline. In the white part, the player uses $\epsilon$-greedy to learn; in the grey part, all players set $\epsilon$=0 (stable performance). The color code of the rest figures are the same[]{data-label="fig:figfixedepsilon"}](fixedepsilon){width="75.00000%"}
To enable comparison with previous work, we implemented TD($\lambda$), the baseline learner of [@Banerjee2007]($\alpha=0.3$, $\gamma=1.0$, $\lambda=0.7$, $\epsilon=0.01$), and dynamic $\epsilon$ learner($\alpha=0.1$, $\gamma=0.9$, $\epsilon \in [0, 0.5]$, $l$=30000, Algorithm 1). For Tic-Tac-Toe, from Fig.\[fig:figbaseline\], we find that although the TD($\lambda$) player converges more quickly initially (win rate stays at about 75.5$\%$ after 9000th match) our dynamic $\epsilon$ player performs better when the value of $\epsilon$ decreases dynamically with the learning process.
![Win Rate of Classical Q-learning and \[11\] Baseline Player vs Random.[]{data-label="fig:figbaseline"}](baseline){width="75.00000%"}
Experiments above suggest the following conclusions: that (1) classical Q-learning is applicable to a GGP system, and that (2) a dynamic $\epsilon$ can enhance the performance of fixed $\epsilon$. However, beyond the basic applicability in a single game, we need to show that it can do so (1) [*efficiently*]{}, and (2) in more than one game. Thus, we further experiment with QPlayer to play Hex ($l$=50000) and Connect Four ($l$=80000) against the Random player. In order to limit excessive learning times, following [@Banerjee2007], we play Hex on a very small 3$\times$3 board, and play ConnectFour on a 4$\times$4 board. The results of these experiments are given in Fig.\[fig:subfigothergames\]. We see that QPlayer can also play these other games effectively.
However, so far, all our games are small. QPlayer should be able to learn to play larger games. The complexity influences how many matches the QPlayer should learn. We will now show results to demonstrate how QPlayer performs while playing more complex games. We make QPlayer play Tic-Tac-Toe (a line of 3 stones is a win, $l$=50000) in 3$\times$3, 4$\times$4 and 5$\times$5 boards, respectively, and show the results in Fig.\[fig:figdifferentsize\].
![Win Rate of QPlayer vs Random in Tic-Tac-Toe on Different Board Size. For larger board sizes convergence slows down []{data-label="fig:figdifferentsize"}](differentsize){width="75.00000%"}
The results show that with the increase of game board size, QPlayer performs worse. For larger boards can not achieve convergence. The reason for the lack of convergence is that QPlayer has not learned enough knowledge. Our experiments also show that for table-based Q-learning in GGP, large game complexity leads to slow convergence, which confirms the well-known drawback of classical Q-learning.
QM-learning Enhancement {#qm-learning-enhancement}
-----------------------
The second contribution of this paper is QM-learning enhancement, we implement the QPlayer and QMPlayer based on Algorithm \[alg:algorithmclassicalQ\] and section \[QM-learning\]. For both players, we set parameters to $\alpha=0.1$, $\gamma=0.9$, $\epsilon \in[0, 0.5]$ respectively and we set the $l$=5000, 10000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, respectively. For QMPlayer, we set $time\_limit=50 ms$. Next we make them play the game with the Random baseline player for $1.5\ \times\ l$ matches for 5 rounds respectively. The comparison between QPlayer and QMPlayer is shown in Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ\].
Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:a\] shows that QPlayer has the most unstable performance (the largest variance in 5 experiments) and only wins around 55% matches after training 5000 matches. Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:b\] illustrates that after training 10000 matches QPlayer wins about 80% matches. However, during the exploration period (the white part of the figure) the performance is still very unstable. Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:c\] shows that QPlayer wins about 86% of the matches while learning 20000 matches still with high variance. Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:d\], Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:e\], Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:f\], show us that after training 30000, 40000, 50000 matches, QPlayer gets a similar win rate, which is nearly 86.5% with smaller and smaller variance.
In Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ:a\], QMPlayer gets a high win rate (about 67%) at the very beginning. Then the win rate decreases to 66% and 65%, and then increases from 65% to around 84% at the 5000th macth. Finally, the win rate stays at around 85%. Also in the other sub figures, for QMPlayer, the curves all decrease first and then increase until reaching a stable state. This is because at the very beginning, QMPlayer chooses more actions from MCS. Then as the learning period moves forward, it chooses more actions from Q table.
Overall, as the $l$ increases, the win rate of QPlayer becomes higher until leveling off around 86.5%. The variance becomes smaller and smaller, which proves that Q-learning can achieve convergence in GGP games and that a proper $\epsilon$ decaying speed makes sense for classical Q-learning. Note that in every sub figure, QMPlayer can always achieve a higher win rate than QPlayer, not only at the beginning but also at the end of the learning period. Overall, QMPlayer achieves a better performance than QPlayer with the higher convergence win rate (at least 87.5% after training 50000 matches). To compare the convergence speeds of QPlayer and QMPlayer, we summarize the convergence win rates of different $l$ according to Fig.\[fig:subfigQMQ\] in Fig.\[fig:figsummarize\].
![Convergence Win Rate of QMPlayer (QPlayer) vs Random in Tic-Tac-Toe[]{data-label="fig:figsummarize"}](QMfinalrate){width="75.00000%"}
These results show that combining online MCS with classical Q-learning for GGP can improve the win rate both at the beginning and at the end of the offline learning period. The main reason is that QM-learning allows the $Q(s,a)$ table to be filled quickly with good actions from MCS, achieving a quick and direct learning rate. It is worth to note that, QMPlayer will spend slightly more time (at most is $search~time~limit\times$ [*number of (state-action) pairs*]{}) in training than QPlayer. It will be time consuming for MCS to compute a large game, and this is also the essential drawback of table-based Q-learning, so currently QM-learning is also only applicable for small games.
Conclusion
==========
This paper examines the applicability of Q-learning, a canonical reinforcement learning algorithm, to create general players for GGP programs. Firstly, we show how good canonical implementations of Q-learning perform on GGP games. The GGP system allows us to easily use three real games for our experiments: Tic-Tac-Toe, Connect Four, and Hex. We find that (1) Q-learning is indeed general enough to achieve convergence in GGP games. However, we also find that convergence is slow. In accordance with Banerjee [@Banerjee2007], who used a static value for $\epsilon$, we find that (2) a value for $\epsilon$ that changes with the learning phases gives better performance (start with more exploration, become more greedy later on). The table-based implementation of Q-learning facilitates theoretical analysis, and comparison against some baselines [@Banerjee2007]. However, it is only suitable for small games. A neural network implementation facilitates the study of larger games, and allows meaningful comparison to DQN variants [@Mnih2015].
Still using our table-based implementation, we then enhance Q-learning with an MCS based lookahead. We find that, especially at the start of the learning, this speeds up convergence considerably. Our Q-learning is table-based, limiting it to small games. Even with the MCS enhancement, convergence of QM-learning does not yet allow its direct use in larger games. The QPlayer needs to learn a large number of matches to get good performance in playing larger games. The results with the improved Monte Carlo algorithm show a real improvement of the player’s win rate, and learn the most probable strategies to get high rewards faster than learning completely from scratch. This enhancement shows how online search can be used to improve the performance of offline learning in GGP. On this basis, we can assess different offline learning algorithms (or follow Gelly [@Gelly2007] to combine it with neural networks for larger games in GGP).
Our use of Monte Carlo in QM-learning is different from the AlphaGo architecture, where MCTS is wrapped around Q-learning (DQN) [@Mnih2015]. In our approach, we insert Monte Carlo [*within*]{} the Q-learning loop. Future work should show if our QM-learning results transfer to AlphaGo-like uses of DQN inside MCTS, if QM-learning can achieve faster convergence, reducing the high computational demands of AlphaGo [@Silver2017a]. Additionally, we plan to study nested MCS in Q-learning [@Cazenave2016]. Implementing Neural Network based players also allows the study of more complex GGP games.
### Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
Hui Wang acknowledges financial support from the China Scholarship Council (CSC), CSC No.201706990015.
[22]{}
Genesereth M, Love N, Pell B: General game playing: Overview of the AAAI competition. AI magazine **26**(2), 62–72 (2005) Love, Nathaniel and Hinrichs, Timothy and Haley, David and Schkufza, Eric and Genesereth, Michael: General game playing: Game description language specification. Stanford Tech Report LG-2006-1 (2008)
Kaiser D M: The Design and Implementation of a Successful General Game Playing Agent. International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, pp. 110–115. AAAI Press, California (2007)
Genesereth M, Thielscher M: General game playing. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning **8**(2), 1–229 (2014)
Świechowski M, Mańdziuk J: Fast interpreter for logical reasoning in general game playing. Journal of Logic and Computation **26**(5), 1697–1727 (2014)
Sutton R S, Barto A G: Reinforcement learning: An introduction. 2nd edn. MIT press, Cambridge (1998)
Browne C B, Powley E, Whitehouse D, et al: A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games **4**(1), 1–43 (2012)
Mnih V, Kavukcuoglu K, Silver D, et al: Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature **518**(7540), 529–533 (2015)
Silver D, Huang A, Maddison C J, et al: Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature **529**(7587), 484–489 (2016)
Mehat J, Cazenave T: Monte-carlo tree search for general game playing. Univ. Paris **8**, (2008)
Banerjee B, Stone P: General Game Learning Using Knowledge Transfer. In: Manuela M. Veloso. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2007, pp. 672–677. (2007)
Gelly S, Silver D: Combining online and offline knowledge in UCT. Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, pp. 273–280. (2007)
Robert C P: Monte carlo methods. John Wiley $\&$ Sons, New Jersey (2004)
Thielscher M: The general game playing description language is universal. In: Toby Walsh. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2011, vol. 22(1), pp. 1107–1112. AAAI Press, California (2011)
Watkins C J C H: Learning from delayed rewards. King’s College, Cambridge, (1989)
Even-Dar E, Mansour Y: Convergence of optimistic and incremental Q-learning. In: Thomas G.Dietterich, Suzanna Becker, Zoubin Ghahramani. Advances in neural information processing systems 2001, pp. 1499–1506. MIT press, Cambridge (2001)
Hu J, Wellman M P: Nash Q-learning for general-sum stochastic games. Journal of machine learning research **4**, 1039–1069 (2003)
Silver D, Hubert T, Schrittwieser J, et al: Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815, (2017).
Silver D, Schrittwieser J, Simonyan K, et al: Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature **550**(7676), 354–359 (2017)
Méhat J, Cazenave T: Combining UCT and nested Monte Carlo search for single-player general game playing. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games **2**(4), 271–277 (2010)
Cazenave, T., Saffidine, A., Schofield, M. J., $\&$ Thielscher, M: Nested Monte Carlo Search for Two-Player Games. In: Dale Schuurmans, Michael P.Wellman. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2016, vol. 16, pp. 687–693. AAAI Press, California (2016)
B Ruijl, J Vermaseren, A Plaat, J Herik: Combining Simulated Annealing and Monte Carlo Tree Search for Expression Simplification. In: Béatrice Duval, H. Jaap van den Herik, Stéphane Loiseau, Joaquim Filipe. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence 2014, vol. 1, pp. 724–731. SciTePress, Setúbal, Portugal (2014)
[^1]: source code: https://github.com/wh1992v/ggp-rl
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Transmission over wireless fading channels under quality of service (QoS) constraints is studied when only the receiver has channel side information. Being unaware of the channel conditions, transmitter is assumed to send the information at a fixed rate. Under these assumptions, a two-state (ON-OFF) transmission model is adopted, where information is transmitted reliably at a fixed rate in the ON state while no reliable transmission occurs in the OFF state. QoS limitations are imposed as constraints on buffer violation probabilities, and effective capacity formulation is used to identify the maximum throughput that a wireless channel can sustain while satisfying statistical QoS constraints. Energy efficiency is investigated by obtaining the bit energy required at zero spectral efficiency and the wideband slope in both wideband and low-power regimes assuming that the receiver has perfect channel side information (CSI). In the wideband regime, it is shown that the bit energy required at zero spectral efficiency is the minimum bit energy. A similar result is shown for a certain class of fading distributions in the low-power regime. In both wideband and low-power regimes, the increased energy requirements due to the presence of QoS constraints are quantified. Comparisons with variable-rate/fixed-power and variable-rate/variable-power cases are given.
Energy efficiency is further analyzed in the presence of channel uncertainties. The scenario in which *a priori* unknown fading coefficients are estimated at the receiver via minimum mean-square-error (MMSE) estimation with the aid of training symbols, is considered. The optimal fraction of power allocated to training is identified under QoS constraints. It is proven that the minimum bit energy in the low-power regime is attained at a certain nonzero power level below which bit energy increases without bound with vanishing power. Hence, it is shown that it is extremely energy inefficient to operate at very low power levels when the channel is only imperfectly known.
*Index Terms:* bit energy, channel estimation, effective capacity, energy efficiency, fading channels, fixed-rate transmission, imperfect channel knowledge, low-power regime, minimum bit energy, QoS constraints, spectral efficiency, wideband regime, wideband slope.
author:
- '[^1] [^2]'
title: 'The Impact of QoS Constraints on the Energy Efficiency of Fixed-Rate Wireless Transmissions'
---
[1.6]{}
Introduction
============
The two key characteristics of wireless communications that most greatly impact system design and performance are 1) the randomly-varying channel conditions and 2) limited energy resources. In wireless systems, the power of the received signal fluctuates randomly over time due to mobility, changing environment, and multipath fading caused by the constructive and destructive superimposition of the multipath signal components [@book]. These random changes in the received signal strength lead to variations in the instantaneous data rates that can be supported by the channel. In addition, mobile wireless systems can only be equipped with limited energy resources, and hence energy efficient operation is a crucial requirement in most cases.
To measure and compare the energy efficiencies of different systems and transmission schemes, one can choose as a metric the energy required to reliably send one bit of information. Information-theoretic studies show that energy-per-bit requirement is generally minimized, and hence the energy efficiency is maximized, if the system operates at low signal-to-noise ratio (${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$) levels and hence in the low-power or wideband regimes. Recently, Verdú in [@sergio] has determined the minimum bit energy required for reliable communication over a general class of channels, and studied of the spectral efficiency–bit energy tradeoff in the wideband regime while also providing novel tools that are useful for analysis at low ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$s. In many wireless communication systems, in addition to energy-efficient operation, satisfying certain quality of service (QoS) requirements is of paramount importance in providing acceptable performance and quality. For instance, in voice over IP (VoIP), interactive-video (e.g,. videoconferencing), and streaming-video applications in wireless systems, latency is a key QoS metric and should not exceed certain levels [@Szigeti]. On the other hand, wireless channels, as described above, are characterized by random changes in the channel, and such volatile conditions present significant challenges in providing QoS guarantees. In most cases, statistical, rather than deterministic, QoS assurances can be given.
In summary, it is vital for an important class of wireless systems to operate efficiently while also satisfying QoS requirements (e.g., latency, buffer violation probability). Information theory provides the ultimate performance limits and identifies the most efficient use of resources. However, information-theoretic studies and Shannon capacity formulation generally do not address delay and quality of service (QoS) constraints [@Ephremides]. Recently, Wu and Negi in [@dapeng] defined the effective capacity as the maximum constant arrival rate that a given time-varying service process can support while providing statistical QoS guarantees. Effective capacity formulation uses the large deviations theory and incorporates the statistical QoS constraints by capturing the rate of decay of the buffer occupancy probability for large queue lengths. The analysis and application of effective capacity in various settings has attracted much interest recently (see e.g., [@wu-downlink]–[@deli] and references therein). For instance, Tang and Zhang in [@tang-powerrate] considered the effective capacity when both the receiver and transmitter know the instantaneous channel gains, and derived the optimal power and rate adaptation technique that maximizes the system throughput under QoS constraints. These results are extended to multichannel communication systems in [@tang-multichannel]. Liu *et al.* in [@finite] considered fixed-rate transmission schemes and analyzed the effective capacity and related resource requirements for Markov wireless channel models. In this work, the continuous-time Gilbert-Elliott channel with ON and OFF states is adopted as the channel model while assuming the fading coefficients as zero-mean Gaussian distributed. A study of cooperative networks operating under QoS constraints is provided in [@liu-cooperation]. In [@deli], we have investigated the energy efficiency under QoS constraints by analyzing the normalized effective capacity (or equivalently the spectral efficiency) in the low-power and wideband regimes. We considered variable-rate/variable-power and variable-rate/fixed-power transmission schemes assuming the availability of channel side information at both the transmitter and receiver or only at the receiver.
In this paper, we consider a wireless communication scenario in which only the receiver has the channel side information, and the transmitter, not knowing the channel conditions, sends the information at a fixed-rate with fixed power. If the fixed-rate transmission cannot be supported by the channel, we assume that outage occurs and information has to be retransmitted. Similarly as in [@finite], we consider a channel model with ON and OFF states. In this scenario, we investigate the energy efficiency under QoS constraints in the low-power and wideband regimes by considering the bit energy requirement defined as average energy normalized by the effective capacity. Our analysis will initially be carried out under the assumption that the receiver has perfect channel information. Subsequently, we consider the scenario in which *a priori* unknown channel is estimated by the receiver with the assistance of training symbols, albeit only imperfectly.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the system model. In Section III, we briefly describe the notion of effective capacity and the spectral efficiency–bit energy tradeoff. Assuming the availability of the perfect channel knowledge at the receiver, we analyze the energy efficiency in the wideband and low-power regimes in Sections \[sec:wideband\] and \[sec:lowpower\], respectively. In Section \[sec:imperfect\], we investigate the energy efficiency in the low-power regime when the receiver knows the channel only imperfectly. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
System Model {#sec:model}
============
We consider a point-to-point wireless link in which there is one source and one destination. The system model is depicted in Figure \[fig:0\]. It is assumed that the source generates data sequences which are divided into frames of duration $T$. These data frames are initially stored in the buffer before they are transmitted over the wireless channel. The discrete-time channel input-output relation in the $i^{\text{th}}$ symbol duration is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:model}
y[i] = h[i] x[i] + n[i] \quad i = 1,2,\ldots.\end{gathered}$$ where $x[i]$ and $y[i]$ denote the complex-valued channel input and output, respectively. We assume that the bandwidth available in the system is $B$ and the channel input is subject to the following average energy constraint: ${\mathbb{E}}\{|x[i]|^2\}\le {\bar{P}}/ B$ for all $i$. Since the bandwidth is $B$, symbol rate is assumed to be $B$ complex symbols per second, indicating that the average power of the system is constrained by ${\bar{P}}$. Above in (\[eq:model\]), $n[i]$ is a zero-mean, circularly symmetric, complex Gaussian random variable with variance ${\mathbb{E}}\{|n[i]|^2\} = N_0$. The additive Gaussian noise samples $\{n[i]\}$ are assumed to form an independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) sequence. Finally, $h[i]$ denotes the channel fading coefficient, and $\{h[i]\}$ is a stationary and ergodic discrete-time process. We denote the magnitude-square of the fading coefficients by $z[i]=|h[i]|^2$.
In this paper, we initially consider the scenario in which the receiver has perfect channel side information and hence perfectly knows the instantaneous values of $\{h[i]\}$ while the transmitter has no such knowledge. Subsequently, we will analyze the effect of imperfect channel knowledge at the receiver. When the receiver perfectly knows the channel conditions, the instantaneous channel capacity with channel gain $z[i] \!\!= \!\!|h[i]|^2$ is $$\label{eq:shannon}
C[i]=B\log_2(1+{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}z[i]) \text{ bits/s}$$ where ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}= {\bar{P}}/(N_{0}B)$ is the average transmitted signal-to-noise ratio. Since the transmitter is unaware of the channel conditions, information is transmitted at a fixed rate of $r$ bits/s. When $r < C$, the channel is considered to be in the ON state and reliable communication is achieved at this rate. If, on the other hand, $r \ge C$, outage occurs. In this case, channel is in the OFF state and reliable communication at the rate of $r$ bits/s cannot be attained. Hence, effective data rate is zero and information has to be resent. We assume that a simple automatic repeat request (ARQ) mechanism is incorporated in the communication protocol to acknowledge the reception of data and to ensure that the erroneous data is retransmitted [@finite].
Fig. \[fig:00\] depicts the two-state transmission model together with the transition probabilities. In this paper, we assume that the channel fading coefficients stay constant over the frame duration $T$. Hence, the state transitions occur at every $T$ seconds. Now, the probability of staying in the ON state, $p_{22}$, is defined as follows[^3]: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{22} &= P\{r < C[i+TB] \, \big | \, r < C[i]\} = P\{z[i+TB]
> \alpha \, \big | \, z[i] > \alpha \} \label{eq:p_22}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:thresh}
\alpha=\frac{2^{\frac{r}{B}}-1}{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}.$$ Note that $p_{22}$ depends on the joint distribution of $(z[i+TB],
z[i])$. For the Rayleigh fading channel, the joint density function of the fading amplitudes can be obtained in closed-form [@rapajic]. In this paper, with the goal of simplifying the analysis and providing results for arbitrary fading distributions, we assume that fading realizations are independent for each frame[^4]. Hence, we basically consider a block-fading channel model. Note that in block-fading channels, the duration $T$ over which the fading coefficients stay constant can be varied to model fast or slow fading scenarios.
Under the block fading assumption, we now have $p_{22} = P\{z[i+TB]
> \alpha\} = P\{z > \alpha\}$. Similarly, the other transition probabilities become $$\begin{aligned}
p_{11}&=p_{21}=P\{z \le \alpha\}=\int_0^\alpha p_z(z)dz\\
p_{22}&=p_{12}=P\{z > \alpha\}=\int_\alpha^\infty p_z(z)dz\end{aligned}$$ where $p_z$ is the probability density function of $z$. We finally note that $rT$ bits are successfully transmitted and received in the ON state, while the effective transmission rate in the OFF state is zero.
Preliminaries – Effective Capacity and Spectral Efficiency-Bit Energy Tradeoff
==============================================================================
In [@dapeng], Wu and Negi defined the effective capacity as the maximum constant arrival rate[^5] that a given service process can support in order to guarantee a statistical QoS requirement specified by the QoS exponent $\theta$. If we define $Q$ as the stationary queue length, then $\theta$ is the decay rate of the tail distribution of the queue length $Q$: $$\lim_{q \to \infty} \frac{\log P(Q \ge q)}{q} = -\theta.
$$ Therefore, for large $q_{\max}$, we have the following approximation for the buffer violation probability: $P(Q \ge q_{\max}) \approx
e^{-\theta q_{max}}$. Hence, while larger $\theta$ corresponds to more strict QoS constraints, smaller $\theta$ implies looser QoS guarantees. Moreover, if $D$ denotes the steady-state delay experienced in the buffer, then it is shown in [@liu-isit] that $P\{D \ge d_{\max}\} \le c \sqrt{P\{Q\ge q_{\max}\}}$ for constant arrival rates. This result provides a link between the buffer and delay violation probabilities. In the above formulation, $c$ is some positive constant, $q_{\max} = a d_{\max}$, and $a$ is the source arrival rate.
Now, the effective capacity for a given QoS exponent $\theta$ is obtained from $$\begin{gathered}
-\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\theta
t}\log_e{\mathbb{E}\{e^{-\theta S[t]}\}} \stackrel{\text{def}}{=}
-\frac{\Lambda(-\theta)}{\theta}\end{gathered}$$ where $S[t] = \sum_{k=1}^{t}R[k]$ is the time-accumulated service process and $\{R[k], k=1,2,\ldots\}$ denote the discrete-time, stationary and ergodic stochastic service process. Note that in the model we consider, $R[k] = rT \text{ or } 0$ depending on the channel state being ON or OFF, respectively. In [@chang] and [@cschang Section 7.2, Example 7.2.7], it is shown that for such an ON-OFF model, we have $$\label{eq:bookresult}
\frac{\Lambda(\theta)}{\theta}=\frac{1}{\theta}\log_e\Big(\frac{1}{2}\Big(p_{11}+p_{22}e^{\theta
Tr}+\sqrt{(p_{11}+p_{22}e^{\theta Tr})^2+4(p_{11}+p_{22}-1)e^{\theta
Tr}} \Big)\Big).$$ Using the formulation in (\[eq:bookresult\]) and noting that $p_{11}+p_{22}=1$ in our model, we express the effective capacity normalized by the frame duration $T$ and bandwidth $B$, or equivalently spectral efficiency in bits/s/Hz, for a given statistical QoS constraint $\theta$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-.2cm}{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},
\theta)=\frac{1}{TB}\max_{r\geq0}\Big\{-\frac{\Lambda(-\theta)}{\theta}\Big\}
&=\max_{r\geq0}\Big\{-\frac{1}{\theta
TB}\log_e\big(p_{11}+p_{22}e^{-\theta
Tr}\big)\Big\}\\
&=\max_{r\geq0}\Big\{-\frac{1}{\theta
TB}\log_e\big(1-P\{z>\alpha\}(1-e^{-\theta
Tr})\big)\Big\}\label{eq:specec}\\
&=-\frac{1}{\theta TB}\log_e\Big(1-P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}}\big)\Big)\,\, \text{bits/s/Hz}\label{eq:spececopt}\end{aligned}$$ where ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ is the maximum fixed transmission rate that solves (\[eq:specec\]) and ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}= (2^{\frac{{r_{\text{opt}}}}{B}}-1)/{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$. Note that both ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$ and ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ are functions of ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ and $\theta$.
The normalized effective capacity, ${{\sf{R}}}_E$, provides the maximum throughput under statistical QoS constraints in the fixed-rate transmission model. It can be easily shown that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:R_Etheta0}
\lim_{\theta \to 0} {{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},\theta) = \max_{r\ge 0}
\,\,\frac{r}{B} \, P\{z > \alpha\}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, as the QoS requirements relax, the maximum constant arrival rate approaches the average transmission rate. On the other hand, for $\theta > 0$, ${{\sf{R}}}_E < \frac{1}{B} \max_{r\ge 0} r P\{z
>\alpha\}$ in order to avoid violations of QoS constraints.
In this paper, we focus on the energy efficiency of wireless transmissions under the aforementioned statistical QoS limitations. Since energy efficient operation generally requires operation at low-${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ levels, our analysis throughout the paper is carried out in the low-${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ regime. In this regime, the tradeoff between the normalized effective capacity (i.e, spectral efficiency) ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ and bit energy $\frac{E_b}{N_0} =
\frac{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}{{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})}$ is a key tradeoff in understanding the energy efficiency, and is characterized by the bit energy at zero spectral efficiency and wideband slope provided, respectively, by $$\label{eq:ebresult}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}= \lim_{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0} \frac{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}{{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})}= \frac{1}{\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_{E}(0)} \text{ and
} \mathcal{S}_0=-\frac{2(\dot{{{\sf{R}}}_E}(0))^2}{\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}_E}(0)}\log_e{2}
$$ where $\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)$ and $\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)$ are the first and second derivatives with respect to ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$, respectively, of the function ${{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})$ at zero ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ [@sergio]. $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=0}$ and $\mathcal{S}_0$ provide a linear approximation of the spectral efficiency curve at low spectral efficiencies, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:linearapprox}
{{\sf{R}}}_E\left(\frac{E_b}{N_0}\right) = \frac{\mathcal{S}_0}{10\log_{10}
2} \left( \frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{dB}-\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0,
dB}\right) + \epsilon\end{gathered}$$ where $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{dB} = 10\log_{10}\frac{E_b}{N_0}$ and $\epsilon = o\left( \frac{E_b}{N_0}-\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=
0}\right)$. Moreover, $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=0}$ is the minimum bit energy $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}}$ when the spectral efficiency ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ is a non-decreasing concave function of ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$. Indeed, we show that when the channel is perfectly known at the receiver, $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=0} = \frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}}$ in the wideband regime as $B \to \infty$. Moreover, we demonstrate that $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=0} = \frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}}$ for Rayleigh and Nakagami fading channels (with integer fading parameter $m$) in the low-power regime as ${\bar{P}}\to 0$. On the other hand, for general treatment, we refer to the bit energy required as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ vanishes as $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=0}$ throughout the paper. As we shall see in Section \[sec:imperfect\] that $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=0}$ is not necessarily the minimum bit energy in a certain scenario of the imperfectly-known channel.
Energy Efficiency in the Wideband Regime {#sec:wideband}
========================================
In this section, we consider the wideband regime in which the bandwidth is large. We assume that the average power ${\bar{P}}$ is kept constant. Note that as the bandwidth $B$ increases, ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}=
\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0B}$ approaches zero and we operate in the low-${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ regime. We first introduce the notation $\zeta=\frac{1}{B}$. Note that as $B \to \infty$, we have $\zeta \to 0$. Moreover, with this notation, the normalized effective capacity can be expressed as[^6] $$\label{eq:spececb}
\hspace{-0.03cm}{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})=-\frac{\zeta}{\theta
T}\log_e\Big(1-P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta T{r_{\text{opt}}}}\big)\Big).$$ Note that ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$ and ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ are also in general dependent on $B$ and hence $\zeta$. The following result provides the expressions for the bit energy at zero spectral efficiency (i.e., as $B \to \infty$) and the wideband slope, and characterize the spectral efficiency-bit energy tradeoff in the wideband regime.
\[theo:wideband\] In the wideband regime, the bit energy at zero spectral efficiency, and wideband slope are given by $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}=\frac{-\delta\log_e2}{\log_e\xi} \quad \text{and} \label{eq:ebminwb}\\
\mathcal{S}_0=\frac{2\xi\log_e^2\xi}{(\delta{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})^2
P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}e^{-\delta{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}},\label{eq:s0wb}\end{gathered}$$ respectively, where $\delta=\frac{\theta T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}$ and $\xi=1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}(1-e^{-\delta{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}})$. ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ is defined as ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow0}{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$ and ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ satisfies $$\label{eq:stacondwideband}
\delta{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\log_e\left(1+\delta\frac{P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})}\right).$$
*Proof:* Assume that the Taylor series expansion of ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ with respect to small $\zeta$ is $$\label{eq:substRb}
{r_{\text{opt}}}={{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}+\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}(0)\zeta+o(\zeta)$$ where ${{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}=\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow0}{r_{\text{opt}}}$ and $\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}(0)$ is the first derivative with respect to $\zeta$ of ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ evaluated at $\zeta=0$. From (\[eq:thresh\]), we can find that $$\begin{aligned}
{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}=\frac{2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}-1}{\frac{{\bar{P}}\zeta}{N_0}}=\frac{{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}\log_e2}{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}+\frac{\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}(0)\log_e2+\frac{({{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}\log_e2)^2}{2}}{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}\,\zeta+o(\zeta)\end{aligned}$$ from which we have as $\zeta\rightarrow0$ that $$\label{eq:stab}
{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\frac{{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}\log_e2}{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}$$ and that $$\label{eq:dotalpha}
{\dot{\alpha}_{\text{opt}}}(0)=\frac{{\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}}(0)\log_e2+\frac{({{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}\log_e2)^2}{2}}{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}$$ where ${\dot{\alpha}_{\text{opt}}}(0)$ is the first derivative with respect to $\zeta$ of ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$ evaluated at $\zeta=0$. According to (\[eq:stab\]), ${{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}=\frac{{\bar{P}}{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}{N_0\log_e2}$. We now have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}=
0}&=\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow0}\frac{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0} \zeta}{{{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)} = \frac{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}{\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)}=\frac{-\frac{\theta
T{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}{\log_e\big(1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}(1-e^{-\theta
T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}})\big)}=\frac{-\delta\log_e2}{\log_e\xi}\label{eq:ebminb}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)$ is the derivative of ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ with respect to $\zeta$ at $\zeta = 0$, $\delta=\frac{\theta T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}$, and $\xi=1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}(1-e^{-\delta{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}})$. Therefore, we prove (\[eq:ebminwb\]). Note that the second derivative $\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)$, required in the computation of the wideband slope $\mathcal{S}_0$, can be obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)&=\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow0}2\frac{{{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)-\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)\zeta}{\zeta^2}\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow0}2\frac{1}{\zeta}\Big(-\frac{1}{\theta
T}\log_e\big(1-P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta T{r_{\text{opt}}}}\big)\big)
+\frac{1}{\theta T}\log_e\big(1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}(1-e^{-\theta
T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}})\big)\Big)\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{\zeta\rightarrow0}-\frac{2}{\theta
T}\frac{\big(p_z({\alpha_{\text{opt}}}){\dot{\alpha}_{\text{opt}}}(\zeta)(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})-P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}\theta Te^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}}{\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}}(\zeta)\big)}{1-P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}}\big)}\label{eq:ddotproof1}\\
&=-\frac{2}{\theta T}\frac{\big(p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}){\dot{\alpha}_{\text{opt}}}(0)(1-e^{-\theta
T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}})-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}\theta Te^{-\theta
T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}}{\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}}(0)\big)}{1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}}\big)}\label{eq:ddotproof2}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}=\frac{{\bar{P}}{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}{N_0\log_e2}$. Above, (\[eq:ddotproof1\]) and (\[eq:ddotproof2\]) follow by using L’Hospital’s Rule and applying Leibniz Integral Rule [@Protter]. Next, we derive an equality satisfied by ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$. Consider the objective function in (\[eq:specec\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:objfunc}
-\frac{1}{\theta TB}\log_e\big(1-P\{z>\alpha\}(1-e^{-\theta
Tr})\big).\end{gathered}$$ It can easily be seen that both as $r \to 0$ and $r \to \infty$, this objective function approaches zero[^7]. Hence, (\[eq:objfunc\]) is maximized at a finite and nonzero value of $r$ at which the derivative of (\[eq:objfunc\]) with respect to $r$ is zero. Differentiating (\[eq:objfunc\]) with respect to $r$ and making it equal to zero leads to the equality that needs to be satisfied at the optimal value ${r_{\text{opt}}}$: $$\label{eq:conditionb}
\frac{2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}p_z({\alpha_{\text{opt}}})N_0\log_e2}{{\bar{P}}}(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})=\theta Te^{-\theta T{r_{\text{opt}}}}P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}$$ where $\zeta = 1/B$. For given $\theta$, as the bandwidth increases (i.e., $\zeta\rightarrow0$), ${r_{\text{opt}}}\to {{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}$. Clearly, ${{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}\neq 0$ in the wideband regime. Because, otherwise, if ${r_{\text{opt}}}\to 0$ and consequently ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\rightarrow0$, the left-hand-side of (\[eq:conditionb\]) becomes zero, while the right-hand-side is different from zero. So, employing (\[eq:stab\]) and taking the limit of both sides of (\[eq:conditionb\]) as $\zeta \to 0$, we can derive that $$\label{eq:conditionbrev}
\frac{p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})N_0\log_e2}{{\bar{P}}}\left(1-e^{-\frac{\theta
T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}\right)=\theta Te^{-\frac{\theta
T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}$$ which, after rearranging, yields $$\label{eq:subsalphab}
\frac{\theta T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\log_e\left(1+\frac{\theta
T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}\frac{P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})}\right).$$ Denoting $\delta=\frac{\theta T{\bar{P}}}{N_0\log_e2}$, we obtain the condition (\[eq:stacondwideband\]) stated in the theorem.
Combining (\[eq:conditionbrev\]) and (\[eq:dotalpha\]) with (\[eq:ddotproof2\]) gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)&=-\frac{N_0\log_e^22}{\theta T{\bar{P}}}\frac{{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}^2
p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})(1-e^{-\theta T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}})}{1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta
T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}}\big)}=-\frac{{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}^2P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\} e^{-\theta
T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}}\log_e2}{1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}\big(1-e^{-\theta T{{{r^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}}\big)}\label{ddotec}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[ddotec\]) and the expression for $\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)$ in (\[eq:ebminb\]) into (\[eq:ebresult\]), we obtain (\[eq:s0wb\]). $\square$
The following result shows that in the wideband regime, $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}$ is the indeed the minimum bit energy.
\[theo:minenergywideband\] In the wideband regime, the bit energy required at zero spectral efficiency (i.e., bit energy required as $B \to \infty$ or equivalently as $\zeta \to 0$) is the minimum bit energy, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}=\frac{-\delta\log_e2}{\log_e\xi} =
\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min}.\end{gathered}$$
*Proof:* Since $\frac{E_b}{N_0} =
\frac{\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0}}{\frac{{{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)}{\zeta}}$, we can show the result by proving that ${{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)/\zeta$ monotonically decreases with increasing $\zeta$, and hence achieves its maximum as $\zeta \to 0$. We first evaluate the first derivative of ${{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)/\zeta$ with respect to $\zeta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d({{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)/\zeta)}{d\zeta} &=-\frac{1}{\theta
T}\frac{\frac{p_z({\alpha_{\text{opt}}})N_0}{{\bar{P}}}\frac{2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}({\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}}\zeta+{r_{\text{opt}}})\zeta\log_e2-(2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}-1)}{\zeta^2}(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})-\theta Te^{-\theta T{r_{\text{opt}}}}{\dot{r}_{\text{opt}}}P(z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}})}{1-P(z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}})(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})}\\
&=-\frac{p_z({\alpha_{\text{opt}}})N_0}{\theta
T{\bar{P}}}\frac{2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta\log_e2-(2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}-1)}{\zeta^2}
\label{eq:R_Ederiv}\end{aligned}$$ where (\[eq:R\_Ederiv\]) is obtained by using the equation $\frac{2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}/B}p_z({\alpha_{\text{opt}}})\log_e2}{B{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})=\theta Te^{-\theta T{r_{\text{opt}}}}P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}$ that needs to be satisfied by ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ and ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$ as shown in the proof of Theorem \[theo:wideband\] in (\[eq:conditionb\]). Note that the probability density function $p_z(z) \ge 0$ for all $z \ge 0$. Hence, if $2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta\log_e2-(2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}-1) \ge 0$ for all ${r_{\text{opt}}}\ge 0$ and $\zeta \ge 0$, then $\frac{d({{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)/\zeta)}{d\zeta}\le 0$ proving that ${{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)/\zeta$ is indeed a monotonically decreasing function of $\zeta$. Now, we denote $x={r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta\geq0$ and define $f(x)=2^x x\log_e2-(2^x-1)$. The first derivative of $f$ with respect to $x$ is $\dot{f}(x)=x2^x(\log_e2)^2\geq0$, implying that $f$ is a monotonically increasing function. Since $f(0) = 0$, we immediately conclude that $f(x) \ge 0$ for all $x \ge 0$. Hence, $2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta\log_e2-(2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}\zeta}-1) \ge 0$ for all ${r_{\text{opt}}}\ge 0$ and $\zeta \ge 0$, $\frac{d({{\sf{R}}}_E(\zeta)/\zeta)}{d\zeta}\leq0$, and $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}}$ is achieved in the limit as $\zeta \to 0$. $\square$
Having analytically characterized the spectral efficiency–bit energy tradeoff in the wideband regime, we now provide numerical results to illustrate the theoretical findings. Fig. \[fig:4\] plots the spectral efficiency curves as a function of the bit energy in the Rayleigh channel. In all the curves, we have ${\bar{P}}/N_{0}=10^4$. Moreover, we set $T = 2$ ms in the numerical results throughout the paper. As predicted by the result of Theorem \[theo:minenergywideband\], $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0} =
\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}}$ in all cases in Fig. \[fig:4\]. It can be found that ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\{1, 0.9858,0.8786,0.4704,0.1177\}$ from which we obtain $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}} = \{2.75, 2.79, 3.114, 5.061, 10.087\}$dB for $\theta = \{0, 0.001,0.01,0.1,1\}$, respectively. For the same set of $\theta$ values in the same sequence, we compute the wideband slope values as $\mathcal{S}_0=\{0.7358,
0.7463,0.8345,1.4073,3.1509\}$. We immediately observe that more stringent QoS constraints and hence higher values of $\theta$ lead to higher minimum bit energy values and also higher energy requirements at other nonzero spectral efficiencies. Fig. \[fig:wbm\] provides the spectral efficiency curves for Nakagami-$m$ fading channels for different values of $m$. In this figure, we set $\theta = 0.01$. For $m = 0.6, 1, 2, 5$, we find that ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}= \{1.0567, 0.8786 0.7476 0.6974\}$, $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}} =\{3.618, 3.114, 2.407, 1.477\}$, and $\mathcal{S}_0 = \{0.6382, 0.8345, 1.1220, 1.4583\}$, respectively. Note that as $m$ increases and hence the channel conditions improve, the minimum bit energy decreases and the wideband slope increases, improving the energy efficiency both at zero spectral efficiency and at nonzero but small spectral efficiency values. As $m \to \infty$, the performance approaches that of the unfaded additive Gaussian noise channel (AWGN) for which we have $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}} = -1.59$ dB and $\mathcal{S}_0 = 2$ [@sergio].
Energy Efficiency in the Low-Power Regime {#sec:lowpower}
=========================================
In this section, we investigate the spectral efficiency–bit energy tradeoff as the average power ${\bar{P}}$ diminishes. We assume that the bandwidth allocated to the channel is fixed. Note that ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}=
{\bar{P}}/(N_0B)$ vanishes with decreasing ${\bar{P}}$, and we again operate in the low-${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ regime similarly as in Section \[sec:wideband\]. However, energy requirements in the low-power regime will be different from those in the wideband regime, because the arrival rates that can be supported get smaller with decreasing power in this regime.
The following result provides the expressions for the bit energy at zero spectral efficiency and the wideband slope.
\[theo:lowpower\] In the low-power regime, the bit energy at zero spectral efficiency and wideband slope are given by $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}=\frac{\log_e2}{{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}} \quad \text{and} \label{eq:ebminlp}\\
\mathcal{S}_0=\frac{2 P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{1+\beta
(1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\})},\label{eq:s0lp}\end{gathered}$$ respectively, where $\beta=\frac{\theta TB}{\log_e2}$ is normalized QoS constraint. In the above formulation, ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ is again defined as $
{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}= \lim_{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0} {\alpha_{\text{opt}}}, $ and ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:stacond}
{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})=P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}.\end{gathered}$$
*Proof:* We first consider the Taylor series expansion of ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ in the low-${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ regime: $$\label{eq:subsR}
{r_{\text{opt}}}=a{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+b{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2+o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2)$$ where $a$ and $b$ are real-valued constants. Substituting (\[eq:subsR\]) into (\[eq:thresh\]), we obtain the Taylor series expansion for ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$: $$\label{eq:subsalpha}
{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}=
\frac{a\log_e2}{B}+\left(\frac{b\log_e2}{B}+\frac{a^2\log_e^2
2}{2B^2}\right){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}).$$ >From (\[eq:subsalpha\]), we note that in the limit as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to
0$, we have $$\label{eq:coeffRa}
{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\frac{a\log_e2}{B}.$$ Next, we obtain the Taylor series expansion with respect to ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ for $P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}$ using the Leibniz Integral Rule [@Protter]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:probalpha}
P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}
=P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}-\left(\frac{b\log_e2}{B}+\frac{a^2\log_e^2
2}{2B^2}\right)p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}).\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[eq:subsR\]), (\[eq:subsalpha\]), and (\[eq:probalpha\]), we find the following series expansion for ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ given in (\[eq:spececopt\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:reducespec}
\hspace{-0.2cm}{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})&=-\frac{1}{\theta
TB}\log_e\Bigg[1-\bigg(P\{z>
{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}-\bigg(\frac{b\log_e2}{B}+\frac{a^2\log_e^2
2}{2B^2}\bigg)p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\phantom{-\frac{1}{\theta T}-1-\bigg(P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}\times\big(\theta
Ta{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+(\theta
Tb-\frac{(\theta Ta)^2}{2}){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2+o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2)\big)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{a P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{B}{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+\frac{1}{B}\Big(-\frac{\theta
Ta^2}{2}P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}-\frac{a^3p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})\log_e^2
2}{2B^2}+\frac{\theta T(P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}a)^2}{2}\Big){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2
+o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2). $$ Then, using (\[eq:coeffRa\]), we immediately derive from (\[eq:reducespec\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)&=\frac{{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{\log_e2},\label{eq:dotec}\\
\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)&=-\frac{{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}^3 p_z\{{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{\log_e2}-\frac{\theta TB{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}^2}{\log_e^2
2}P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}(1-P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}).\label{eq:ddotec}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly as in the discussion in the proof of Theorem \[theo:wideband\] in Section \[sec:wideband\], the optimal fixed-rate ${r_{\text{opt}}}$, akin to (\[eq:conditionb\]), should satisfy $$\label{eq:constthr}
\frac{2^{{r_{\text{opt}}}/B}p_z({\alpha_{\text{opt}}})\log_e2}{B{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})=\theta Te^{-\theta T{r_{\text{opt}}}}P\{z>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}\}.$$ Taking the limits of both sides of (\[eq:constthr\]) as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to
0$ and employing (\[eq:subsR\]), we obtain $$\label{eq:condition}
\frac{a p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})\log_e2}{B}=P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}.$$ >From (\[eq:coeffRa\]), (\[eq:condition\]) simplifies to $$\label{eq:reducedalpha}
{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})=P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\},$$ proving the condition in (\[eq:stacond\]). Moreover, using (\[eq:reducedalpha\]), the first term in the expression for $\ddot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0)$ in (\[eq:ddotec\]) becomes $-\frac{{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}^2
P\{z\geq{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}}{\log_e2}$. Together with this change, evaluating the expressions in (\[eq:ebresult\]) with the results in (\[eq:dotec\]) and (\[eq:ddotec\]), we obtain (\[eq:ebminlp\]) and (\[eq:s0lp\]). $\square$
Next, we show that the equation (\[eq:stacond\]) that needs to be satisfied by ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ has a unique solution for a certain class of fading distributions.
\[theo:stacond\] The equation $ {{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})=P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\} $ has a unique solution when $z$ has a Gamma distribution with integer parameter $n$, i.e., when the probability density function of $z$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:gammadensity0}
p_z(z) = \frac{\lambda^n}{\Gamma(n)} z^{n-1} e^{-\lambda z}\end{gathered}$$ where $n \ge 1$ is an integer, $\lambda > 0$, and $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function [@Grimmett].
*Proof*: See Appendix \[app:stacond\].
*Remark:* In the special case in which $n = \lambda = m$ and $m
\ge 1$ is an integer, the Gamma density (\[eq:gammadensity0\]) becomes $$p_z(z)=\frac{m^m z^{m-1}}{\Gamma(m)}e^{-mz}$$ which is the probability density function of $z = |h|^2$ in Nakagami-$m$ fading channels (with integer $m$)[@book]. Moreover, when $m = 1$, we have the Rayleigh fading channel in which $z$ has an exponential distribution, i.e., $p_{z}(z) = e^{-z}$. Therefore, the result of Theorem \[theo:stacond\] applies for these channels.
*Remark:* Theorem \[theo:lowpower\] shows that the $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}$ for any $\theta \ge 0$ depends only on ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$. From Theorem \[theo:stacond\], we know that if $z$ has the Gamma density function given by (\[eq:gammadensity0\]), then ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ is unique and hence is the same for all $\theta \ge 0$. We immediately conclude from these results that $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}$ also has the same value for all $\theta \ge 0$ and therefore does not depend on $\theta$ when $z$ has the distribution given in (\[eq:gammadensity0\]).
Moreover, using the results of Theorem \[theo:stacond\] above and Theorem \[theo:minenergywideband\] in Section \[sec:wideband\], we can further show that $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}$ is the minimum bit energy. Note that this implies that the same minimum bit energy can be attained regardless of how strict the QoS constraint is. On the other hand, we note that the wideband slope $\mathcal{S}_0$ in general varies with $\theta$.
In the low-power regime, when $\theta = 0$, the minimum bit energy is achieved as ${\bar{P}}\to 0$, i.e., $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0} =
\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min}$. Moreover, if the probability density function of $z$ is in the form given in (\[eq:gammadensity0\]) then the minimum bit energy is achieved as ${\bar{P}}\to 0$, i.e. $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}=
0} = \frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min}$, for all $\theta \ge 0$.
*Proof:* Recall from (\[eq:R\_Etheta0\]) that in the limit as $\theta \to 0$, $$\begin{gathered}
{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},0) = \lim_{\theta \to 0} {{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},\theta) = \max_{r\ge
0} \,\,\frac{r}{B} \, P\left\{z >
\frac{2^{\frac{r}{B}}-1}{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ Since the optimization is performed over all $r \ge 0$, it can be easily seen that the above maximization problem can be recast as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:R_Etheta0equiv}
{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},0) = \max_{x\ge 0} \,\,x \, P\left\{z >
\frac{2^x-1}{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ >From (\[eq:R\_Etheta0equiv\]), we note that ${{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},0)$ depends on $B$ only through ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}= \frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0 B}$. Therefore, increasing $B$ has the same effect as decreasing ${\bar{P}}$. Hence, low-power and wideband regimes are equivalent when $\theta = 0$. Consequently, the result of Theorem \[theo:minenergywideband\], which shows that the minimum bit energy is achieved as $B \to
\infty$, implies that the minimum bit energy is also achieved as ${\bar{P}}\to 0$.
Note that ${{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},\theta) \le {{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},0)$ for $\theta > 0$. Therefore, the bit energy required when $\theta > 0$ is larger than that required when $\theta = 0$. On the other hand, as we have proven in Theorem \[theo:stacond\], ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}$ is unique and the bit energy required as ${\bar{P}}\to 0$ is the same for all $\theta \ge 0$ when $z$ has a Gamma density in the form given in (\[eq:gammadensity0\]). Since the minimum bit energy in the case of $\theta = 0$ is achieved as ${\bar{P}}\to 0$, and the same bit energy is attained for all $\theta > 0$, we immediately conclude that $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0} = \frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min}$ for all $\theta \ge 0$ when $z$ has a Gamma distribution. $\square$
Next, we provide numerical results which confirm the theoretical conclusions and illustrate the impact of QoS constraints on the energy efficiency. We set $B=10^5$ Hz in the computations. Fig. \[fig:2\] plots the spectral efficiency as a function of the bit energy for different values of $\theta$ in the Rayleigh fading channel (or equivalently Nakagami-$m$ fading channel with $m
= 1$) for which ${\mathbb{E}}\{|h|^2\}={\mathbb{E}}\{z\}=1$. In all cases in Fig. \[fig:2\], we readily note that $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0} = \frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}}$. Moreover, as predicted, the minimum bit energy is the same and is equal to the one achieved when there are no QoS constraints (i.e., when $\theta =
0$). From the equation ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}})=P\{z>{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\}$, we can find that ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=1$ in the Rayleigh channel for which $p_z({{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}) = P\{z
> {{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}\} = e^{-{{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}}$. Hence, the minimum bit energy is $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min} = 2.75$ dB. On the other hand, the wideband slopes are $\mathcal{S}_0=\{0.7358, 0.6223,0.2605,0.0382,0.0040\}$ for $\theta=\{0, 0.001,0.01,0.1,1\}$, respectively. Hence, $\mathcal{S}_0$ decreases with increasing $\theta$ and consequently more bit energy is required at a fixed nonzero spectral efficiency. Assuming that the minimum bit energies are the same and considering the linear approximation in (\[eq:linearapprox\]), we can easily show for fixed spectral efficiency ${{\sf{R}}}\left(\frac{E_b}{N_0}\right)$ for which the linear approximation is accurate that the increase in the bit energy in dB, when the QoS exponent increases from $\theta_1$ to $\theta_2$, is $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{dB,
\theta_2}-\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{dB,\theta_1} =
\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{S}_{0,\theta_2}} -
\frac{1}{\mathcal{S}_{0,\theta_1}}\right)
{{\sf{R}}}\left(\frac{E_b}{N_0}\right) 10\log_{10}2.
\label{eq:bitenergydifference}\end{gathered}$$ As observed in Fig. \[fig:2\] (and also as will be seen in Fig. \[fig:3\] below), spectral efficiency curves are almost linear in the low-power regime, validating the accuracy of the linear approximation in (\[eq:linearapprox\]) obtained through $\frac{E_b}{N_0}\Big|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0}$ and $\mathcal{S}_0$.
Fig. \[fig:3\] plots the spectral efficiency curves as a function of the bit energy for Nakagami-$m$ channels for different values of $m$. $\theta$ is set to be 0.01. For $m=\{0.6,1,2,5\}$, we compute that ${{\alpha^{\ast}_{\text{opt}}}}=\{1.2764,1,0.809,0.7279\}$, $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min} = \{3.099, 2.751, 2.176, 1.343\}$, and $\mathcal{S}_0=\{0.1707,0.2605,0.4349,0.7479\}$, respectively. We observe that as $m$ increases and hence the channel quality improves, lower bit energies are required. Finally, in Fig. \[fig:spec-comp\], we plot the spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ for different transmission strategies. The variable-rate/variable-power and variable-rate/fixed-power strategies are studied in [@deli]. We immediately see that substantially more energy is required for fixed-rate/fixed-power transmission schemes considered in this paper.
The Effect of Imperfect Channel Knowledge in the Low-Power Regime {#sec:imperfect}
=================================================================
In this section, as a major difference from the previous sections, we consider the scenario in which neither the transmitter nor the receiver has channel side information prior to transmission. Moreover, we consider a particular fading distribution and assume that the fading coefficients are zero-mean Gaussian random variables with variance $E\{|h|^2\} = E\{z\} = \gamma$. We further assume that the system operates in two phases: training phase and data transmission phase. In the training phase, known pilot symbols are transmitted to enable the receiver to estimate the channel conditions, albeit imperfectly. Following the training phase, data is transmitted, and the receiver, equipped with the estimate of the channel, attempts to recover the data from the received signal. Through this scenario, we investigate the effect of the imperfect channel knowledge on the energy efficiency when the system is subject to QoS constraints. We note that training-based transmission schemes have received much interest due to their practical significance (see e.g., [@Tong] – [@gursoy] and references therein).
Under the block-fading assumption, channel estimation has to be performed every $T$ seconds. We assume that minimum mean-square-error (MMSE) estimation is employed at the receiver. Since the MMSE estimate depends only on the training energy and not on the training duration, it can be easily seen that transmission of a single pilot at every $T$ seconds is optimal. Note that in every frame duration of $T$ seconds, we have $TB$ symbols and the overall available energy is ${\bar{P}}T$. We now assume that each frame consists of a pilot symbol and $TB - 1$ data symbols. The energies of the pilot and data symbols are $$\label{eq:trainpower}
{\mathcal{E}}_t=\rho {\bar{P}}T, \quad\text{and}\quad {\mathcal{E}}_s=\frac{(1-\rho){\bar{P}}T}{TB-1},$$ respectively, where $\rho$ is the fraction of total energy allocated to training. Note that the data symbol energy ${\mathcal{E}}_s$ is obtained by uniformly allocating the remaining energy among the data symbols.
In the training phase, the receiver obtains the MMSE estimate $\hat{h}$ which is a circularly symmetric, complex, Gaussian random variable with mean zero and variance $\frac{\gamma^2 {\mathcal{E}}_t}{\gamma
{\mathcal{E}}_t + N_0}$, i.e., $\hat{h} \sim \mathcal{CN} \left( 0, \frac{\gamma^2 {\mathcal{E}}_t}{\gamma
{\mathcal{E}}_t + N_0} \right)$[@gursoy]. Now, the channel fading coefficient $h$ can be expressed as $h=\hat{h}+\tilde{h}$ where $\tilde{h}$ is the estimate error and $\tilde{h}\sim\mathcal
{CN}(0,\frac{\gamma N_0}{\gamma {\mathcal{E}}_t+N_0})$. Consequently, the channel input-output relation becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:impmodel}
y[i] = \hat{h}[i] x[i] + \tilde{h}[i] x[i] + n[i] \quad i =
1,2,\ldots.\end{gathered}$$ Since finding the capacity of the channel in (\[eq:impmodel\]) is a difficult task[^8], a capacity lower bound is generally obtained by considering the estimate error $\tilde{h}$ as another source of Gaussian noise and treating $\tilde{h}[i] x[i] +
n[i]$ as Gaussian distributed noise uncorrelated from the input. Now, the new noise variance is ${\mathbb{E}}\{|\tilde{h}[i] x[i] + n[i]|^2\} =
\sigma_{\tilde{h}}^2 {\mathcal{E}}_s + N_0$ where $\sigma_{\tilde{h}}^2 =
{\mathbb{E}}\{|\tilde{h}|^2\} = \frac{\gamma N_0}{\gamma {\mathcal{E}}_t+N_0}$ is the variance of the estimate error. Under these assumptions, a lower bound on the instantaneous capacity is given by [@training], [@gursoy] $$\begin{aligned}
C_L&=\frac{TB-1}{T}\log_2\left(1+ \frac{{\mathcal{E}}_s}{\sigma_{\tilde{h}}^2
{\mathcal{E}}_s + N_0} |\hat{h}|^2\right)
=\frac{TB-1}{T} \log_2\left(1+{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}|w|^2\right) \text{ bits/s}
\label{eq:traincap2}\end{aligned}$$ where effective ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ is $$\label{eq:trainsnr}
{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}=\frac{{\mathcal{E}}_s \sigma_{\hat{h}}^2}{\sigma_{\tilde{h}}^2 {\mathcal{E}}_s +
N_0},$$ and $\sigma^2_{\hat{h}} = {\mathbb{E}}\{|\hat{h}|^2\} = \frac{\gamma^2
{\mathcal{E}}_t}{\gamma {\mathcal{E}}_t + N_0}$ is the variance of estimate $\hat{h}$. Note that the rightmost expression in (\[eq:traincap2\]) is obtained by defining $\hat{h} = \sigma_{\hat{h}} w$ where $w$ is a standard Gaussian random variable with zero mean and unit variance, i.e., $w\sim\mathcal {CN}(0,1)$. Since Gaussian is the worst uncorrelated noise [@training], the above-mentioned assumptions lead to a pessimistic model and the rate expression in (\[eq:traincap2\]) is a lower bound to the capacity of the true channel (\[eq:impmodel\]). On the other hand, $C_L$ is a good measure of the rates achieved in communication systems that operate as if the channel estimate were perfect (i.e., in systems where Gaussian codebooks designed for known channels are used, and scaled nearest neighbor decoding is employed at the receiver) [@lapidoth].
Henceforth, we base our analysis on $C_L$ to understand the impact of the imperfect channel estimate. Similarly, as in Section \[sec:model\], we assume that the transmitter sends information at the fixed rate of $r$ bits/s, and the channel is in the ON state if $r < C_L$. Otherwise, it is in the OFF state. The transition probabilities are given by $$\begin{aligned}
p_{11}=p_{21}=P\{|w|^2 \le \alpha\} \quad \text{and} \quad
p_{22}=p_{12}=P\{|w|^2 > \alpha\}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:trainthresh}
\alpha=\frac{2^{\frac{rT}{TB-1}}-1}{{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}},$$ and $|w|^2$ is an exponential random variable with mean $1$, and hence, $P\{|w|^2 > \alpha\} = e^{-\alpha}$. Now, the normalized effective capacity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},\theta)&=\max_{\substack{r\geq0 \\ 0\leq
\rho\leq1}}{-\frac{1}{\theta
TB}\log_e\big(1-P(|w|^2>\alpha)(1-e^{-\theta
Tr})\big)} \text{ bits/s/Hz} \label{eq:trainopti}\\
&=-\frac{1}{\theta TB}\log_e\big(1-P(|w|^2>{\alpha_{\text{opt}}})(1-e^{-\theta
T{r_{\text{opt}}}})\big) \text{ bits/s/Hz} \label{eq:trainopti2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ is obtained by optimizing both the fixed transmission rate $r$ and the fraction of power allocated to training, $\rho$. In the optimization result (\[eq:trainopti2\]), ${r_{\text{opt}}}$ and ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$ are the optimal values of $r$ and $\alpha$, respectively. We first obtain the following result on the optimal value of $\rho$.
\[theo:optrho\] At a given ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ level, the optimal fraction of power ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$ that solves (\[eq:trainopti\]) does not depend on the QoS exponent $\theta$ and the transmission rate $r$, and is given by $$\label{eq:optrho}
{\rho_{\text{opt}}}=\sqrt{\eta(\eta+1)}-\eta$$ where $\eta=\frac{\gamma TB{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+TB-1}{\gamma TB(TB-2){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}$ and ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}= \frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0B}$.
*Proof:* From (\[eq:trainopti\]) and the definition of $\alpha$ in (\[eq:trainthresh\]), we can easily see that for fixed $r$, the only term in (\[eq:trainopti\]) that depends on $\rho$ is $\alpha$. Moreover, $\alpha$ has this dependency through ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}$. Therefore, ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$ that maximizes the objective function in (\[eq:trainopti\]) can be found by minimizing $\alpha$, or equivalently maximizing ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}$. Substituting the definitions in (\[eq:trainpower\]) and the expressions for $\sigma_{\hat{h}}^2$ and $\sigma_{\tilde{h}}^2$ into (\[eq:trainsnr\]), we have $$\label{eq:trainsnref}
{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}=\frac{{\mathcal{E}}_s \sigma_{\hat{h}}^2}{\sigma_{\tilde{h}}^2 {\mathcal{E}}_s +
N_0} = \frac{\rho(1-\rho)\gamma^2T^2B^2{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2}{\rho \gamma
TB(TB-2){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+\gamma TB{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+TB-1}$$ where ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}=\frac{{\bar{P}}}{N_0 B}$. Evaluating the derivative of ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}$ with respect to $\rho$ and making it equal to zero leads to the expression in (\[eq:optrho\]). Clearly, ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$ is independent of $\theta$ and $r$.
Above, we have implicitly assumed that the maximization is performed with respect to first $\rho$ and then $r$. However, the result will not alter if the order of the maximization is changed. Note that the objective function in (\[eq:trainopti\]) $$\begin{gathered}
g({{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}},r)= - \frac{1}{\theta
TB}\log_e\left(1-P\left(|w|^2>\frac{2^{\frac{rT}{TB-1}}-1}{{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}}\right)(1-e^{-\theta
Tr})\right)\end{gathered}$$ is a monotonically increasing function of ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}$ for all $r$. It can be easily verified that maximization does not affect the monotonicity of $g$, and hence $\max_{r \ge 0} g({{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}},r)$ is still a monotonically increasing function of ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}$. Therefore, in the outer maximization with respect to $\rho$, the choice of $\rho$ that maximizes ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}}$ will also maximize $\max_{r \ge 0}
g({{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff}}},r)$, and the optimal value of $\rho$ is again given by (\[eq:optrho\]). $\square$
Fig. \[fig:5\] plots ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$, the optimal fraction of power allocated to training, as a function of ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ for different values of $\theta$ when $B=10^7$ Hz. As predicted, ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$ is the same for all $\theta$. Note that as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0$, we have $\eta \to \infty$ and ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}\to 1/2$, which is also observed in the figure. We further observe in Fig. \[fig:5\] that ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$ decreases with increasing ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$. Moreover, as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to \infty$, we can find that $\eta \to \frac{1}{TB-2}$ and hence ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}\to
\sqrt{\frac{1}{TB-2} \left( \frac{1}{TB-2} + 1\right)} -
\frac{1}{TB-2}$. In the figure, we assume $T = 2$ms, and therefore $TB = 2\times 10^4$ and ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}\to 0.007$.
With the optimal value of $\rho$ given in Theorem \[theo:optrho\], we can now express the normalized effective capacity as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Reimperf}
{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},\theta)=\max_{r\geq0 }- \frac{1}{\theta
TB}\log_e\left(1-P\left(|w|^2>\frac{2^{\frac{rT}{TB-1}}-1}{{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}}\right)(1-e^{-\theta
Tr})\right)\end{gathered}$$ where $$\label{eq:trainsnrefrev}
{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}=\frac{\phi({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2}{\psi({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}){{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}+TB-1},$$ and $$\phi({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})={\rho_{\text{opt}}}(1-{\rho_{\text{opt}}})\gamma^2T^2B^2,\text{ and }
\psi({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})=(1+(TB-2){\rho_{\text{opt}}})\gamma TB.$$ The formulation in (\[eq:Reimperf\]) is very similar to that in (\[eq:specec\]). The difference is that we have $\alpha =
\frac{2^{\frac{rT}{TB-1}}-1}{{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}}$ in (\[eq:Reimperf\]) as opposed to having $\alpha = \frac{2^{\frac{r}{B}}-1}{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}$ in (\[eq:specec\]). Hence, apart from the change in the scalar that multiplies $r$ in the expression of $\alpha$, the main difference is that ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ in (\[eq:Reimperf\]) is essentially a function of ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}$. Using this similarity, we obtain the following result that shows us that operation at very low power levels is extremely energy inefficient and should be avoided.
\[theo:imperfect\] In the case of imperfectly-known channel, the bit energy increases without bound as the average power ${\bar{P}}$ and hence ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ vanishes, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{E_b}{N_0}\bigg|_{{{\sf{R}}}= 0} = \lim_{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0} \frac{E_b}{N_0}
= \lim_{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0} \frac{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}}{{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})} =
\frac{1}{\dot{{{\sf{R}}}_E}(0)} = \infty.\end{gathered}$$
*Proof*: As discussed above, the normalized effective capacity expressions in (\[eq:Reimperf\]) and (\[eq:specec\]) are similar. Essentially, ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ in (\[eq:Reimperf\]) can be seen to be a function of ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}$. Then, using the techniques in the proof of Theorem \[theo:lowpower\], we can easily obtain the following first-order low-${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ expansion similar to that in (\[eq:reducespec\]): $$\begin{aligned}
{{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}) &= \frac{a P\{|w|^2 > {\alpha_{\text{opt}}}^*\}}{B} {{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}+
o({{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}})
\\
&= \frac{TB-1}{TB} \,\,\frac{{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}^* P\{|w|^2 >
{\alpha_{\text{opt}}}^*\}}{\log_e2} {{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}+ o({{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}) \label{eq:Reexpansion}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\alpha_{\text{opt}}}^* = \lim_{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0} {\alpha_{\text{opt}}}$. Note that as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0$, $\eta \to \infty$, ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}\to 1/2$, and hence $\phi({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})
\to 1/4 \gamma^2 T^2 B^2$. Then, we have $$\begin{gathered}
{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}= \frac{\gamma^2 T^2 B^2}{4(TB-1)} {{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2 + o({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2).\end{gathered}$$ Hence, ${{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}_{\text{eff,opt}}}$ scales as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2$ as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ diminishes to zero, which implies from (\[eq:Reexpansion\]) that ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ scales as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}^2$ as well. Therefore, the first derivative of ${{\sf{R}}}_E$ with respect to ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ is zero at ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}= 0$, i.e., $\dot{{{\sf{R}}}}_E(0) =
0$, leading to the result that $\lim_{{{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0} \frac{E_b}{N_0} =
\infty$. $\square$
Next, we illustrate the analytical results through numerical computations. Fig. \[fig:6\] plots the spectral efficiency vs. bit energy for $\theta=\{1,0.1,0.01,0.001\}$ when $B=10^5$ Hz. We immediately notice a different behavior as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}\to 0$ and hence the spectral efficiency decreases. As predicted by the result of Theorem \[theo:imperfect\], the bit energy increases without bound as ${{\sf{R}}}_E \to 0$ in all cases. The minimum bit energy is achieved at a nonzero spectral efficiency below which one should avoid operating as it only increases the energy requirements. In Fig. \[fig:ebsnr\], we plot $\frac{E_b}{N_0}$ as a function of ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ for different bandwidth levels assuming $\theta = 0.01$. We again observe that the minimum bit energy is attained at a nonzero ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ value below which $\frac{E_b}{N_0}$ requirements start increasing. Furthermore, we see that as the bandwidth increases, the minimum bit energy tends to decrease and is achieved at a lower ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ level. Finally, we plot in Fig. \[fig:7\] the minimum bit energy as a function of the bandwidth, $B$. We note that increasing $B$ generally decreases $\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{\min}$ when $\theta = 0$. However, for the cases in which $\theta > 0$ and there exist QoS constraints, there is no improvement as $B$ is increased above a certain value.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have considered the effective capacity as a measure of the maximum throughput under statistical QoS constraints, and analyzed the energy efficiency of fixed-rate transmission schemes over fading channels. In particular, we have investigated the spectral efficiency–bit energy tradeoff in the low-power and wideband regimes. We have obtained expressions for the bit energy at zero spectral efficiency and the wideband slope, which provide a linear approximation to the spectral efficiency curve at low ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$s. In the wideband regime, we have shown that the bit energy required at zero spectral efficiency (or equivalently at infinite bandwidth) is the minimum bit energy. We have proven a similar result in the low-power regime for a certain class of fading distributions. Through this analysis, we have quantified the increased energy requirements in the presence of QoS constraints in both wideband and low-power regimes. In the wideband regime, we have noted that the minimum bit energy and wideband slope in general depend on the QoS exponent $\theta$. As the QoS constraints become more stringent and hence $\theta$ is increased, we have observed in the numerical results that the required minimum bit energy increases. On the other hand, in the low power regime, we have shown for a class of fading distributions that the same minimum bit energy is achieved for all $\theta$. However, we have seen that the wideband slope decreases as $\theta$ increases, increasing the energy requirements at nonzero spectral efficiency values.
We have also analyzed energy efficiency in a scenario in which the fading coefficients are not known prior to transmission and are estimated imperfectly by the receiver with the aid of training symbols. We have identified the optimal fraction of power allocated to training and shown that this optimal fraction do not depend on the QoS exponent $\theta$ and the transmission rate. In this scenario, we have further shown that the bit energy requirements grow without bound in the low-power regime as ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ vanishes. This result shows that the minimum bit energy is attained at a certain ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ value, operating below which should be avoided.
[1.1]{}
[99]{}
S. Verd$\acute{\text{u}}$, “Spectral efficiency in the wideband regime,” *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol.48, no.6 pp.1319-1343. Jun. 2002.
A. Ephremides and B. Hajek, “Information theory and communication networks: An unconsummated union," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol. 44, pp. 2416-2434, Oct. 1998.
D. Wu and R. Negi “Effective capacity: a wireless link model for support of quality of service,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol.2,no. 4, pp.630-643. July 2003
D. Wu and R. Negi,“Downlink scheduling in a cellular network for quality-of-service assurance,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.53, no.5, pp. 1547-1557, Sep., 2004.
D. Wu and R. Negi, “Utilizing multiuser diversity for efficient support of quality of service over a fading channel,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.49, pp. 1073-1096, May 2003.
J. Tang and X. Zhang, “Quality-of-service driven power and rate adaptation over wireless links,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 8, pp.3058-3068, Aug. 2007.
J. Tang and X. Zhang, “Quality-of-service driven power and rate adaptation for multichannel communications over wireless links,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 12, pp.4349-4360, Dec. 2007.
J. Tang and X. Zhang, “Cross-layer modeling for quality of service guarantees over wireless links,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 12, pp.4504-4512, Dec. 2007.
J. Tang and X. Zhang, “Cross-layer-model based adaptive resource allocation for statistical QoS guarantees in mobile wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, pp.2318-2328, June 2008.
L. Liu, P. Parag, J. Tang, W.-Y. Chen and J.-F. Chamberland, “Resource allocation and quality of service evaluation for wireless communication systems using fluid models,” *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1767-1777, May 2007
L. Liu, P. Parag, and J.-F. Chamberland, “Quality of service analysis for wireless user-cooperation networks," *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 3833-3842, Oct. 2007
L. Liu, and J.-F. Chamberland, “On the effective capacities of multiple-antenna Gaussian channels," IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Toronto, 2008.
M.C. Gursoy, D. Qiao, and S. Velipasalar, “Analysis of energy efficiency in fading channel under QoS constrains,” submitted to the *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, 2007; conference version to appear at the IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2008.
C.-S. Chang, “Stability, queue length, and delay of deterministic and stochastic queuing networks,” *IEEE Trans. Auto. Control*, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 913-931, May 1994
C.-S. Chang, *Performance Guarantees in Communication Networks*, New York: Springer, 1995
P. Sadeghi and P. Rapajic, “Capacity analysis for finite-state Markov mapping of flat-fading channels," *IEEE Trans. Commun.* vol. 53, pp. 833-840, May 2005.
L. Tong, B. M. Sadler, and M. Dong, “Pilot-assisted wireless transmission," *IEEE Signal Processing Mag.*, pp. 12-25, Nov. 2004.
B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in multiple-antenna wireless links”, *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol. 49, pp. 951-963, Apr. 2003.
M. C. Gursoy, “On the capacity and energy efficiency of training-based transmissions over fading channels,” submitted for publication. Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3277.
A. Lapidoth and S. Shamai (Shitz), “Fading channels: How perfect need ’perfect side information’ be?,” *IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory*, vol. 48, pp. 1118-1134, May 2002.
A. Goldsmith, *Wireless Communications*, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Tim Szigeti and Christina Hattingh, *End-to-End QoS Network Design: Quality of Service in LANs, WANs, and VPNs*, Cisco Press, 2004.
M. H. Protter, C. B. Morrey, and C. B. Morrey, Jr., *A First Course in Real Analysis*, 2nd ed., Springer, 1991.
G. R. Grimmett and D. R. Stirzaker, *Probability and Random Processes*, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 1998.
I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, *Table of Integrals, Series, and Products*, Academic Press, 2000.
Proof of Theorem \[theo:stacond\] {#app:stacond}
---------------------------------
We consider the following class of Gamma density functions: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{appeq:gammadensity}
p_z(z) = \frac{\lambda^n}{\Gamma(n)} z^{n-1} e^{-\lambda z}\end{gathered}$$ where $n \ge 1$ is an integer, $\lambda > 0$ and $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the Gamma function. Note that for positive integer $n$, $\Gamma(n) =
(n-1)!$. For the above type of density functions, the complementary cumulative distribution function is given by [@Gradsh Sec. 8.35] $$\begin{gathered}
P\{z > x\} = 1 - \frac{1}{\Gamma(n)} \, \gamma(n, \lambda x) =
e^{-\lambda x} \sum_{m = 0}^{n-1} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!}\end{gathered}$$ where $\gamma(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the incomplete Gamma function. Note that $P\{z > x\}$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $x \ge
0$.
Next, we consider the function $$\begin{gathered}
f(x) = x p_z(x) = \frac{\lambda^n}{\Gamma(n)} x^n e^{-\lambda x}.\end{gathered}$$ It can be immediately found that the derivative of $f$ with respect to $x$ is $\frac{d f(x)}{dx} = \frac{\lambda^n}{\Gamma(n)} x^{n-1}
e^{-\lambda x} (n -\lambda x)$, from which we conclude that $f$ is a monotonically increasing function for $0 \le x \le n/\lambda$ and a monotonically decreasing function for $x > n/\lambda$. Clearly, $f$ achieves its maximum at $x = n/\lambda$. Next, we show for all $x >
n/\lambda$ that $$\begin{aligned}
x p_z(x) - P\{z > x\} &= \frac{\lambda^n}{\Gamma(n)}
x^n e^{-\lambda x} - e^{-\lambda x} \sum_{m = 0}^{n-1}
\frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!}
\\
&= e^{-\lambda x} \left( \frac{(\lambda x)^n }{(n-1)!} - \sum_{m =
0}^{n-1} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!} \right) \label{eq:pdf-cdf0}
\\
&= e^{-\lambda x} \left( \frac{(\lambda x)^n}{(n-1)!} -\frac{
(\lambda x)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} - \sum_{m = 0}^{n-2} \frac{(\lambda
x)^m}{m!} \right) \label{eq:pdf-cdf1}
\\
&= e^{-\lambda x} \left( \frac{(\lambda x)^{n-1} (\lambda x -
1)}{(n-1)!} - \sum_{m = 0}^{n-2} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!} \right)
\label{eq:pdf-cdf2}
\\
&> e^{-\lambda x} \left( \frac{(\lambda x)^{n-1}}{(n-2)!} - \sum_{m
= 0}^{n-2} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!} \right) \quad \forall x >
n/\lambda \label{eq:pdf-cdf3}
\\
&> 0 \quad \forall x > n/\lambda. \label{eq:pdf-cdf4}\end{aligned}$$ Above, (\[eq:pdf-cdf1\]) is obtained by writing $\sum_{m =
0}^{n-1} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!} = \frac{ (\lambda
x)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} - \sum_{m = 0}^{n-2} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!}$. (\[eq:pdf-cdf2\]) follows after rearranging the terms. (\[eq:pdf-cdf3\]) is obtained by noting that $\lambda x - 1 > n -
1$ for $x > n/\lambda$, and therefore $\frac{\lambda x - 1}{(n-1)!}
> \frac{1}{(n-2)!}$. Finally, (\[eq:pdf-cdf4\]) can easily be verified by applying repetitively the same steps as in (\[eq:pdf-cdf1\]) – (\[eq:pdf-cdf3\]) to the other terms in the summation $\sum_{m = 0}^{n-2} \frac{(\lambda x)^m}{m!}$.
(\[eq:pdf-cdf4\]) shows that after reaching its maximum at $x =
n/\lambda$, the function $f$ is always greater than $P(z \geq x)$ and hence the two never intersect for $x > n/\lambda$. Note that, for $0 \le x \le n/\lambda$, $f$ is a monotonically increasing function. Moreover, $f(0) = 0$. On the other hand, $P\{z > x\}$ is always a monotonically decreasing function of $x \ge 0$. Note also that at $x = 0$, $P\{z > 0\} = 1$. Using these facts, we immediately conclude that the function $f(x) = x p_z(x)$ and $P\{z
> x\}$ intersect only once in the interval $0 \le x \le
n/\lambda$. Therefore, $x p_z(x) = P(z > x)$ has a unique solution for $x \ge 0$ when Gamma densities in the form given in (\[appeq:gammadensity\]) are considered.
![The general system model.[]{data-label="fig:0"}](model.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![ON-OFF state transition model.[]{data-label="fig:00"}](onoff.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ in the Rayleigh channel.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](spec_eb_b.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ in Nakagami-$m$ channels; $\theta=0.01$, $m = 0.6, 1, 2, 5$.[]{data-label="fig:wbm"}](wbm.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ in the Rayleigh channel (equivalently Nakagami-$m$ channel with $m=1$).[]{data-label="fig:2"}](spec_eb_snr.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ in Nakagami-$m$ channels; $\theta=0.01$, $m = 0.6, 1, 2, 5$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](naka_m.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ in the Rayleigh channel; $\theta=0.001$.[]{data-label="fig:spec-comp"}](spec_eb_snr-upd.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Optimal portion ${\rho_{\text{opt}}}$ vs. ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ in the Rayleigh channel. $B=10^7$ Hz.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](deltam=10.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![Spectral efficiency vs. $E_b/N_0$ in the Rayleigh channel. $B=10^5$.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](spec_eb_m=10.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![$E_b/N_0$ vs. ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$ in the Rayleigh channel. $\theta$=0.01.[]{data-label="fig:ebsnr"}](mminebsnr.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
![$\frac{E_b}{N_0}_{{\text{min}}} $vs. $B$ in the Rayleigh channel.[]{data-label="fig:7"}](ebinvm.eps){width="\figsize\textwidth"}
[^1]: The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588 (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]).
[^2]: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants CCF – 0546384 (CAREER) and CNS – 0834753.
[^3]: The formulation in (\[eq:p\_22\]) assumes as before that the symbol rate is $B$ symbols/s and hence we have $TB$ symbols in a duration of $T$ seconds.
[^4]: This assumption also enables us to compare the results of this paper with those in [@deli] in which variable-rate/variable-power and variable-rate/fixed-power transmission schemes are studied for block fading channels.
[^5]: For time-varying arrival rates, effective capacity specifies the effective bandwidth of the arrival process that can be supported by the channel.
[^6]: Since the results in the paper are generally obtained for fixed but arbitrary $\theta$, the normalized effective capacity is often expressed in the paper as ${{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}})$ instead of ${{\sf{R}}}_E({{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}},\theta)$ to avoid cumbersome expressions.
[^7]: Note that $\alpha$ increases without bound with increasing $r$.
[^8]: In [@gursoy], the capacity of training-based transmissions under input peak power constraints is shown to be achieved by an ${{\text{\footnotesize{SNR}}}}$-dependent, discrete distribution with a finite number of mass points. In such cases, no closed-form expression for the capacity exists, and capacity values need to be obtained through numerical computations.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'T. Van Reeth'
- 'A. Tkachenko'
- 'C. Aerts'
bibliography:
- 'Rotation\_paper.bib'
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: 'The interior rotation of a sample of $\gamma$ Doradus stars from ensemble modelling of their gravity mode period spacings[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Gamma Dor stars are early F- to late A-type stars (with $1.4\,M_\odot \lesssim M
\lesssim 2.0\,M_\odot$) which exhibit non-radial gravity and/or gravito-inertial mode pulsations [e.g. @Kaye1999]. This places them directly within the transition region between low-mass stars with a convective envelope and intermediate-mass stars with a convective core, where the CNO-cycle becomes increasingly important relative to the pp-chain as the dominant hydrogen burning mechanism [e.g. @Silva2011]. The pulsations in $\gamma$Dor stars are excited by the flux blocking mechanism at the bottom of the convective envelope [@Guzik2000; @Dupret2005], though the $\kappa$ mechanism has been linked to $\gamma$Dor type pulsations as well [@Xiong2016]. The oscillations predominantly trace the radiative region near the convective core boundary. As a result these pulsators are ideal to characterise the structure of the deep stellar interior.
As shown by @Tassoul1980, high order ($n \gg l$) gravity modes are asymptotically equidistant in period for non-rotating chemically homogeneous stars with a convective core and a radiative envelope. This study was further expanded upon by @Miglio2008a. The authors found characteristic dips to be present in the period spacing series when the influence of a chemical gradient is included in the analysis. The periodicity of the deviations is related to the location of the chemical gradient, while the amplitude of the dips was found to be indicative of the steepness of the gradient. @Bouabid2013 further improved upon the study by including the effects of both diffusive mixing and rotation, which they introduced using the traditional approximation. The authors concluded that the mixing processes partially wash out the chemical gradients inside the star, resulting in a reduced amplitude for the dips in the spacing pattern. Stellar rotation introduces a shift in the pulsation frequencies, leading to a slope in the period spacing pattern. Zonal and prograde modes, as seen by an observer in an inertial frame of reference, were found to have a downward slope, while the pattern for the retrograde [high order]{} modes has an upward slope.
Over the past decade the observational study of pulsating stars has benefitted tremendously from several space-based photometric missions, such as MOST [@Walker2003], CoRoT [@Auvergne2009] and *Kepler* [@Koch2010]. While typically only a handful of modes could be resolved using ground-based data, the space missions have provided us with near-continuous high S/N observations of thousands of stars on a long time base, resulting in the accurate determination of dozens to hundreds of pulsation frequencies for many targets. In particular, this has proven to be invaluable for $\gamma$Dor stars, as their gravity and/or gravito-inertial mode frequencies form a very dense spectrum in the range of 0.3 to 3$\rm
d^{-1}$. Period spacing patterns have now been detected for dozens of $\gamma$Dor stars [e.g. @Chapellier2012; @Kurtz2014; @Bedding2015; @Saio2015; @Keen2015; @VanReeth2015; @Murphy2016].
In this study we focus on the period spacing patterns detected by @VanReeth2015 in a sample of 68 $\gamma$Dor stars with spectroscopic characterisation and aim to derive the stars’ internal rotation rate and the asymptotic period spacing value of the series. This serves as a first step for future detailed analyses of differential rotation, similar to the studies which have previously been carried out in slow rotators among g-mode pulsators interpreted recently in terms of angular momentum transport by internal gravity waves [e.g., @Triana2015; @Rogers2015]. In this paper we present a grid of theoretical models, which we use as a starting point (Section \[sec:grid\]), and explain our methodology to derive the rotation frequency (Section \[sec:method\]). The method is illustrated with applications on synthetic data (Section \[subsec:synthdata\]), a slowly rotating star with rotational splitting, KIC9751996, and a fast rotator with a prograde and a retrograde period spacing series, KIC12066947 (Section \[subsec:slowfast\]). We then analyse the sample as a whole (Section \[subsec:sample\]), before moving on to the discussion and plans for future in-depth modelling of individual targets (Section \[sec:conclusions\]).
Grid of stellar models and pulsation frequencies {#sec:grid}
================================================
We first computed a rough grid of theoretical stellar models to gain further insight into the internal structure and properties of $\gamma$Dor stars. To allow for a complete understanding, the models were purposely kept relatively simple. We did not include any rotational effects into the equilibrium models, allowing us to assume spherical symmetry and compute 1-dimensional models with the 1D MESA stellar evolution code [v7385; @Paxton2011; @Paxton2013; @Paxton2015]. The convection was treated using the mixing length theory with $\alpha_{\rm MLT} = 1.8$ and the Ledoux criterion with $\alpha_{\rm sc} = 0.01$. A single diffusive mixing coefficient was defined in the radiative region and fixed at a value of $1\,cm^2s^{-1}$. We used the solar metallicity values given by @Asplund2009 and OPAL type I opacity tables [@Rogers2002]. The varying parameter values of the models in the grid are given in Table \[tab:mesa\].
For each of the models in our grid we also computed the asymptotic period spacing $$\Delta\Pi_l = \frac{\Pi_0}{\sqrt{l(l+1)}},
\label{eq:1}$$ with $$\Pi_0
= 2\pi^2\left(\int_{r_1}^{r_2}N\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{r}\right)^{-1},
\label{eq:2}$$ as derived by @Tassoul1980 for high-order gravity modes. Here $l$ is the spherical degree of the pulsation mode, $r$ is the distance from the stellar center, $N$ is the Brunt-Väisälä frequency and the boundaries of the mode trapping region are marked by $r_1$ and $r_2$ [@Aerts2010]. While $\Delta\Pi_l$ is smaller for larger values of $l$ (Eq.\[eq:1\]), $\Delta\Pi_l$ also changes as the star evolves. We have therefore calculated the probability of observing different spacing values using the stellar ages in our grid models. As shown in Fig.\[fig:Spacing\_dist\], we typically expect $\Delta\Pi_l$ values on the order of 3100$s$ and 1800$s$ for $l=1$ and $l=2$ respectively, which in turn implies $\Pi_0$ is on the order of $4400\,s$. In addition, there are strong linear correlations for $\Delta\Pi_l$ between models with different values of $M$, $Z$, $X$, $f_{\rm ov}$ and $\alpha_{\rm ov}$, assuming a fixed hydrogen abundance $X_c$ in the convective core.
As shown by @Bouabid2013 and as observed by @VanReeth2015, gravity-mode period spacing patterns are heavily influenced by rotation. We therefore introduced the influence of rotation on the pulsation periods using the traditional approximation [@Eckart1960; @Lee1987; @Townsend2005]. In this framework the $\theta$-component of the rotation vector is ignored [@Lee1997] and it is assumed that the star is sufficiently slowly rotating, so the effects of the centrifugal force can be neglected. While this particular assumption may not always be applicable, gravity-modes and gravito-inertial modes are mostly sensitive to the stellar properties near the convective core, where the rotational deformation of the star remains limited. This is illustrated in Fig.\[fig:kernels\], which shows both the Brunt-Väisälä frequency $N$ and the rotational kernel $K_{nl}$ for the lowest- and highest-order mode of the stellar model discussed in Sec.\[subsec:synthdata\]. Both functions correlate with the sensitivity of the pulsations to the different regions in the star and peak near the convective core boundary. The rotational kernel $K_{nl}$ specifically indicates the sensitivity of the pulsations to the local stellar rotation profile. Thus, the rotational frequencies deduced from pulsational properties throughout this paper correspond with the near-core interior rotation rates.
@Ballot2011 showed that the traditional approximation continues to perform adequately if the spin parameter $|s| \leq 2$ [see @Ballot2011 Fig.2], with $$s = \frac{2f_{\rm rot}}{f_{co}}, \label{eq:3}$$ where $f_{\rm rot}$ ($=\Omega/2\pi$) and $f_{co}$ are the stellar rotation frequency and the pulsation frequency in the corotating frame respectively. Thanks to the assumptions made in the traditional approximation, the computational requirements for the effects of rotation are dramatically reduced. In this work, we used the traditional approximation module from the 1D pulsation code GYRE v4.3 [@Townsend2013], and follow the approach described by @Ballot2011 and @Bouabid2013. These authors show that, within the traditional approximation, an asymptotic pulsation period series can be rewritten for a rotating star as $$P_{nlm,co} = \frac{\Pi_0}{\sqrt{\lambda_{l,m,s}}}(n + \alpha_{g}),
\label{eq:4}$$ where $P_{nlm,co}$ is the pulsation period of radial order $n$, spherical degree $l$ and azimuthal order $m$ in the corotating frame. In this paper, we adopt the convention that $m >
0$ corresponds with prograde modes and $m < 0$ with retrograde modes, respectively. In this equation, $\lambda_{l,m,s}$ is the eigenvalue of the Laplace tidal equation depending on $l$, $m$, and the spin parameter $s$, while the phase term $\alpha_{g}$ depends on the internal stellar properties at the boundaries of the pulsation mode cavity and can be taken to be 0.5 for stars with a convective core and a convective envelope, such as $\gamma$Dor stars. In the limit of a non-rotating star, where $s = 0$, this expression reduces to $$P_{nl} =
\frac{\Pi_0}{\sqrt{l(l+1)}}(n + \alpha_{g}),\label{eq:5}$$ in agreement with Eq.(\[eq:1\]) and as derived by @Tassoul1980. For each of the models in our grid, we computed the $l=1$ and $l=2$ mode frequencies for radial orders ranging from 5 to 120.
parameter begin end step size
-------------------------------------- ------- ------- -----------
mass $M$ \[$M_\odot$\] 1.4 2.0 0.05
metallicity $Z$ 0.010 0.018 0.004
exp. core overshooting $f_{ov}$ 0.001 0.03 0.0075
step core overshooting $\alpha_{ov}$ 0.01 0.3 0.075
initial hydrogen abundance $X_i$ 0.69 0.73 0.02
: \[tab:mesa\] The parameter values of the computed grid of 1170 MESA evolutionary tracks, consisting of some 900,000 models.
![\[fig:Spacing\_dist\]The distributions of the asymptotic period spacing values $\Delta\Pi_l$ for spherical degree $l=1$ and $2$, computed for the MESA evolution tracks with the input parameters provided in Table \[tab:mesa\]. For the computation of the distributions the ages and evolution rates of the stellar models were taken into account.](Spacing_dist_grey.pdf){width="88mm"}
![\[fig:kernels\] The Brunt-Väisälä frequency $N$ (*top*) and the rotational kernel $K_{nl}$ (*bottom*) for the lowest- and highest-order mode of the stellar model discussed in Sec.\[subsec:synthdata\]. The inset shows a zoom of $K_{nl}$. Both functions correlate with the sensitivity of the gravity-mode pulsations to the different regions inside the star.](kernels.pdf){width="88mm"}
Methodology {#sec:method}
===========
As we have discussed in the previous section, the influence of rotation on the pulsation frequencies depends on the values of both $l$ and $m$, while the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$ is dependent of the value of $l$ (Eq.\[eq:1\]). It is therefore necessary to have a pulsation mode identification if we wish to constrain the rotation profile of the observed star properly.
To derive a reliable estimate of the rotation rate of a $\gamma$Dor star with one or more observed period spacing patterns, we consider all the possible combinations of $l$ and $m$-values for the mode identification of the GYRE pulsation frequencies computed for the MESA models in our grid. For each combination of (l,m), we compute the asymptotic spacing value $\Delta\Pi_l$, as expressed in Eq.(\[eq:1\]) and subsequently correct it in the framework of the traditional approximation according to Eq.(\[eq:5\]). This is illustrated graphically in Fig.\[fig:method\]. Because the application of a rotational frequency shift does not introduce dips into the period spacing patterns, we do not need to take them into account at this point. A uniform period spacing series is sufficient for our needs.
The pulsation frequencies in this series are then rotationally shifted using the traditional approximation, as described by Eq.\[eq:4\] and assuming the star is rigidly rotating. The values of the pulsation periods in the inertial reference frame are then obtained by $$P_{\rm inert} = \frac{1}{f_{co}
+ mf_{\rm rot}}.\label{eq:6}$$ This introduces a slope into the model spacing series, as shown in Fig.\[fig:method\]. The resulting pattern is subsequently fitted to the observed period spacing series using $\chi^2$-minimisation, optimising for the variables $\Delta\Pi_l$ and $f_{rot}$. Finally, we select the best solution for all studied $l$ and $m$ values, taking into account the theoretical expectations for the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$, as shown in Fig.\[fig:Spacing\_dist\] and derived from our model grid in Sec.\[sec:grid\]. From this fit, we then obtain estimates for the rotation rate $f_{rot}$ and the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$, as well as a mode identification.
![\[fig:method\] Illustration of our methodology to derive the rotation rate $f_{\rm rot}$ and asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$ from an observed period spacing pattern (black dots). An equidistant spacing series (grey squares) is defined, rotationally shifted (white squares) and fitted to the observed pattern using $\chi^2$-minimisation, optimising for the variables $l$, $m$, $\Delta\Pi_l$ and $f_{rot}$.](method_fig.pdf){width="88mm"}
Applications {#sec:appl}
============
Synthetic data {#subsec:synthdata}
--------------
To illustrate our method we first analyse a simulated period spacing pattern. The simulated data were computed using the MESA and GYRE codes with the input values provided in Table \[tab:synth\], further taking ($l$,$m$) = (1,1). For the computation of the evolution track itself the influence of rotation was not taken into account. The rotation was only included in the GYRE computations using the traditional approximation module. The computed pattern is shown in Fig.\[fig:synth\_obsfit\] and the values of the pulsation periods are listed in the appendix in Table \[tab:synthP\].
The results of our analysis are shown in Figs.\[fig:synth\_obsfit\] to \[fig:synth\_chi2\_2d\]. As we can see in Fig.\[fig:synth\_obsfit\] we fitted the simulated data nicely when we excluded the dips in the pattern from the analysis and assumed ($l$,$m$) = (1,1). However, similar good results were obtained when we treated the pulsations as (2,1)-modes or (2,2)-modes during our analysis, as illustrated in Fig.\[fig:synth\_chi2\]. In other words, we cannot obtain a clear mode identification if we base ourselves solely on the obtained $\chi^2$-values. This problem is solved when we look back to the expected values of the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$ for different values of $l$, which we previously showed in Fig.\[fig:Spacing\_dist\]. It is clear that the found values for $\Delta\Pi_l$ are far too large for $l=2$. We can therefore safely identify the simulated data as (1,1)-modes, and obtain $f_{\rm
rot} = 0.664\pm0.013\,d^{-1}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l=1} = 3020\pm190\,s$.
It is important to exclude any significant dips in the period spacing structure from this analysis. In our technique, we do not take the influence of chemical gradients in the stellar interior into account. As shown by @Miglio2008a, these result in non-uniform deviations from the asymptotic spacing series. Because we can only observe a small part of a period spacing pattern, any non-uniform variations in the pattern will change the measured mean spacing and/or the measured slope of the pattern. This, in turn, will influence our analysis. By ignoring significant non-uniform variations in the period spacing structure, we limit their influence on the analysis, so that we obtain results which are correct within or on the order of $1\sigma$. For our simulated data set this is illustrated with the 2-dimensional $\chi^2$-distribution shown in Fig.\[fig:synth\_chi2\_2d\]. While we ignored the large dip in the period spacing structure (as seen in Fig.\[fig:synth\_obsfit\]), the remaining non-uniform variations still impacted the analysis. As a result, there is a small offset between the input values of the data set and the 1$\sigma$-confidence interval for the obtained solution.
parameter values
------------------------------------------ --------
mass $M$ \[$M_\odot$\] 1.63
metallicity $Z$ 0.016
initial hydrogen abundance $X_i$ 0.71
mixing length parameter $\alpha_{MLT}$ 1.8
step core overshooting $\alpha_{ov}$ 0.18
mixing coefficient $D$ \[$cm^2 s^{-1}$\] 0.8
$T_{\rm eff}$ \[K\] 7047
$\log g$ \[dex\] 4.34
$[M/H]$ \[dex\] 0.094
$v_{\rm eq}$ \[km$\rm s^{-1}$\] 69.38
$f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] 0.674
$\Delta\Pi_{l=1}$ \[$s$\] 3186.5
central hydrogen abundance $X_c$ 0.357
: \[tab:synth\] The parameter values of the simulated period spacing pattern. *Top:* the input parameters of the MESA evolution track. *Bottom:* the parameters of the model for which the pulsation periods were computed.
![\[fig:synth\_obsfit\] *Top:* the input period spacing pattern (black dots and grey triangles) with the best-fitting pattern (white squares) as obtained from the $\chi^2$-minimisation in Fig.\[fig:synth\_chi2\_2d\] assuming ($l$,$m$) = (1,1). The black part of the input patterns was used to determine $f_{rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l}$, while the grey section was excluded. *Bottom:* the residuals of the fit.](synth_obsfit2.pdf){width="88mm"}
![\[fig:synth\_chi2\] The best $\chi^2$-values for the synthetic data shown in Fig.\[tab:synth\] for each ($l,m$)-combination, as a function of the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$. The black and light grey lines correspond to $l=1$ and $l=2$ respectively, while the modes with $m=0$ are indicated with dashed lines, $m=1$ with full lines and $m=2$ with the dash-dotted line.](synth_chi2_grey.pdf){width="88mm"}
![\[fig:synth\_chi2\_2d\]$\log(\chi^2_{\rm red})$ for the simulated period spacing series assuming $l=1$, as a function of the asymptotic period spacing $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ and the rotation rate $f_{rot}$. The white dot indicates the input values, while the white cross and the red boundary indicate the found solution and its 1$\sigma$-uncertainty margins respectively.](synth_chi2_2d.pdf){width="88mm"}
A slow and a fast rotator {#subsec:slowfast}
-------------------------
In our sample we have one slowly rotating star, KIC9751996, for which we detected period spacing series with rotational splitting, delivering immediately the $m$-values of the modes. In order to further validate our proposed methodology, we have applied it to KIC9751996. In a first step, we only analysed the prograde period spacing pattern to test the reliability of our method. Assuming ($l$,$m$) = (1,1), this led us to find $f_{\rm rot} = 0.07\pm0.02\,d^{-1}$, which is shown in the top of Fig.\[fig:kic9751996\_chi2comp\]. However, assuming $l=1, m=0$ for the treated series, we found $f_{\rm rot} = 0.19\pm0.03\,d^{-1}$ for a similar $\chi^2$ value. The challenge in this case is that the shift and the slope in the period spacing pattern are almost negligibly small compared to the non-uniform period spacing variations due to a chemical gradient. This was resolved when we fit the prograde, zonal and retrograde dipole modes simultaneously, as shown in Fig.\[fig:kic9751996\_fit\]. Not only did this allow us to formally identify the $(l,m,n)$-values of the modes, it also resulted in a much higher precision for the rotation rate $f_{\rm rot} = 0.0696\pm0.0008\,d^{-1}$ and the spacing $\Delta\Pi_{l=1} =
3086\pm6\,s$ (See Fig.\[fig:kic9751996\_chi2comp\]). Interestingly, we have another indication for this derived rotation rate independently. Both in the series of the prograde modes and of the retrograde modes, we have a pulsation period which does not seem to follow the pattern, at values of 0.8 days and 0.9 days, respectively. These modes are likely trapped, which has influenced their pulsation period. When the periods of these retrograde and prograde modes are converted to their values in the corotating reference frame using the derived rotation rate, we find the pulsation periods are almost equal, which is consistent with the interpretation of trapped pulsation modes.
![\[fig:kic9751996\_chi2comp\] $\log(\chi^2_{\rm red})$ for the observed period spacing series of KIC9751996, assuming $l=1$, as a function of the asymptotic period spacing $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ and the rotation rate $f_{rot}$. The white crosses indicate the optimal found solutions. *Top:* the $\chi^2$-distribution that we find by only analysing the detected prograde series. *Bottom:* the $\chi^2$-distribution obtained by fitting the prograde, zonal and retrograde spacing series simultaneously.](KIC9751996_chi2comp.pdf){width="88mm"}
![\[fig:kic9751996\_fit\] The observed period spacing patterns (black dots and grey triangles) for the retrograde (top), zonal (middle) and prograde (bottom) modes of KIC9751996. The black parts of the input patterns were used to determine $f_{rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l}$, while the grey sections were excluded. The white squares indicate the modes of the optimal model in the grid when all three series are fitted simultaneously.](KIC9751996_fit.pdf){width="88mm"}
Next we also analysed the period spacing patterns of KIC12066947, a fast rotating star for which both a prograde and a retrograde period spacing series were detected. While we were able to fit the pattern of prograde modes to derive a rotation rate $f_{rot}$, the observed retrograde series presented us with a challenge. We found these to correspond with Rossby modes rather than “classical” gravity or gravito-inertial modes. Rossby modes can only occur in rotating stars and originate from the interaction between the stellar rotation and toroidal modes [e.g. @Papaloizou1978; @Townsend2003c]. Our identification of the retrograde modes as Rossby modes is illustrated in the top panel of Fig.\[fig:kic12066947\_retro\], where we show the observed period spacing patterns for both the detected prograde and retrograde series, as well as the spacings predicted by the most suitable model in the grid, by assuming the values for $f_{rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ obtained by modelling the prograde series. For the calculation of the period series in the case of Rossby modes, $\Pi_0$ was derived from $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ using Eq.(\[eq:1\]), and this value was subsequently filled into Eq.(\[eq:4\]). The appropriate eigenvalues $\lambda$ were computed using the asymptotic approximation derived by @Townsend2003c, i.e. Eq.(37) in that study. This equation is valid when $\lambda \neq m^2$, as is the case here. The expected values of $\lambda$ for Rossby modes are three to four orders of magnitude smaller than for retrograde gravito-inertial modes, which allowed us to identify the observed pulsations. However, as @Townsend2003c pointed out, the asymptotic approximation does not converge well to the numerical solution in the case of such modes. The possibility to compute Rossby modes has currently not yet been included in the publicly available version of GYRE. As a consequence, we could not do a reliable quantitative analysis of the retrograde series at this point and limited ourselves to the analysis of the prograde series to derive $f_{\rm rot}$. However, several qualitative arguments can be made in favour of Rossby modes as a correct identification. From the upward slope and the small average period spacing of the observed pattern, we derive that these modes are retrograde in the corotating frame with $|f_{co}| < f_{rot}$, which is completely in line with the theoretical expectations. Furthermore, the observed spin parameter values are larger for the retrograde than for the prograde modes, e.g., the values of the dominant modes of both series are $15.8\,\pm0.4$ and $7.7\,\pm0.1$, respectively. This indicates that in the corotating frame the pulsation frequencies of the retrograde modes are smaller than those of the prograde modes, which in turn can be explained by the small values of the eigenvalues $\lambda$. Finally, @Townsend2003c also notes that, compared to the retrograde gravito-inertial modes, Rossby modes are less equatorially confined as the stellar rotation rate increases. As a result, the latter can be expected to be less influenced by the geometrical cancellation effects, though the effect is still present. For KIC12066947, we find that the dominant prograde and Rossby modes are confined within equatorial bands with a width of 77.2 and 53.5 respectively.
For a fast rotating star such as KIC12066947, we also have to take into acccount rotational deformation. The centrifugal force leads to a lower effective gravity at the equator than at the pole. This influences the Brunt-Väisälä frequency, which affects the pulsations. In the case of KIC12066947, we could roughly estimate the deformation of the star, using equation A.6 from @Maeder2000. In this analysis we evaluated the observed spectroscopic parameter values and asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ using the models in our MESA grid and took the best matching model ($M = 1.5M_\odot$, $Z = 0.014$, $X_i=0.69$, $X_c = 0.452$, $\alpha_{\rm ov} = 0.01$) as a guess for the stellar structure. We found that $f_{\rm rot}/f_{\rm rot,crit} = 0.78$ and $R_{\rm pole}/R_{\rm eq} = 0.88$. A two-dimensional treatment of the rotation is clearly needed to quantify the impact of the rotation on the modes, which will allow us to improve our constraints on $f_{\rm rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_l$.
![\[fig:kic12066947\_retro\] *Top:* The observed period spacing patterns (black dots and grey triangles) for the prograde (left) and retrograde (right) modes of KIC12066947. The black part of the pattern was used to determine $f_{rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l}$, while the grey section was excluded. The white squares indicate the model fit, assuming we are dealing with gravito-inertial modes and using the $f_{rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ values obtained from the analysis of the marked prograde series. The white diamonds indicate the model computed for Rossby waves using the same $f_{rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_{l}$ values, assuming $m=-1$ and $k=-2$ in the k-based indexing scheme by @Lee1997. *Bottom:* The residuals of the fit to the prograde period spacing series.](KIC12066947_wresid2.pdf){width="88mm"}
Sample study {#subsec:sample}
------------
Subsequently, we also applied our methodology to the other stars in our sample. This led to the mode identification and the determination of the rotation rate $f_{\rm rot}$ for the period spacing series of 40 stars in our sample. Six additional sample stars only exhibit retrograde modes and fast rotation, and cannot be quantitatively analysed with our current methodology. In the case of the remaining four stars, the difference of the best $\chi^2$-value for different ($l$,$m$) combinations is too small, so no unique solution could be determined.
For the 40 stars which were successfully analysed, the results are listed in the appendix in Table \[tab:param\]. The vast majority of the studied stars were found to exhibit prograde dipole modes. For fourteen targets in the sample we had detected multiple series. In principle, these are prime targets to look for differential rotation. However, for ten of them the second detected period spacing pattern corresponds to Rossby modes, for which we still need to develop a suitable computational tool to arrive at appropriate numerical values, as discussed in Section \[subsec:slowfast\]. For the remainder of this study, we assign the values of $f_{\rm rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_l$ which we obtained from the prograde series to the retrograde series of the same star. Because formal mode identification of these retrograde pulsations is currently not possible, they are marked as “R” in Table \[tab:param\]. For two other stars we have both a zonal and prograde dipole series, while for a third we have prograde dipole and quadrupole modes. Finally, KIC9751996, the slowly rotating star we discussed in Sec.\[subsec:slowfast\], is the only target for which we have a series of rotationally split multiplets. For each of these last four stars, we were able to use the multiple detected period spacing patterns to refine the obtained $f_{\rm rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_l$.
![\[fig:single\] Part of the frequency spectrum of KIC7365537. The light grey area shows the location of the pulsation modes which form the detected period spacing pattern of this star. The dashed line marks the value of the derived rotation frequency $f_{\rm rot}$, while the dotted line indicates the solitary high-amplitude mode which was found.](KIC7365537_single.pdf){width="88mm"}
There are several stars for which a single high-amplitude mode was detected, which does not belong to a period spacing series and which differs from the rotation frequency. In Fig.\[fig:single\] we show the frequency spectrum of KIC7365537 as an example. For these modes the identification in Table \[tab:param\] is marked “S”. Because our method can not be applied to these single modes, we again use the values of $f_{\rm rot}$ and $\Delta\Pi_l$ which were derived from the prograde series in the same star, in the subsequent analysis. The selection of series of modes in some stars versus the presence of single modes in others also tells us a great deal about their respective stellar structure. It has been suggested by @Dziembowski1991 that such single high-amplitude modes could occur due to mode trapping effects. However, detailed theoretical modelling of each of these individual stars is required to confirm this.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Fig.\[fig:sample\_ov\] illustrates the frequency $f_{\rm dom,corot}$ of the dominant mode of each detected series in the corotating frame with respect to the computed rotation frequency. An alternative version of Fig.\[fig:sample\_ov\] in the inertial reference frame is included in the appendix in Fig.\[fig:sample\_inext\]. For the majority of the stars, we obtain similar values of $f_{\rm dom,corot}$ between 0.15 and 0.75$\rm
d^{-1}$. This can be linked to the convective flux blocking excitation mechanism. @Dupret2005 and @Bouabid2013 remarked that, in order for the mode excitation mechanism to be efficient, the thermal timescale $\tau_{th}$ at the bottom of the convective envelope has to be on the order of the pulsation periods in the corotating frame. From this information and the content of Fig.\[fig:sample\_ov\], we can then also derive that both the detected retrograde spacing series and single modes likely have azimuthal order $m = -1$, because only $|m|=1$ led to similar $f_{\rm dom,corot}$ values for the series of different stars. While these results are consistent, we note that the observed pulsation periods in the corotating frame are typically larger than the theoretical values computed by @Bouabid2013. For the retrograde Rossby modes this can be linked to the correspondingly low eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the Laplace tidal equation. However, the same discrepancy is observed for the prograde modes as well, though to a lesser degree. This discrepancy may point towards limitations of the current theory of mode excitation in $\gamma$Dor stars for moderate to fast rotators or may be caused by the limited applicability of the traditional approximation for these rotation rates. Further research on this topic is required.
In Fig.\[fig:spin\] we show the spin parameter $s$, as defined in Eq.(\[eq:3\]) and listed in the last column of Table \[tab:param\], as a function of the measured rotation frequency $f_{\rm rot}$. The spin parameter $s$ is a measure of the impact of rotation on the pulsation frequency and is inversely proportional to the pulsation frequency $f_{\rm co}$ in the corotating frame. Once again, the Rossby modes (marked with dark blue dots) have small values for the eigenvalue $\lambda$. In addition, despite the fact that both prograde sectoral modes and Rossby modes are less easily confined in a band around the equator, the effect is still significant for these high values of $s$ [@Townsend2003c]. This implies many of the stars in our sample are seen at moderate to high inclination angles. We further note that our observed values of $s$ are on average much larger than the values quoted in theoretical papers in the literature [e.g. @Townsend2003b; @Ballot2011].
Fig.\[fig:superinert\] offers a closer look at the three slowest rotating stars in our sample, one of which is KIC9751996 already discussed in Sec.\[subsec:slowfast\]. These three stars have comparable properties. They are slow rotators, placing them in the superinertial regime, and they are hybrid $\gamma$Dor/$\delta$Sct pulsators. Each of them exhibits variability in the frequency range between 5$\rm d^{-1}$ and 8$\rm d^{-1}$. These striking similarities suggest there is a link between the stars’ low rotation rates and their hybrid properties, marking them as interesting targets for follow-up research.
![\[fig:superinert\] A section of the Fourier spectra of the three slowest rotating stars in our sample. These are our only stars in the superinertial regime, and all three are hybrid $\gamma$Dor/$\delta$Sct pulsators with variability between 5$\rm d^{-1}$ and 8$\rm d^{-1}$.](superinert.pdf){width="88mm"}
### Statistical analysis {#subsubsec:statan}
Finally, we also look for correlations between the parameter values of our stars, similar to the multivariate statistical analysis which was carried out by @VanReeth2015. In this work, we again use the spectroscopic fundamental parameter values obtained by @VanReeth2015 in our analysis. We also include the detected values of the variables $f_{\rm rot}$, $\Delta\Pi_l$, $R\sin\,i = v\sin\,i/f_{\rm rot}$ and the dominant pulsation frequency $f_{\rm
dom}$ (both in the corotating and the inertial reference frame). For consistency, we limit ourselves to the parameter values derived from the identified prograde dipole mode series of 40 stars in the sample. The results of our multivariate statistical study are summarised in Table\[tab:correll\].
Most of the correlations presented previously by @VanReeth2015 were indicative of the strong relation between the observed gravity-mode pulsations and the stellar rotation. In retrospect, these can now be linked to the identification of most pulsations as prograde dipole gravity, gravito-inertial or retrograde Rossby modes with $|m| = 1$. In particular, those previous results are echoed in our current work by the detected correlations between $f_{\rm rot}$ and $v\sin i$, and $f_{\rm rot}$ and $f_{\rm dom,inert}$. The strong correlation between $f_{\rm rot}$ and $v\sin i$ is illustrated in Fig.\[fig:vsini\_frot\]. The previously detected correlations between $v\sin i$ and the mean period spacing $\langle\Delta P\rangle$, the mean pulsation period $\langle P\rangle$ and the mean slope $\langle\frac{\mathrm{d}\Delta P}{\mathrm{d}P}\rangle$ of the observed series discussed in @VanReeth2015 are now also reflected in similar correlations with $f_{\rm rot}$. We do find a level of scatter in the relationship between these parameters and the rotation rate $f_{\rm rot}$, originating from the large variety of radial orders of the detected modes, the limited lengths of some of the observed series and from non-uniform variations in the period spacing patterns covered by our sample. Moreover, we have assumed a constant rotation rate throughout the stars to deduce $f_{\rm rot}$, which is simplistic compared to predictions based on numerical simulations [@Rogers2015]. Allowing for a variety of non-uniform interior rotation profiles will likely complicate the correlations.
@VanReeth2015 also found a smaller contribution of $T_{\rm eff}$ to the multivariate correlation with $f_{\rm dom,inert}$ and $v\sin i$. While this contribution drops when we replace $v\sin i$ with $f_{\rm rot}$, there is a weak correlation between $T_{\rm eff}$ and $R\sin i$. Indeed, as a star ages, its temperature $T_{\rm eff}$ drops and its radius increases. A similar weak correlation was found between $f_{\rm rot}$ and $\log\,g$, indicating that as the star evolves and its radius increases, both the surface gravity and the rotation rate decrease. The correlation between $R\sin i$ and $\log\,g$ was not significant, likely due to the relatively large uncertainties.
In contrast, we did not find correlations between the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$ and any of the other parameters. The uncertainty margins on the value of $\Delta\Pi_l$ are likely too large for a proper correlation to be unravelled. Multivariate correlations were not detected either.
Explanatory variable Dependent variable Intercept ($\sigma$) Estimate ($\sigma$) $p$-value $R^2$
-------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------------ -------
$f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] $v\sin i$ \[$\rm km\,s^{-1}$\] 0(16) 74(5) $< 0.0001$ 0.859
$f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] $f_{\rm dom,inert}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] 0.7(0.3) 0.90(0.08) $< 0.0001$ 0.780
$f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] $\langle P\rangle$ \[$\rm d$\] 0.9(0.1) -0.22(0.06) $< 0.0001$ 0.630
$f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] $\langle \Delta P\rangle$ \[$\rm d$\] 0.017(0.005) -0.009(0.002) $< 0.0001$ 0.508
$f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] $\langle \frac{\mathrm{d}\Delta P}{\mathrm{d}P}\rangle$ -0.013(0.006) -0.013(0.001) $< 0.0001$ 0.479
$T_{\rm eff}$ \[K\] $R\sin i$ \[$R_\odot$\] 573(10) -0.08(0.02) 0.0001 0.357
$\log\,g$ \[dex\] $f_{\rm rot}$ \[$\rm d^{-1}$\] -5.8(0.4) 1.7(0.4) 0.0002 0.332
![\[fig:vsini\_frot\] The correlation between the spectroscopic $v\sin i$ values and the values of the rotation rate $f_{\rm
rot}$ which were derived in this study. The black line indicates the corresponding linear fit, for which the coefficients are listed in Table\[tab:correll\]. The used symbols are the same as in Fig.\[fig:sample\_ov\]. For all of the stars a series of prograde dipole modes was detected. If another series was detected as well, the symbol of the corresponding mode identification was used.](vsini_frot.pdf){width="88mm"}
Discussion and conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
==========================
In this paper, we have presented methodology to derive the near-core interior rotation rate $f_{\rm
rot}$ from an observed period spacing pattern and to perform mode identification for the pulsations in the series. In a first step, we considered all combinations of $l$- and $m$-values for mode identification. For each pair of $(l,m)$we consider the asymptotic spacing $\Delta\Pi_l$ and compute the corresponding equidistant model period spacing pattern as described by @Tassoul1980. Using the traditional approximation, the frequencies of the model pattern are subsequently shifted for an assumed rotation rate $f_{\rm rot}$ and the chosen $l$ and $m$. The optimal values of $\Delta\Pi_l$, $f_{\rm rot}$, $l$ and $m$ are then determined by fitting the model pattern to the observed period spacing series using least-squares optimisation and taking into account that different values of $\Delta\Pi_l$ are expected for different values of $l$.
In most cases this method is reasonably successful. For slow rotators it may be difficult to find the correct value for the azimuthal order $m$, though this problem is solved when we have multiple series with different $l$ and $m$ values. By fitting these series simultaneously, not only do we obtain the mode identification, but the values for $\Delta\Pi_l$ and $f_{\rm rot}$ are also a lot more precise than in the case where we do not detect multiplets. In the case where we are dealing with a moderate to fast rotator, the retrograde modes were found to be Rossby modes, which arise due to the interaction between the stellar rotation and toroidal modes. In this study, we have used the asymptotic approximation derived by @Townsend2003c to compute their eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the Laplace tidal equation. A complete numerical treatment of these modes is required to exploit them quantitatively. A complete and detailed analysis of such stars with multiple gravity-mode period spacings will allow us to study possible differential rotation in $\gamma$Dor stars, ultimately leading to proper observational constraints on rotational chemical mixing and angular momentum transport mechanisms.
From the ensemble modelling of the gravity-mode period spacings of the stars in our sample, we found that there is a large range in the stellar rotation rates. Interestingly, only three out of forty targets were found to be in the superinertial regime. These three stars, KIC8645874, KIC9751996 and KIC11754232, are hybrid $\gamma$Dor/$\delta$Sct stars which exhibit variability in the frequency range from 5$\rm d^{-1}$ to 8$\rm d^{-1}$. This indicates that these stars’ low rotation rates are likely linked to their hybrid character, making them prime targets for further asteroseismological analysis. The other stars were found to be in the subinertial regime. Their pulsation frequencies in the corotating frame are typically confined in the narrow range between 0.15 and 0.75$\rm d^{-1}$. This is in agreement with the theoretical expectation that $\gamma$Dor pulsation frequencies in the corotating frame are on the order of the thermal timescale $\tau_{th}$ at the bottom of the convective envelope [@Bouabid2013]. However, this frequency range does not agree with the predicted values by @Bouabid2013. With the exception of the three stars in the superinertial regime, we find that on average the observed modes have longer pulsation periods in the corotating frame than theory predicts. This is also reflected in the high spin parameter values we derived for many of the stars. The high spin parameters detected for the retrograde Rossby modes are linked to the low eigenvalues $\lambda$ of these modes as already found on theoretical grounds by @Townsend2003c.
The global results for the mode identification are consistent with existing spectroscopic studies. The majority of the modes were found to be prograde dipole modes. This is in line with the results obtained by @Townsend2003b for heat-driven gravity modes in slowly pulsating B stars. In addition, we found single high-amplitude modes, as opposed to a series, to be present in several stars. They are consistent with retrograde Rossby modes with $m=-1$. They are likely heavily influenced by mode trapping, and as a result contain valuable information about these stars’ internal structure.
We conducted a linear regression analysis on the combined spectroscopic and photometric parameter values for the sample. The strong correlation between $v\sin i$ and $f_{\rm rot}$ independently confirmed the reliability of the obtained rotation rates. We also detected weak correlations between $R\sin i
= v\sin i/f_{\rm rot}$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ and between $\log\,g$ and $f_{\rm
rot}$. Indeed, as a star with a convective core evolves on the main sequence, its radius increases, and its temperature and rotation rate decrease.
Despite the limitations of the traditional approximation, the results we obtained in this work are consistent and offer the first estimates of the interior rotation frequencies for a large sample of $\gamma\,$Dor stars. The large observed spin parameter values indicate that the pulsations are constrained in a waveguide around the equator [@Townsend2003b; @Townsend2003c]. This in turn implies that the vast majority of the stars should be seen at moderate to high inclination angles, which is also what we can indirectly derive from the relation between the observed $v\sin i$ and $f_{\rm rot}$ in Fig.\[fig:vsini\_frot\]. From the grid of theoretical models in Section\[sec:grid\], we find radii between 1.3$R_{\odot}$ and 3$R_{\odot}$. For many stars in our sample, this results in inclination angle estimates on the order of or above 50. Two of the stars for which lower inclination angle estimates were found, KIC4846809 and KIC9595743, are also the stars for which we detected zonal dipole modes. This is consistent with expectations for the geometrical cancellation effects of the pulsations.
These ensemble analyses now form an ideal starting point for detailed asteroseismological modelling of individual targets in the sample. This, in turn, will allow us to place constraints on the shape and extent of the convective core overshooting and the diffusive mixing processes in the radiative near-core regions, and by extension on the evolution of the convective core itself as it was recently achieved for a hybrid $\delta\,$Sct — $\gamma\,$Dor binary [@SchmidAerts2016] and also for a slowly [@Moravveji2015] and a moderately [@Moravveji2016] rotating gravity-mode pulsator of $\sim$ 3.3$M_\odot$.
The research leading to these results was based on funding from the Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO), Belgium, under grant agreement G.0B69.13, and on funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement N 670519: MAMSIE). TVR thanks Ehsan Moravveji for the extensive discussions on the use of the MESA and GYRE codes, and Santiago A. Triana for the enlightening conversations about the influence of rotation on stellar pulsations. TVR also thanks François Lignières and the other participants of the Toulouse 2016 SpaceInn workshop on Stellar Rotation for the useful discussions. We further thank the anonymous referee for helpful remarks that helped us to improve the interpretations and presentation of the research. We are grateful to Bill Paxton and Richard Townsend for their valuable work on the stellar evolution code MESA and stellar pulsation code GYRE. We gratefully acknowledge the Thüringer Landessternwarte in Tautenburg, Germany, for the computation time on their computer cluster. Funding for the *Kepler* mission is provided by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. We thank the whole team for the development and operations of the mission. This research made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System. This research has made use of the VizieR catalogue access tool, CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Simulated period spacing pattern
================================
$P_{\rm inert}$ \[$d$\] $\sigma_P$ $P_{\rm inert}$ \[$d$\] $\sigma_P$
------------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ------------
0.73912 0.00004 0.91909 0.00002
0.751414 0.000008 0.92658 0.00006
0.76322 0.00005 0.93385 0.00004
0.774892 0.000007 0.94088 0.00001
0.78640 0.00003 0.94772 0.00001
0.79748 0.00006 0.95442 0.00007
0.80785 0.00001 0.96100 0.00004
0.81753 0.00005 0.96745 0.00006
0.82691 0.00004 0.97373 0.00006
0.83618 0.00004 0.97984 0.00001
0.84513 0.00006 0.98579 0.00006
0.85371 0.00003 0.99161 0.00008
0.86220 0.00006 0.99732 0.00003
0.87080 0.00003 1.00292 0.00008
0.87937 0.00004 1.00839 0.00005
0.88773 0.00008 1.01372 0.00009
0.89582 0.00003 1.01891 0.00004
0.903689 0.000007 1.02400 0.00008
0.91144 0.00001 1.02898 0.00006
: \[tab:synthP\] The pulsation periods (in days; in the inertial reference frame) of the simulated data in Section \[subsec:synthdata\], with the used 1$\sigma$ uncertainty margins.
Stellar rotation rates and mode identification
==============================================
------------------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------------- ---------------------------
\[4pt\]
\[4pt\]
2710594 $1$ $1$ $1.35536^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $15.68706^{+0.00012}_{-0.00012}$ $1.02^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $11.8^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $3370^{+ 330}_{- 310}$ $0.039^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$ $6.2^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$
\[4pt\] R R $0.79908^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $9.24856^{+0.00022}_{-0.00022}$ $1.02^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $11.8^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $3370^{+ 330}_{- 310}$ $0.039^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$ $9.1^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$
\[4pt\] 3448365 $1$ $1$ $1.500157^{+0.000009}_{-0.000009}$ $17.36293^{+0.00010}_{-0.00010}$ $1.08^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ $12.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ $3020^{+1160}_{- 970}$ $0.03^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $5.2^{+0.9}_{-1.2}$
\[4pt\] R R $0.88877^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $10.28675^{+0.00016}_{-0.00016}$ $1.08^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ $12.5^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ $3020^{+1160}_{- 970}$ $0.03^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $11^{+4}_{-3}$
\[4pt\] 4846809 $1$ $1$ $1.81324^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $20.98662^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $1.28^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ $14.8^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2930^{+ 140}_{- 150}$ $0.034^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $4.8^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] $1$ $0$ $1.00410^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $11.62156^{+0.00024}_{-0.00024}$ $1.28^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ $14.8^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2930^{+ 140}_{- 150}$ $0.034^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $2.55^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
\[4pt\] 5114382 $1$ $1$ $1.47927^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $17.12115^{+0.00020}_{-0.00020}$ $1.15^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $13.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $3070^{+ 300}_{- 290}$ $0.036^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $7.0^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$
\[4pt\] R R $0.95265^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $11.02607^{+0.00018}_{-0.00018}$ $1.15^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $13.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $3070^{+ 300}_{- 290}$ $0.036^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $11.6^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$
\[4pt\] 5522154 $1$ $1$ $3.009858^{+0.000008}_{-0.000008}$ $34.83632^{+0.00009}_{-0.00009}$ $2.154^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$ $24.93^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ $3350^{+ 40}_{- 30}$ $0.0388^{+0.0004}_{-0.0004}$ $5.03^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
\[4pt\] 5708550 $1$ $1$ $1.11550^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $12.91091^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $0.82^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ $9.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $3330^{+ 240}_{- 220}$ $0.039^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $5.5^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\] 5788623 $1$ $1$ $0.77895^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $9.01558^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $0.40^{+0.04}_{-0.05}$ $4.6^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ $2800^{+480}_{-440}$ $0.032^{+0.006}_{-0.005}$ $2.1^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$
\[4pt\] 6468146 $1$ $1$ $1.545700^{+0.000005}_{-0.000005}$ $17.89004^{+0.00005}_{-0.00005}$ $0.97^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $11.3^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ $3000^{+ 110}_{- 110}$ $0.035^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $3.4^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
\[4pt\] 6468987 $1$ $1$ $1.998989^{+0.000004}_{-0.000004}$ $23.13644^{+0.00005}_{-0.00005}$ $1.598^{+0.009}_{-0.008}$ $18.49^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ $3730^{+ 120}_{- 100}$ $0.043^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $8.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.387598^{+0.000009}_{-0.000009}$ $16.06016^{+0.00011}_{-0.00011}$ $1.598^{+0.009}_{-0.008}$ $18.49^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$ $3730^{+ 120}_{- 100}$ $0.043^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $15.2^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$
\[4pt\] 6678174 $1$ $1$ $1.12777^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $13.05290^{+0.00020}_{-0.00020}$ $0.55^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ $6.4^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$ $3370^{+ 710}_{- 620}$ $0.039^{+0.008}_{-0.007}$ $1.9^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\] 6935014 $1$ $1$ $1.20670^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $13.96648^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $0.79^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $9.1^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $3180^{+ 310}_{- 300}$ $0.037^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$ $3.8^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 6953103 $1$ $1$ $1.287597^{+0.000008}_{-0.000008}$ $14.90274^{+0.00009}_{-0.00009}$ $0.74^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ $8.5^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ $3560^{+ 490}_{- 440}$ $0.041^{+0.006}_{-0.005}$ $2.7^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 7023122 $1$ $1$ $1.876108^{+0.000003}_{-0.000003}$ $21.71421^{+0.00003}_{-0.00003}$ $0.977^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ $11.30^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ $3380^{+ 40}_{- 30}$ $0.0391^{+0.0004}_{-0.0004}$ $2.17^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
\[4pt\] 7365537 $1$ $1$ $2.925633^{+0.000004}_{-0.000004}$ $33.86150^{+0.00004}_{-0.00004}$ $2.253^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $26.07^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $3340^{+ 30}_{- 30}$ $0.0387^{+0.0003}_{-0.0003}$ $6.70^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$
\[4pt\] S S $1.981016^{+0.000006}_{-0.000006}$ $22.92843^{+0.00006}_{-0.00006}$ $2.253^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $26.07^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $3340^{+ 30}_{- 30}$ $0.0387^{+0.0003}_{-0.0003}$ $16.6^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] 7380501 $1$ $1$ $0.96329^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $11.14922^{+0.00012}_{-0.00012}$ $0.64^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $7.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2860^{+ 180}_{- 170}$ $0.033^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $3.9^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 7434470 $1$ $1$ $2.542409^{+0.000006}_{-0.000006}$ $29.42603^{+0.00007}_{-0.00007}$ $1.769^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ $20.47^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ $3020^{+ 50}_{- 50}$ $0.0349^{+0.0006}_{-0.0005}$ $4.57^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$
\[4pt\] S S $1.698729^{+0.000001}_{-0.000001}$ $19.66122^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $1.769^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ $20.47^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ $3020^{+ 50}_{- 50}$ $0.0349^{+0.0006}_{-0.0005}$ $50^{+3}_{-4}$
\[4pt\] 7583663 $1$ $1$ $1.47213^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $17.03853^{+0.00017}_{-0.00017}$ $1.17^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ $13.6^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $3120^{+ 390}_{- 360}$ $0.036^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ $7.8^{+0.8}_{-0.9}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.044741^{+0.000008}_{-0.000008}$ $12.09190^{+0.00009}_{-0.00009}$ $1.17^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ $13.6^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $3120^{+ 390}_{- 360}$ $0.036^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ $19^{+3}_{-3}$
\[4pt\] 7746984 $1$ $1$ $2.00305^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $23.18341^{+0.00019}_{-0.00019}$ $1.49^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $17.2^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $3130^{+ 250}_{- 230}$ $0.036^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $5.8^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] S S $1.35180^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $15.64582^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $1.49^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $17.2^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $3130^{+ 250}_{- 230}$ $0.036^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $22^{+3}_{-2}$
\[4pt\] 7939065 $1$ $1$ $1.728171^{+0.000007}_{-0.000007}$ $20.00198^{+0.00008}_{-0.00008}$ $1.111^{+0.006}_{-0.006}$ $12.86^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ $3000^{+ 40}_{- 40}$ $0.0347^{+0.0005}_{-0.0005}$ $3.60^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$
\[4pt\] 8364249 $1$ $1$ $1.869376^{+0.000005}_{-0.000005}$ $21.63629^{+0.00005}_{-0.00005}$ $1.519^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$ $17.58^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ $3090^{+ 110}_{- 110}$ $0.036^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $8.7^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] 8375138 $1$ $1$ $2.077771^{+0.000007}_{-0.000007}$ $24.04828^{+0.00008}_{-0.00008}$ $1.64^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $19.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $2930^{+ 150}_{- 150}$ $0.034^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $7.5^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.407115^{+0.000010}_{-0.000010}$ $16.28606^{+0.00011}_{-0.00011}$ $1.64^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $19.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $2930^{+ 150}_{- 150}$ $0.034^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $14.0^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$
\[4pt\] 8645874 $1$ $1$ $1.847014^{+0.000004}_{-0.000004}$ $21.37747^{+0.00005}_{-0.00005}$ $0.375^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $4.34^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $3200^{+ 10}_{-10}$ $0.0371^{+0.0001}_{-0.0001}$ $0.510^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$
\[4pt\] 8836473 $1$ $1$ $1.88341^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $21.79871^{+0.00012}_{-0.00012}$ $1.13^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $13.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2900^{+ 100}_{- 100}$ $0.034^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $2.98^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$
\[4pt\] S S $0.52525^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $6.07932^{+0.00015}_{-0.00015}$ $1.13^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $13.0^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2900^{+ 100}_{- 100}$ $0.034^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $3.75^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$
\[4pt\] 9210943 $1$ $1$ $2.190853^{+0.000004}_{-0.000004}$ $25.35710^{+0.00005}_{-0.00005}$ $1.728^{+0.007}_{-0.010}$ $19.99^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ $3340^{+ 80}_{- 100}$ $0.0386^{+0.0010}_{-0.0012}$ $7.5^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.443566^{+0.000009}_{-0.000009}$ $16.70794^{+0.00011}_{-0.00011}$ $1.728^{+0.007}_{-0.010}$ $19.99^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ $3340^{+ 80}_{- 100}$ $0.0386^{+0.0010}_{-0.0012}$ $12.2^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 9480469 $1$ $1$ $1.994822^{+0.000010}_{-0.000010}$ $23.08821^{+0.00011}_{-0.00011}$ $1.54^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $17.8^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $2990^{+ 410}_{- 360}$ $0.035^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ $6.8^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.32598^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $15.34704^{+0.00012}_{-0.00012}$ $1.54^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $17.8^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $2990^{+ 410}_{- 360}$ $0.035^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ $14^{+2}_{-2}$
\[4pt\] 9595743 $1$ $1$ $1.43459^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $16.6040^{+0.0002}_{-0.0002}$ $0.89^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $10.3^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $3050^{+ 110}_{- 110}$ $0.035^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $3.3^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
\[4pt\] $1$ $0$ $1.16055^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $13.43228^{+0.00019}_{-0.00019}$ $0.89^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $10.3^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $3050^{+ 110}_{- 110}$ $0.035^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $1.54^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
\[4pt\] 9751996 $1$ $1$ $1.35387^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $15.6698^{+0.0002}_{-0.0002}$ $0.0696^{+0.0008}_{-0.0008}$ $0.805^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ $3086^{+ 6}_{- 6}$ $0.03572^{+0.00007}_{-0.00007}$ $0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
\[4pt\] $1$ $0$ $1.02805^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $11.8987^{+0.0002}_{-0.0002}$ $0.0696^{+0.0008}_{-0.0008}$ $0.805^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ $3086^{+ 6}_{- 6}$ $0.03572^{+0.00007}_{-0.00007}$ $0.14^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
\[4pt\] $1$ $-1$ $1.28331^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $14.8531^{+0.0002}_{-0.0002}$ $0.0696^{+0.0008}_{-0.0008}$ $0.805^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ $3086^{+ 6}_{- 6}$ $0.03572^{+0.00007}_{-0.00007}$ $0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
\[4pt\] 10256787 $1$ $1$ $1.077489^{+0.000008}_{-0.000008}$ $12.47094^{+0.00009}_{-0.00009}$ $0.59^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ $6.9^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ $2730^{+ 560}_{- 490}$ $0.032^{+0.006}_{-0.006}$ $2.5^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\] 10467146 $1$ $1$ $0.954976^{+0.000009}_{-0.000009}$ $11.05297^{+0.00011}_{-0.00011}$ $0.62^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ $7.1^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ $2940^{+ 600}_{- 540}$ $0.034^{+0.007}_{-0.006}$ $3.6^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$
\[4pt\] 11080103 $1$ $1$ $1.241393^{+0.000005}_{-0.000005}$ $14.36797^{+0.00006}_{-0.00006}$ $0.62^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$ $7.2^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$ $3360^{+ 880}_{- 730}$ $0.039^{+0.010}_{-0.008}$ $2.0^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\] 11099031 $1$ $1$ $1.61508^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $18.69302^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $1.025^{+0.009}_{-0.009}$ $11.87^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ $3560^{+ 100}_{- 110}$ $0.041^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $3.48^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$
\[4pt\] S S $0.916646^{+0.000009}_{-0.000009}$ $10.60933^{+0.00010}_{-0.00010}$ $1.025^{+0.009}_{-0.009}$ $11.87^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ $3560^{+ 100}_{- 110}$ $0.041^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ $19^{+1}_{-1}$
\[4pt\] 11294808 $1$ $1$ $1.16617^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $13.49738^{+0.00014}_{-0.00014}$ $0.77^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $9.0^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $2770^{+ 350}_{- 320}$ $0.032^{+0.004}_{-0.004}$ $4.0^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\] $2$ $2$ $2.2247^{+0.0007}_{-0.0007}$ $25.749^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$ $0.77^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $9.0^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $1600^{+ 200}_{--190}$ $0.019^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ $2.3^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] 11456474 $1$ $1$ $1.471468^{+0.000006}_{-0.000006}$ $17.03088^{+0.00007}_{-0.00007}$ $1.05^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $12.2^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2810^{+ 250}_{- 240}$ $0.033^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $5.0^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 11721304 $1$ $1$ $0.92287^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $10.68141^{+0.00020}_{-0.00020}$ $0.46^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ $5.3^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ $3080^{+ 430}_{- 400}$ $0.036^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$ $2.0^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 11754232 $1$ $1$ $1.10338^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $12.77065^{+0.00017}_{-0.00017}$ $0.159^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$ $1.84^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ $3130^{+ 20}_{- 20}$ $0.0362^{+0.0002}_{-0.0003}$ $0.34^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$
\[4pt\] 11826272 $1$ $1$ $0.83370^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $9.64927^{+0.00013}_{-0.00013}$ $0.36^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ $4.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $2950^{+ 290}_{- 280}$ $0.034^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $1.5^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
\[4pt\] 11907454 $1$ $1$ $1.77890^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $20.58915^{+0.00016}_{-0.00016}$ $1.35^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $15.6^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $3050^{+ 290}_{- 280}$ $0.035^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $6.2^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.187153^{+0.000008}_{-0.000008}$ $13.74020^{+0.00009}_{-0.00009}$ $1.35^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $15.6^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $3050^{+ 290}_{- 280}$ $0.035^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $17^{+2}_{-2}$
\[4pt\] 11917550 $1$ $1$ $1.287680^{+0.000008}_{-0.000008}$ $14.90371^{+0.00010}_{-0.00010}$ $0.90^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $10.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $2900^{+ 220}_{- 210}$ $0.034^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$ $4.6^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 11920505 $1$ $1$ $1.198844^{+0.000009}_{-0.000009}$ $13.87550^{+0.00010}_{-0.00010}$ $0.75^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $8.7^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $2980^{+ 260}_{- 250}$ $0.035^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$ $3.3^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$
\[4pt\] 12066947 $1$ $1$ $2.72379^{+0.00001}_{-0.00001}$ $31.52539^{+0.00015}_{-0.00015}$ $2.160^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$ $25.00^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ $2950^{+ 70}_{- 70}$ $0.0342^{+0.0008}_{-0.0008}$ $7.7^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$
\[4pt\] R R $1.88748^{+0.00002}_{-0.00002}$ $21.8459^{+0.0002}_{-0.0002}$ $2.160^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$ $25.00^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ $2950^{+ 70}_{- 70}$ $0.0342^{+0.0008}_{-0.0008}$ $15.8^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$
\[4pt\]
------------------ ----- ------ ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------------- ---------------------------
: The rotation rates $f_{\rm rot}$ and the asymptotic period spacings $\Delta\Pi_l$ which were computed from the observed period spacing patterns, as well as the mode identification and the dominant pulsation frequency for each series. For the latter we also computed the spin parameter $s$, listed in the final column. The pulsation mode patterns which are marked with “R” are retrograde modes, which are most likely Rossby modes. The pulsation modes which are marked with “S” are single high-amplitude peaks which were present in the frequency spectra, but clearly separate from the detected period spacing patterns. Neither the retrograde pulsation modes nor the single peaks were actually used in the computations. The corresponding rotation rates and asymptotic period spacings were obtained from the prograde series observed for the same star.[]{data-label="tab:param"}
Sample analysis
===============
{width="\textwidth"}
[^1]: Based on data gathered with the NASA Discovery mission *Kepler* and the HERMES spectrograph, which is installed at the Mercator Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by the Flemish Community at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, and supported by the Fund for Scientific Research of Flanders (FWO), Belgium, the Research Council of KU Leuven, Belgium, the Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS), Belgium, the Royal Observatory of Belgium, the Observatoire de Genève, Switzerland, and the Thüringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg, Germany.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Quantum spaces with $\frak{su}(2)$ noncommutativity can be modelled by using a family of $SO(3)$-equivariant differential $^*$-representations. The quantization maps are determined from the combination of the Wigner theorem for $SU(2)$ with the polar decomposition of the quantized plane waves. A tracial star-product, equivalent to the Kontsevich product for the Poisson manifold dual to $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ is obtained from a subfamily of differential $^*$-representations. Noncommutative (scalar) field theories free from UV/IR mixing and whose commutative limit coincides with the usual $\phi^4$ theory on $\mathbb{R}^3$ are presented. A generalization of the construction to semi-simple possibly non simply connected Lie groups based on their central extensions by suitable abelian Lie groups is discussed.'
author:
- 'Timothé Poulain, Jean-Christophe Wallet'
title: |
Quantum spaces, central extensions of Lie groups\
and related quantum field theories
---
*Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Bât. 210\
CNRS and Université Paris-Sud 11, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France*\
[`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected]), [`[email protected]`](mailto:[email protected])\
10 true cm [*[Based on a talk presented by one of us (T. Poulain) at the XXVth International Conference on Integrable Systems and Quantum symmetries (ISQS-25), Prague, June 6-10 2017.]{}*]{}\
Introduction
============
In the recent years, deformations of $\mathbb{R}^3$ for which the algebra of coordinates forms a $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ Lie algebra have received some interest. This was in particular related either to developments in $3$-d gravity, in particular viewing $\mathbb{R}^3$ as the dual algebra of the relativity group [@ritals1; @ritals2], or to constructions of analytic formulas for the star-products [@fedele-vitale] defining these deformations as well as investigations of their structural properties [@lagraa; @selene; @KV-15; @q-grav] (see also [@galuccio; @fedele]). Field theories built on these noncommutative (quantum) spaces have been shown to have a perturbative quantum behaviour different from the one of field theories built on Moyal spaces, at least regarding renormalizability as well as UV/IR mixing [@vitwal; @vit-kust; @wal-16]. For earlier works on noncommutative field theories (NCFT) on Moyal spaces, see e.g [@Grosse:2003aj-pc; @Blaschke:2009c] and references therein.\
The purpose of this paper is to select salient features developed in our recent works [@jpw-16; @tp-jcw17] on quantum spaces with $\frak{su}(2)$ noncommutativity, hereafter denoted generically by $\mathbb{R}^3_\theta$ (see below). It appears that these latter can be modelled conveniently by exploiting a family of $SO(3)$-equivariant differential $^*$-representations as we will show in a while. It turns out that the use of differential representations [@polydiff-alg; @VK; @KV-15] may prove useful in the construction of star-products whenever the noncommutativity is of a Lie algebra type such as the case considered here. Consistency of the construction definitely requires that one works with $^*$-representations. Note that a similar construction can also be applied to the kappa-Minkowski spaces which are related to (the universal enveloping algebra of) a solvable Lie algebra. For constructions of star-products within kappa-Minkowski spaces, see e.g [@cosmogol4].\
The characterization of the related quantization maps defining the quantum spaces $\mathbb{R}^3_\theta$ can be achieved from a natural combination of the polar decomposition of the quantized plane waves with the Wigner theorem for $SU(2)$. Recall that the quantized plane waves are defined by the action of the quantization map on the usual plane waves. From this follows the characterization of the star-products. The use of star-product formulation of NCFT is convenient for fast construction of functional actions. However, it may lead to difficulties whenever the star-product is represented by a complicated formula and/or is not closed for a trace functional. In this respect, we then construct a tracial star-product with respect to the usual Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^3$, equivalent to the Kontsevich product [@deform] for the Poisson manifold dual to $\mathfrak{su}(2)$, thanks to a suitable use of the Harish-Chandra map [@harish; @duflo]. We then present noncommutative (scalar) field theories which are free from UV/IR mixing and whose commutative limit is the usual $\phi^4$ theory on $\mathbb{R}^3$. We discuss the generalization of the construction to semi-simple, possibly non simply connected, Lie groups based on their central extensions by suitable abelian Lie groups. Considering central extensions of Lie groups is the natural framework to deal with this problem, while the classification of the extensions needs to consider different types of cohomology including suitable group cohomologies. For some details on various relevant cohomologies in physics, see e.g [@brown; @stor-wal; @hoch-shap].
[**[Notations]{}**]{}: We will denote generically the involutions by the symbol $^\dag$. The actual nature of each involution should be clear from the context. $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ are respectively the algebra of Schwartz functions on $\mathbb{R}^3$ and its multiplier algebra. $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ is the hermitian product,i.e , $\langle f,g \rangle:=\int d^3x\ {\bar{f}}(x) g(x)$ for any $f,g\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ (${\bar{f}}(x)$ is the complex conjugate of $f(x)$). $\tilde{f}(p)=\int d^3xf(x)e^{-ipx}$ is the Fourier transform of $f$. $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3))$ denotes the set of linear operators acting on $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$.\
We will deal with a family of deformations of $\mathbb{R}^3$, indexed by 3 functionals $f,\ g,\ l$ depending on the Laplacian of $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\Delta$, and a positive real parameter $\theta$ (the so-called deformation parameter), i.e $\mathbb{R}^3_{\theta,f,g,\ell}:=(\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{R}^3),\star_{\theta,f,g,\ell})$ ($\mathcal{F}(\mathbb{R}^3$ is a suitable linear space of functions to be characterized below) where $\star_{\theta,f,g,\ell})$ is the deformed product. To simplify the notations, any element of this family will be denoted by $\mathbb{R}^3_{\theta}(=(\mathbb{R}^3,\star))$, the actual nature of the objects indexing the family should be clear from the context.\
$\mathfrak{su}(2)$-noncommutativity and differential $^*$-representations. {#section2}
==========================================================================
It is convenient to represent the abstract $^*$-algebra $\mathbb{A}[\hat{X}_\mu]$ generated by the self-adjoint operator coordinates $\hat{X}_\mu$ fulfilling $[\hat{X}_\mu,\hat{X}_\nu]=i2\theta\varepsilon_{\mu \nu}^{\hspace{11pt} \rho}\hat{X}_\rho$ ($\mu,\nu,\rho=1,2,3$) by making use of the poly-differential $^*$-representation $\pi:\mathbb{A}[\hat{X}_\mu]\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3))$, $$\pi:\hat{X}_\mu\mapsto\pi(\hat{X}_\mu){= \hspace{-0.5pt} :}\hat{x}_\mu(x,\partial)=x_\nu\varphi^\nu_{\hspace{3pt}\mu}(\partial)+\chi_\mu(\partial), \label{defxhat}$$ where the functionals $\varphi^\nu_{\hspace{3pt}\mu}(\partial)$ and $\chi_\mu(\partial)$ are viewed as formal expansions in the usual derivatives of $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\partial_\mu$, $\mu=1,2,3$.\
Since by assumption $\pi$ is a morphism of $^*$-algebra, one has $[\hat{x}_\mu,\hat{x}_\nu]=i2\theta\varepsilon_{\mu \nu}^{\hspace{11pt} \rho}\hat{x}_\rho$ together with $\langle f,\hat{x}_\mu g\rangle=\langle \hat{x}_\mu f,g \rangle$ for any $f,g\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, stemming from the self-adjointness of $\hat{x}_\mu$ so that $\hat{x}_\mu^\dag=\hat{x}_\mu$. By combining these two latter conditions with and using $[x_\lambda , h(x,\partial)] = - \frac{\partial h}{\partial (\partial^\lambda)}$, which holds true for any functional $h$ of $x_\mu$ and $\partial^\mu$ together with $\partial^\dag_\mu=-\partial_\mu,\ h^\dag(\partial)={\bar{h}}(-\partial)$, a standard computation gives rise to the following functional differential equations constraining $\varphi^\nu_{\hspace{3pt}\mu}$ and $\chi_\mu$: $$\begin{aligned}
i 2\theta \varphi_{\alpha \rho} &= \varepsilon_{\rho}^{\hspace{4pt} \mu \nu} \frac{\partial \varphi_{\alpha \mu}}{\partial (\partial_\beta)} \varphi_{\beta \nu},\label{master1}\\
\varphi^\dagger_{\alpha\rho} &= \varphi_{\alpha \rho} \label{master2}\\
i 2\theta \chi_\rho &= \varepsilon_{\rho}^{\hspace{4pt} \mu \nu} \frac{\partial \chi_\mu}{\partial (\partial_\alpha)} \varphi_{\alpha \nu}, \label{master3} \\
\frac{\partial \varphi^\dagger_{\alpha \rho}}{\partial (\partial_\alpha)} &= \chi_\rho - \chi_\rho^\dagger, \label{master4}\end{aligned}$$ where use has been made of the algebraic relation $\delta_{\mu \gamma} \delta_\nu^{\hspace{4pt} \sigma} - \delta_\mu^{\hspace{4pt} \sigma} \delta_{\nu \gamma} = \varepsilon_{\mu \nu}^{\hspace{11pt} \rho} \varepsilon_{\rho \gamma}^{\hspace{11pt} \sigma}$.\
In view of $\mathbb{R}^3_\theta\subsetneq U(\mathfrak{su}(2))\cong \mathbb{A}[\hat{X}_\mu]/[\hat{X}_\mu,\hat{X}_\nu]$, see e.g [@wal-16; @jpw-16], where $U(\mathfrak{su}(2))$ is the universal enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{su}(2)$, there is a natural action of $SU(2)/\mathbb{Z}_2\simeq SO(3)$ on any $\mathbb{R}^3_\theta$. This selects $SO(3)$-equivariant $^*$-representations among those defined by -. A mere application of the Schur-Weyl decomposition theorem shows that the $SO(3)$-equivariance of the representation can be achieved whenever the functionals $\varphi^\mu_\nu$ and $\chi_\mu$ have the following form: $$\varphi_{\alpha \mu} (\partial) = f(\Delta) \delta_{\alpha \mu} + g(\Delta) \partial_\alpha \partial_\mu + i h(\Delta) \varepsilon_{\alpha\mu}^{\hspace{11pt} \rho} \partial_\rho,\label{polynomial_phi}$$ $$\chi_\mu(\partial) = \ell (\Delta) \partial_\mu \ \label{polynomial_chi},$$ where the [*[real]{}*]{} $f(\Delta)$, $g(\Delta)$, $h(\Delta)$ and [*[complex]{}*]{} $\ell(\Delta)$ $SO(3)$-invariant functionals are constrained by -.\
By solving the constraints, one easily finds that the admissible solutions (i.e those $\hat{x}_\mu$ admitting an expansion of the form $\hat{x}_\mu=x_\mu+\mathcal{O}(\theta)$) are such that $h=\theta$ and form a family indexed by 3 functional $f$, $g$ and $\ell$ defined by $$\label{general_rep}
\hat{x}_\mu = x^\alpha \left[ f(\Delta) \delta_{\alpha \mu} + g(\Delta) \partial_\alpha \partial_\mu + i\theta \varepsilon_{\alpha \mu}^{\hspace{11pt} \rho} \partial_\rho \right] + \ell(\Delta) \partial_\mu,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
2\left[(f+g\Delta)' + g \right] &= \ell + \ell^\dagger \ , \label{1st_condition} \\
2(f+g\Delta)f' &= gf + \theta^2\label{2nd_condition}.\end{aligned}$$ An interesting subfamily of poly-differential $^*$-representations arises whenever $f+g\Delta=1$, so that, setting $g(\Delta){: \hspace{-0.5pt} =}\frac{\theta^2}{3} G(2\theta^2 \Delta)$, , reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
l+l^\dag&=&2g(\Delta) \ ,\label{kv-chi}\\
0&=&2t \frac{dG}{dt} + 3\left(G(t)+1 \right) - \frac{t}{6} G^2(t),\ \ \label{equadiff-reduced} ,\end{aligned}$$ for which the Ricatti equation is solved by $G(t) = -6\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{2^n B_{2n}}{(2n)!} t^{n-1}$ where $B_n$ are Bernoulli numbers. The resulting subfamily[[^1]]{} takes the form $$\hat{x}_\mu=x^\alpha\left[(1-g(\Delta)\Delta)\delta_{\alpha\mu}+g(\Delta)\partial_\alpha\partial_\mu+
i\theta\varepsilon_{\alpha\mu}^{\hspace{11pt}\rho}\partial_\rho
\right]+g(\Delta)\partial_\mu . \label{kv-star}$$ We will derive from this subfamily a tracial star-product equivalent to the Kontsevich product for the Poisson manifold dual to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(2)$.\
Quantization maps, deformations of $\mathbb{R}^3$ and extensions.
=================================================================
Let $Q$ denotes the quantization map, i.e an invertible $^*$-algebra morphism $$Q: (\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3),\star) \to (\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)),\cdot)\label{quant-map},$$ where “.” is the product between differential operators omitted from now on, such that for any $f,\ g\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, $$f\star g {: \hspace{-0.5pt} =}Q^{-1}\left(Q(f)Q(g)\right),\ Q(1)={{ \mathbb{I}}},\ Q(\bar{f})=\left(Q(f)\right)^\dag,\label{alg-morph}$$ $$Q(f)\rhd1=f(x) \ ,\label{Q-unitaction}$$ so that $Q^{-1}\left(Q(f)\right)=Q(f) \rhd 1$, where “$\rhd$” is the left action of operators. Therefore the star-product can be expressed as $$(f\star g)(x)=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\tilde{f}(p)\tilde{g}(q)Q^{-1}\left(E_p(\hat{x})E_q(\hat{x}) \right) \ , \label{star-definition}$$ for any $f,g\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, where the quantized plane waves $E_p(\hat{x})$ are defined by $$E_p(\hat{x}) {: \hspace{-0.5pt} =}Q(e^{ipx}).\label{nc-planew}$$ The quantized plane waves define a map $E:SU(2)\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3))$, $$E:g\mapsto E(g):=E_p(\hat{x}), \label{themap}$$ $$E(g^\dag)=E^\dag(g) \ , \label{themapdag}$$ for any $g\in SU(2)$. Using polar decomposition, one can write $$E(g)=U(g)|E(g)| \ , \label{polar-dec}$$ where $|E(g)|:=\sqrt{E^\dag(g)E(g)} \neq 0$ and the unitary operator $U:SU(2)\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3))$ can be expressed as $$U(g)=e^{i\xi_g^\mu\hat{x}_\mu},$$ in view of the Stone’s theorem, where $\xi_g^\mu\in\mathbb{R}$. Then, the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ gives $$e^{i\xi_{g_1}\hat{x}}e^{i\xi_{g_2}\hat{x}}=e^{iB(\xi_{g_1},\xi_{g_2})\hat{x}} \ ,\label{expans-bak}$$ where the infinite expansion $B(\xi_{g_1},\xi_{g_2})$ fulfills $$B(\xi_{g_1},\xi_{g_2})=-B(-\xi_{g_2},-\xi_{g_1}) , \ B(\xi_g,0)=\xi_g \ .$$ Observe that $U(g)$ and $E(g)$ define representations of $SU(2)$. Then, one has for any $g_1,g_2\in SU(2)$ $$U(g_1)U(g_2)=U(g_1g_2) \ , \label{projectif-su2}$$ which holds true (up to unitary equivalence) as a mere application of the Wigner theorem to $SU(2)$, while we demand $$E(g_1)E(g_2)=\Omega(g_1,g_2)E(g_1g_2)\label{projectif-caracter}$$ where $\Omega(g_1,g_2)$ is to be determined. Combining $E(g^\dag g)=E({{ \mathbb{I}}})={{ \mathbb{I}}}$ with Eqn. , one obtains $E(g^\dag)E(g)=\Omega(g^\dag,g){{ \mathbb{I}}}$, for any $g\in SU(2)$. Therefore $\vert E(g)\vert=\sqrt{\Omega(g^\dag,g)}{{ \mathbb{I}}}$, so that $$\omega_g:=\sqrt{\Omega(g^\dag,g)} \in \mathbb{R},\ \omega_g>0,\label{positiv-omega}$$ together with $$[|E(g)|,U(g)]=0. \label{cond-central}$$ Using and , one get $$E(g_1)E(g_2)=|E(g_1)||E(g_2)|U(g_1g_2)=|E(g_1)||E(g_2)||E(g_1g_2)|^{-1}E(g_1g_2) \ , \label{intermediaire}$$ where the 2nd equality stems from , which combined with the expression for $|E(g)|$ yields $$E(g_1)E(g_2)=(\omega_{g_1}\omega_{g_2}\omega^{-1}_{g_1g_2})E(g_1g_2) \ , \label{planew-multiplic}$$ where $$E(g_1g_2)=\omega_{g_1g_2}e^{iB(\xi_{g_1},\xi_{g_2})\hat{x}}.$$ Note that insures the associativity of the star-product , since the 2-cocycle $\Omega(g_1,g_2):=\omega_{g_1}\omega_{g_2}\omega^{-1}_{g_1g_2}$ obeys $\Omega(g_1,g_2)\Omega(g_1g_2,g_3)=\Omega(g_1,g_2g_3) \Omega(g_2,g_3)$, for any $g_1,g_2,g_3\in SU(2)$. From eqn. , one infers that any unitary equivalent representations, $U$ and $U^\prime$ correspond to unitary equivalent products. Indeed, one has $U^\prime(g)=e^{i\gamma(g)}U(g)=e^{i\gamma(g)}e^{i\xi_g\hat{x}} $, where $\gamma$ is a real function, which implies the following equivalence relation $T(f\star^\prime g)=Tf\star Tg$ where $T$ is defined by $E^\prime_k(\hat{x})\equiv Q^\prime(e^{ikx}):=Q\circ T(e^{ikx})=e^{i\gamma(k)}Q(e^{ikx})=e^{i\gamma(k)}E_k(\hat{x}).$ Informally speaking, the star-product which will be determined in a while is essentially unique up to unitary equivalence.\
This result can be understood [@tp-jcw17] within the more general framework of central extensions of Lie groups which in addition offers a convenient way for generalizations of the present work. In the following $\mathcal{A}$ is a 1-d abelian Lie group which we will assumed to be $\mathcal{A}=\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D}$ where $\mathcal{D}$ is a discrete group of $\mathbb{R}$, i.e $\mathcal{D}=p\mathbb{Z}$. Let $G$ be a connected Lie group with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ whose action on $\mathcal{A}$, $\rho:G\times \mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A}$, is assumed to be trivial ($\rho(g,a)=a$, for any $g\in G$, $a\in\mathcal{A}$). $\mathcal{E}$ is a central extension of $G$ if $\mathcal{A}$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the center of $G$, $\mathcal{Z}(G)$ and $G\simeq \mathcal{E}/\mathcal{A}$ as group isomorphism. Recall that inequivalent central extensions of groups encoded by the short exact sequence ${{ \mathbb{I}}}\to\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{E}\overset{\pi}{\to} G\to {{ \mathbb{I}}}$ (where $\pi$ is the canonical projection, with in addition $Im(\mathcal{A})\subset\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{E})$), are classified by $H^2(G,\mathcal{A})$, the 2nd group of the cohomologie of $G$ with values in $\mathcal{A}$. Actually, up to additional technical requirements, $\mathcal{E}$ defines a principal fiber bundle over $G$ with 1-form connection and structure group $\mathcal{A}$. For [*[simply connected]{}*]{} Lie groups $G$, one has $$H^2(G,\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D})\simeq H^2_{alg}(\mathfrak{g},\mathbb{R}),$$ see e.g [@hoch-shap], where $H^2_{alg}(\mathfrak{g},\mathbb{R})$ is the 2nd group of (real) cohomology of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$.\
When $G$ is in addition semi simple, which is for instance the case for $SU(2)$, one has $H^2_{alg}(\mathfrak{g},\mathbb{R})=\{0\}$ so that $H^2(G,\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D})$ is trivial. When $\mathcal{D}=\mathbb{Z}$, one has $\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D}=U(1)$, hence the triviality of $H^2(SU(2),U(1))$ which explains the uniqueness of the above star-products up to unitary equivalence. The above conclusion extends to the central extension of any semi-simple and simply connected Lie group by $\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D}$ so that the extension of the present construction to spaces with noncommutativity based on the corresponding Lie algebra should produce uniqueness of the star-product (up to equivalence).\
When $G$ is semi-simple but not necessarily simply connected, its inequivalent central extensions by $\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D}$ are classified (up to additional technical requirements) by $H^1_{\hat{C}}(G,\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D})$, where $H^\bullet_{\hat{C}}$ denotes the Cech cohomology. The following isomorphism holds true $$H^1_{\hat{C}}(G,\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D})\simeq Hom(\pi_1(G)\to\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D}).$$ Now assume $G=SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ and $\mathcal{D}=\mathbb{Z}$ so that $\mathbb{R}/\mathcal{D}\simeq U(1)$. The use of Iwazawa decomposition yields $SL(2,\mathbb{R})\simeq \mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{S}^1$, which combined with $\pi_1(X\times Y)=\pi_1(X)\times\pi_1(Y)$ for any topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ implies $\pi_1(SL(2,\mathbb{R}))\simeq\mathbb{Z}$. Hence, $Hom(\mathbb{Z}\to U(1))\simeq U(1)$ which classifies the inequivalent extensions of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ by $U(1)$. Accordingly, one expect that the extension of the present construction of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ gives rise to inequivalent classes of star-products.\
Quantized plane waves for $\mathbb{R}^3_\theta$
===============================================
The determination of which takes the generic form $$E_p(\hat{x})=\omega(p)e^{i\xi(p)\hat{x}} \label{generalform-ncexpo} ,$$ can be achieved through a standard albeit tedious computation whose main steps are summarized now.\
First, using $e^{i\xi(p)\hat{x}}\rhd 1 = \frac{e^{ipx}}{\omega(p)}$, one easily infers that $$e^{-i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} \partial_\mu e^{i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} = (i\lambda p_\mu) {{ \mathbb{I}}},\label{megaplus1}$$ which holds for any $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$. Then, the combination of $[\partial_\mu, \hat{x}_\nu] = [\partial_\mu,x^a\varphi_{a\nu}] = \varphi_{\mu \nu}$ with the functional derivative of with respect to $\lambda$ yields $$\label{diff-xi}
\varphi_{\mu\nu}(i\lambda p) \frac{d}{d\lambda} \left[ \xi^\nu(\lambda p) \right] = p_\mu.$$ From $SO(3)$-covariance requirement, it can be shown [@tp-jcw17] that this latter functional differential equation is solved by $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^\mu(p) &=& \int_0^1 d\lambda (\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}_{\vert_{i\lambda p}} p_\nu,\label{solution-xi}\\
(\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}(ip) &=& \frac{1}{f^2+\theta^2 p^2} \left( f \delta^{\mu\nu} + 2f'p^\mu p^\nu + \theta \varepsilon^{\mu \nu \rho} p_\rho \right) \ , \label{phi-inverse}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ and $f^\prime$, -, depend on $(-p^2)$. $\xi_\mu$ can be verified to be an injective antisymmetric real-valued function. Finally, Eqn. can be recast as a Volterra integral given by $$\xi^\mu(p) = \int_{-p^2}^0 \frac{dt}{2\vert p \vert\sqrt{-t}}\ \frac{f(t)-2tf^\prime(t)}{f^2(t)-\theta^2 t}p^\mu .\label{volterra-xi}$$ It can be verified that simplifies to $\xi^\mu=p^\mu$ when use it made of the subfamily of $^*$-representations .\
To determine $\omega(p)$, one observes that $$\frac{d}{d \lambda} \left[ e^{i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} \right]= i (\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}_{\vert_{i\lambda p}} p_\nu \hat{x}_\mu e^{i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} \ ,$$ where has been used, implying $$\frac{d}{d \lambda} \left[ e^{i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} \right] \rhd 1 = i \left( x^\nu + \chi_\mu (\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}_{\vert_{i\lambda p}} \right) p_\nu \frac{e^{i\lambda px}}{\omega(\lambda p)} \ .$$ Besides, the following relation holds true $$\frac{d}{d \lambda} \left[ \frac{e^{i\lambda px}}{\omega(\lambda p)} \right] = \left( ix^\nu p_\nu - \frac{1}{\omega(\lambda p)} \frac{d}{d \lambda} \left[ \omega(\lambda p) \right] \right) \frac{e^{i\lambda px}}{\omega(\lambda p)}.$$ Now, one can verify that $\frac{d}{d\lambda} \left[ \hat{A} f(x) \right] = \frac{d\hat{A}}{d\lambda} f(x)$ where $\hat{A}$ and $f$ are any operator and function suitably chosen for the latter expression to be well defined. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\lambda} \left[ e^{i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} \rhd 1 \right] &=& \frac{d}{d\lambda} \left[ e^{i\xi(\lambda p) \hat{x}} \right] \rhd 1,\\
i \left( x^\nu + \chi_\mu (\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}_{\vert_{i\lambda p}} \right) p_\nu &=& ix^\nu p_\nu - \frac{1}{\omega(\lambda p)} \frac{d}{d \lambda} \left[ \omega(\lambda p) \right] \ ,\end{aligned}$$ implying $$\frac{1}{\omega(\lambda p)} \frac{d}{d \lambda} \left[ \omega(\lambda p) \right] = - i \chi_\mu (\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}_{\vert_{i\lambda p}} p_\nu \ ,$$ which is solved by [@tp-jcw17] $\omega(p) = e^{-i \int_0^1 d\lambda \ \chi_\mu(i\lambda p) (\varphi^{-1})^{\mu\nu}_{\vert_{i\lambda p}} p_\nu}$. This latter expression can be recast as a Volterra integral given by $$\label{volterra-omega}
\omega(p) = e^{\int_{-p^2}^0 dt\ \frac{f(t)-2tf^\prime(t)}{f^2(t)-\theta^2 t}\ell(t)}.$$ Consistency with requires $\omega(p)$ to be a positive real quantity therefore constraining $\ell$ to be a real functional, $\ell^\dag=\ell$. It follows that reduces to $\ell=(f+g\Delta)^\prime+g$, which thus constraints $\ell$ once $f$ and $g$ fulfilling are obtained.\
To summarize the above analysis, given a $^*$-representation belonging to the family -, eqns. and fully characterize the corresponding quantization map $Q$ , together with its star-product . Two remarks are in order:\
i) One can show [@tp-jcw17] that for the family of poly-differential $^*$-representations considered in this note, $Q$ [*[cannot]{}*]{} be the Weyl quantization map $W$related to the symmetric ordering for operators. In fact, the only poly-differential representation compatible with the Weyl quantization is defined by $\hat{x}_\mu=x^\alpha\left((1-g\Delta)\delta_{\alpha\mu}+g\partial_\alpha\partial_\mu+i\theta
\varepsilon_{\alpha\mu\rho}\partial_\rho\right) $ (in particular $\chi=0$), where $g$ has been defined above, which however is not a $^*$-representation.\
ii) One can verify that the star-product used in [@lagraa] and some ensuing works does not belong to the general family of star-products related to . The former star-product, defining a particular deformation of $\mathbb{R}^3$ called $\mathbb{R}^3_\lambda$, can be related to the Wick-Voros product [@wick-voros; @galuccio; @fedele] stemming from a twist. So far, whether or not the present family of star-products also admits a representation in terms of a twist is not known.
Tracial star-product and related quantum field theories {#subsection34}
=======================================================
In this section, we restrict ourselves to the particular subfamily of $^*$-representations . By combining this latter with eqns. and , one easily finds that the quantized plane waves are defined by $Q(e^{ipx})\equiv E_p(\hat{x}) = \left( \frac{\sin(\theta |p|)}{\theta |p|} \right)^2 e^{ip\hat{x}}$, from which follows $$(f\star_Q g)(x) = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\tilde{f}(p)\tilde{g}(q) \mathcal{W}^2(p,q) e^{iB(p,q)x} \ ,$$ for any $f,g \in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, with $\mathcal{W}(p,q) {: \hspace{-0.5pt} =}\frac{|B(p,q)|}{\theta |p||q|}\frac{\sin(\theta |p|)\sin(\theta |q|)}{\sin(\theta |B(p,q)|)}$ where $B(p,q)$ is given by . Now, introduce a new quantization map $\mathcal{K}:\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3) \to \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3))$ through $$\mathcal{K} {: \hspace{-0.5pt} =}Q \circ H,$$ where the operator $H$ acting on $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ is given by $$\label{Kontsevich}
H {: \hspace{-0.5pt} =}\frac{\theta \sqrt{\Delta}}{\sinh(\theta \sqrt{\Delta})},$$ and such that $$H(f\star_\mathcal{K}g)=H(f)\star_QH(g),$$ for any $f,g \in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$. One obtains from a standard computation $$\mathcal{K}(e^{ipx}) = \frac{\sin(\theta |p|)}{\theta |p|} e^{ip\hat{x}} \label{checkpoint2},$$ from which it is easy to obtain finally $$(f\star_\mathcal{K}g)(x)=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}\tilde{f}(p)\tilde{g}(q) \mathcal{W}(p,q) e^{iB(p,q)x} \ , \label{kontsev-product}$$ for any $f,g \in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, where $\mathcal{W}(p,q)$ has been given above.\
The star-product $\star_\mathcal{K}$ is nothing but the Kontsevich product [@deform] related to the Poisson manifold dual to the finite dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(2)$,. This can be realized [@tp-jcw17] by noticing that can be recast into the form $\mathcal{K}(e^{ipx})=W(j^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Delta)(e^{ipx}))$ where $W$ is the Weyl quantization map, $W(e^{ipx})=e^{ip\hat{x}}$ and $$j^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Delta)=\frac{\sinh(\theta \sqrt{\Delta})}{\theta \sqrt{\Delta}} \ , \label{duflo}$$ is the Harish-Chandra map [@harish], [@duflo]. Hence, $$\mathcal{K}=W\circ j^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Delta) \ , \label{deriv-konts}$$ which coincides with the Kontsevich product in the present case, see e.g [@q-grav]. Note that and imply $$j^{\frac{1}{2}}(\Delta)=H^{-1},$$ so that $H$ is the inverse of the Harish-Chandra map. The star-product $\star_\mathcal{K}$ is tracial with respect to the trace functional which in the present case is simply defined by the Lebesgue integral on $\mathbb{R}^3$. Namely, one has $$\int d^3 x (f \star_\mathcal{K} g)(x) = \int d^3 x f(x) g(x).$$
This last interesting property can be exploited to built NCFT admitting standard (i.e commutative) massive real or complex scalar field theories with quartic interaction as formal commutative limits [@jpw-16], [@KV-15], namely $$\begin{aligned}
S_1&=&\int d^3x\big[\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\phi\star_\mathcal{K}\partial_\mu\phi+\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi\star_\mathcal{K}\phi+\frac{\lambda}{4!}\phi\star_\mathcal{K}\phi\star_\mathcal{K}\phi\star_\mathcal{K}\phi\big]\label{real-clasaction},\\
S_2&=&\int d^3x\big[\partial_\mu\Phi^\dag\star_\mathcal{K}\partial_\mu\Phi+m^2\Phi^\dag\star_\mathcal{K}\Phi+
{\lambda}\Phi^\dag\star_\mathcal{K}\Phi\star_\mathcal{K}\Phi^\dag\star_\mathcal{K}\Phi\big]\label{complx-clasaction}.\end{aligned}$$ It turns out that and do not have (perturbative) UV/IR mixing, as shown in [@jpw-16]. Indeed, the relevant contributions to the 2-point function can be written as $\Gamma_2^{(I)}=\int d^3x\ \phi(x)\phi(x)\omega_I$ and $\Gamma_2^{(II)}=\int \frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{d^3k_1}{(2\pi)^3}\ \tilde{\phi}(k_1)\tilde{\phi}(k_2)\omega_{II}(k_1,k_2)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{I}&\sim&\frac{4}{\theta^2}\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\ \frac{\sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2}|p|)}{p^2(p^2+m^2)}=\frac{1-e^{-\theta m}}{2m\pi\theta^2}\\
\omega_{II}&\sim&\int d^3x\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\ \frac{1}{p^2+m^2}(e^{ipx}\star_{\mathcal{K}}e^{ik_1x}\star_{\mathcal{K}}e^{-ipx}\star_{\mathcal{K}}e^{ik_2x}).\end{aligned}$$ When $\theta\ne0$, $\omega_I$ is obviously finite even for $m=0$ while $\omega_{II}(0,k_2)\sim\delta(k_2)\omega_I$. Similar expression holds for $\omega_{II}(k_1,0)$ so that no IR singularity occurs within . This signals the absence of UV/IR mixing. One can check [@jpw-16] the UV one-loop finiteness of $\omega_{II}$. Note that similar conclusions hold true for the complex scalar field case .\
The origin of the absence of UV/IR mixing as well as the present mild (finite) UV behaviour (which should extend to all orders) is likely due to the Peter-Weyl decomposition[[^2]]{}of the algebra modeling the noncommutative space, i.e $\mathbb{R}^3_\theta=\oplus_{j\in\frac{\mathbb{N}}{2}}\mathbb{M}_{2j+1}(\mathbb{C})$, which reflects the relationship between the algebra and the convolution algebra of $SU(2)$, see [@wal-16]. This is particularly apparent in a class of NCFT [@vitwal], with however kinetic operators different from the usual Laplacian used here, for which the theory splits into an infinite tower of (matrix) field theories, each on a finite geometry with the radius $\sim j$ of $\mathbb{M}_{2j+1}(\mathbb{C})$ serving as a natural cut-off. The use of the standard Laplacian in , complicates the analysis of the UV behaviour to arbitrary orders but one can reasonably conjecture that both and NCFT are (UV) finite to all orders.\
An interesting issue would be to extend the above analysis to the case of noncommutative gauge theories whose commutative limit would reproduce the usual gauge (Yang-Mills) theory on $\mathbb{R}^3$. Such an extension would presumably exclude the choice of a derivation-based differential calculus [@mdv-jcw] since this latter would produce natural Laplacians without (analog of) radial dependence. Note that one proposal aiming to include radial dependence presented in [@fedele] amounts to enlarge the initial algebra by incorporating the deformation parameter itself.\
4 true cm
[**[Acknowledgments:]{}**]{} J.-C. Wallet is grateful to F. Besnard, N. Franco and F. Latrémolière for discussions on various topics related to the present work. T. Poulain thanks COST Action MP1405 QSPACE for partial financial support. This work is partially supported by H2020 Twinning project No. 692194, “RBI-T-WINNING”.
[10]{}
See e.g C. Guedes, D. Oriti and M. Raasakka, “[*[Quantization maps, algebra representation and non-commutative Fourier transform for Lie groups ]{}*]{}”, J. Math. Phys. [**[54]{}**]{} (2013) 083508 and references therein. See also
L. Freidel and E. Livine, “[*[Effective 3-D quantum gravity and non-commutative quantum field theory ]{}*]{}”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[96]{}**]{} (2006) 221301. A. Baratin and D. Oriti, “[*[ ]{}*]{}”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[105]{}**]{}(2010) 221302
For a recent review on star-products and their applications, see e.g F. Lizzi, P. Vitale, "[*[Matrix Bases for Star Products: a Review ]{}*]{}, SIGMA [**[10]{}**]{} (2014) 086.
A. B. Hammou, M. Lagraa and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, “[*[Coherent state induced star-product on R\*\*3(lambda) and the fuzzy sphere]{}*]{}”, [Phys. Rev. D**66**, 025025 (2002)]{}.
J. M. Gracia-Bondía, F. Lizzi, G. Marmo and P. Vitale, “[*[Infinitely many star-products to play with]{}*]{}”, [[JHEP]{} **04** (2002) 026]{}. V.G. Kupriyanov and P. Vitale, “[*[Noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^d$ via closed star-product ]{}*]{}”, JHEP [**[08]{}**]{} (2015) 024.
See e.g L. Freidel and S. Majid, “[*[Noncommutative harmonic analysis, sampling theory and the Duflo map in 2+1 quantum gravity ]{}*]{}”, Class. Quant. Grav. [**[25]{}**]{} (2008) 045006.
S. Galluccio, F. Lizzi, P. Vitale“[*[Twisted Noncommutative Field Theory with the Wick-Voros and Moyal Products]{}*]{}”, Phys.Rev.D[**[78]{}**]{} (2008) 085007. See also P. Aschieri, F. Lizzi, P. Vitale "[*[Twisting all the way: from Classical Mechanics to Quantum Fields]{}*]{}, Phys.Rev.D[**[77]{}**]{} (2008) 025037.
J.M. Gracia-Bondia, F. Lizzi, F. Ruiz Ruiz, P. Vitale, “[*[Noncommutative spacetime symmetries: Twist versus covariance]{}*]{}”, Phys.Rev.D[**[74]{}**]{} (2006) 025014; Erratum-ibid.D[**[74]{}**]{} (2006)029901.
P. Vitale, J.-C. Wallet, ”[*[Noncommutative field theories on $\mathbb{R}^3_\lambda$: Toward UV/IR mixing freedom]{}*]{}”, [JHEP]{} **04** (2013) 115. A. Géré, P. Vitale, J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Quantum gauge theories on noncommutative three-dimensional space]{}*]{}”, [Phys. Rev. D**90** (2014) 045019 ]{}. A. Géré, T. Jurić and J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Noncommutative gauge theories on $\mathbb{R}^3_\lambda$: Perturbatively finite models ]{}*]{}”, [[JHEP]{} **12** (2015) 045]{}. P. Vitale, “Noncommutative field theory on $\mathbb{R}^3_\lambda$”, Fortschr. Phys. (2014) DOI 10.1002/prop.201400037 \[arxiv:1406.1372\].
J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Exact Partition Functions for Gauge Theories on $\mathbb{R}^3_\lambda$]{}*]{}”, Nucl. Phys. B[**[912]{}**]{} (2016) 354. H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, ”[*[Renormalisation of $\varphi^4$-theory on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^2$ in the matrix base]{}*]{}”, JHEP [**0312**]{} (2003) 019. H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, ”[*[Renormalisation of $\varphi^4$-theory on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^4$ in the matrix base]{}*]{}”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**256**]{} (2005) 305. A. de Goursac, A. Tanasa, J.-C. Wallet, ”[ *[Vacuum configurations for renormalizable non-commutative scalar models]{}*]{}”, Eur. Phys. J. C[**[53]{}**]{} (2008) 459. A. de Goursac, J.-C. Wallet, R. Wulkenhaar, “[*[On the vacuum states for noncommutative gauge theory]{}*]{}”, [Eur. Phys. J. C**56** (2008) 293–304]{}. P. Martinetti, P. Vitale, J.-C. Wallet, ”[*[ Noncommutative gauge theories on $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ as matrix models]{}*]{}”, *JHEP* **09** (2013) 051. Families of star products on the Moyal space $\mathbb{R}^4_\theta$ have been constructed in A. de Goursac, J.-C. Wallet, “[ *[Symmetries of noncommutative scalar field theory]{}*]{}”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**[44]{}**]{} (2011) 055401. See also J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Noncommutative Induced Gauge Theories on Moyal Spaces]{}*]{}”, [J. Phys. Conf. Ser. **103**, 012007 (2008)]{}. A. de Goursac, J.-C. Wallet and R. Wulkenhaar, *Noncommutative induced gauge theory*, *Eur. Phys. J.* **C51** (2007) 977. T. Jurić, T. Poulain, J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Closed star-product on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^3$ and scalar field dynamics ]{}*]{}”, JHEP [**[05]{}**]{} (2016) 146. T. Jurić, T. Poulain, J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Involutive representations of coordinate algebras and quantum spaces ]{}*]{}”, arXiv:1702.06348 (2017).
For a general construction, see N. Durov, S. Meljanac, A. Samsarov and Z. Skoda, “[*[A universal formula for representing Lie algebra generators as formal power series with coefficient in the Weyl algebra ]{}*]{}”, J. Algebra [**[309]{}**]{} (2007) 318.
V. G. Kupriyanov and D. V. Vassilevich, “[*[star-products made (somewhat) easier ]{}*]{}”, Eur. Phys. J. [**[C58]{}**]{} (2008) 627.
V.G. Kupriyanov and P. Vitale, “[*[Noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^d$ via closed star-product ]{}*]{}”, JHEP [**[08]{}**]{} (2015) 024.
S. Meljanac, A. Samsarov, M. Stojic and K. S. Gupta, “[*[Kappa-Minkowski space-time and the star-product realizations]{}*]{}”, Eur. Phys. J. C [**53**]{}, 295 (2008)\[arXiv:0705.2471 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Meljanac and M. Stojic, “[*[New realizations of Lie algebra kappa-deformed Euclidean space]{}*]{}”, Eur. Phys. J. C [**47**]{} (2006) 531. For an approach based on twists, see e.g A. Borowiec, A. Pachol, “[*[kappa-Minkowski spacetime as the result of Jordanian twist deformation]{}*]{}”, Phys.Rev.D [**[79]{}**]{} (2009) 045012.
M. Kontsevich, “[*[Deformation quantization of Poisson Manifolds ]{}*]{}”, Lett. Math. Phys. [**[66]{}**]{} (2003) 157.
Harish-Chandra, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**[70]{}**]{} (1951), 28-96.
M. Duflo, “[*[Opérateurs différentiels bi-invariants sur un groupe de Lie]{}*]{}, Ann. Sc. Ec. Norm. Sup. [**[10]{}**]{} (1977) 107, ”[*[Caractères des algèbres de Lie résolubles ]{}*]{}", C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série A-B 269 (1969) A437.12.
See e.g K.S. Brown, “[*[Cohomology of Groups]{}*]{}”, Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K (1982).
R. Stora, F. Thuillier and J.-C. Wallet, *[Algebraic structure of cohomological field theory models and equivariant cohomology]{}*, [in *Infinite dimensional geometry, non commutative geometry, operator algebras, fundamental interactions*, p.266-297, Cambridge Press (1995)]{}. J.-C. Wallet, *Algebraic setup for the gauge fixing of [BF]{} and super [BF]{} systems*, *Phys. Lett.* **B235** (1990) 71. L. Baulieu, M. Bellon, S. Ouvry, J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Batalin-Vilkovisky analysis of supersymmetric systems ]{}*]{}”, Phys.Lett. B[**[252]{}**]{} (1990) 387. G. Hochschild, “[*[Group extensions of Lie groups I & II]{}*]{}”, Ann. of Math. [**[54]{}**]{} (1951) 96. A. Shapiro, "[*[Group extensions of compact Lie groups]{}*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**[50]{}**]{} (1949) 581.
A. Wick-Voros, “Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin method in the Bargmann representation”, Phys. Rev. A[**[40]{}**]{} (1989) 6814.
M. Dubois-Violette, “[*[Lectures on graded differential algebras and noncommutative geometry]{}*]{}”, Noncommutative Differential Geometry and Its Applications to Physics, Springer Netherlands, 245–306 (2001), \[arxiv:math/9912017\]. J.-C. Wallet, “[*[Derivations of the Moyal algebra and Noncommutative gauge theories]{}*]{}”, [SIGMA **5** (2009) 013]{},\[arxiv:0811.3850\]. E. Cagnache, T. Masson and J-C. Wallet, “[*[Noncommutative Yang-Mills-Higgs actions from derivation based differential calculus]{}*]{}”, [J. Noncommut. Geom. **5**, 39–67 (2011)]{}, \[arxiv:0804.3061\].
[^1]: Notice that consistency with below will require $\ell$ to be real.
[^2]: This should hold provided the kinetic operator has a reasonable behaviour, i.e has compact resolvant insuring a sufficient decay of the propagator.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe all Mathieu-Zhao spaces of $k[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ ($k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero) which contains an ideal of finite codimension. Furthermore we give an algorithm to decide if a subspace of the form $I+kv_1+\cdots+kv_r$ is a Mathieu-Zhao space, in case the ideal $I$ has finite codimension.'
author:
- 'Arno van den Essen$ $[^1] and Loes van Hove'
title: 'Mathieu-Zhao spaces of polynomial rings'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Since its formulation in 1939 by Keller the Jacobian Conjecture has been studied by many authors, but remains open in all dimensions greater than one. Many attempts have been made to generalize this conjecture, however most of these generalizations turned out to be false. Only one such a conjecture, due to Olivier Mathieu in \[6\], is still open. More recently Wenhua Zhao came up with several amazing new conjectures, all implying the Jacobian Conjecture. Even better, he created a new framework in which all these fascinating conjectures, including Mathieu’s conjecture, can be studied:this is his theory of Mathieu subspaces (\[7\], \[8 \], \[9 \], \[10\] and \[1\]). The name Mathieu subspaces was recently changed into Mathieu-Zhao spaces, for short MZ-spaces, by the first author in \[2\].
An MZ-space is a generalization of the notion of an ideal in a ring. More precisely, let $k$ be a field, $R$ a $k$-algebra and $V$ a $k$-linear subspace of $R$. Then $V$ is called a [*(left) MZ-space of $R$*]{} if the following holds: if $a\in R$ is such that $a^m\in V$, for all large $m$ (i.e. there exists $N$ such that $a^m\in V$ for all $m\geq N$), then for all $b\in R$ also $ba^m\in V$ for all large $m$.
The new conjectures introduced by Zhao all concern MZ-spaces of polynomial rings over a field. Therefore one is naturally led to the study of MZ-spaces of such rings. A first step toward a description of these spaces, for the case of univariate polynomial rings, was made in \[3\]. There the authors classify all MZ-spaces of $k[t]$ which contain a non-zero ideal. These spaces have finite codimension. However classifying MZ-spaces, even of codimension one of $k[t]$, is still far too complicated. For example the set of all $f\in{\mathbb C}[t]$ such that $\int_0^1 f(t)\,dt=0$ is an MZ-space of ${\mathbb C}[t]$, but its proof is not at all obvious (see for example \[4\] or \[1\]).
The aim of this paper is to extend the results obtained in \[3\] to polynomial rings in $n$ variables. More precisely, in case $k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, we give a complete description of all MZ-spaces of $k[x]:=k[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ containing an ideal of finite codimension. Furthermore, we give an algorithm which decides if a given subspace of $k[x]$ of the form $I+kv_1+\cdots+kv_h$ is an MZ-space, in case $I$ has finite codimension.
The results described in this paper where first obtained by the second author in her Master’s thesis \[5\], at the Radboud University in Nijmegen. This paper contains some simplifications of the original proofs.
Preliminaries and notations
===========================
Throughout this paper $k$ will denote an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero and $k[x]:=k[x_1,\cdots,x_n]$ is the polynomial ring in $n$ variables over $k$. $V$ will always denote a $k$-linear subspace of $k[x]$ and we additionally [*assume*]{} that $V$ contains an ideal $I$ such that $k[x]/I$ is a finite dimensional $k$-vectorspace, say of dimension $d$. It follows that the $d+1$ vectors $1,\overline{x_1},\overline{x_1^2},\cdots, \overline{x_1^d}$ are linearly dependent over $k$, which implies that $I$ contains a monic polynomial $f_1(x_1)\in k[x_1]$ of degree say $d_1\geq 1$. Since this argument can be repeated for every $i$ we deduce that there exist monic polynomials $f_1(x_1),\cdots,f_n(x_n)$, of positive degrees $d_1,\cdots,d_n$ respectively, such that $J:=(f_1(x_1),\cdots,f_n(x_n))\subseteq I\subseteq V$. Observe that dim$_k k[x]/J=d_1\cdots d_n$ is finite. Consequently we may, and will assume from now on that $I=(f_1(x_1),\cdots,f_n(x_n))$.
The advantage of this assumption is that $A:=k[x]/I$ has a nice structure. To see this let’s fix some notations. First we denote by ${\Lambda}_i$ the set of different zeros of $f_i$ in $k$ and for ${\lambda}_i\in{\Lambda}_i$ we denote by $m({\lambda}_i)$ its multiplicity. So $$f_i(x_i)=\prod_{{\lambda}_i\in{\Lambda}_i}(x_i-{\lambda}_i)^{m({\lambda}_i)}$$ We may assume that $0\notin{\Lambda}_i$ for all $i$: just replace $x_i$ by $x_i-c_i$ for some suitable $c_i\in k$ and observe that sending each $x_i$ to $x_i-c_i$ is a $k$-automorphism of $k[x]$. Now define ${\Lambda}={\Lambda}_1\times\cdots\times{\Lambda}_n$. So an element ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ is an $n$-tuple of the form ${\lambda}=({\lambda}_1,\cdots,{\lambda}_n)$, where each ${\lambda}_i$ belongs to ${\Lambda}_i$. The $n$-tuple $(m({\lambda}_1),\cdots,m({\lambda}_n))$ we denote by $m({\lambda})$. If furthermore for each ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ we denote by $[(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})}$ the ideal $((x_1-{\lambda}_1)^{m({\lambda}_1)},\cdots,(x_n-{\lambda}_n)^{m({\lambda}_n)})$ in $k[x]$, it follows from the Chinese remainder theorem and an easy induction that $$k[x]/I\simeq\prod_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}} k[x]/[(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})}$$ The isomorphism is given by ${\phi}(g+I)=(g+[(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})})_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}}$. The ring on the right-hand side we denote by $B$. It is a product of the local rings $B_{{\lambda}}:= k[x]/[(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})}$. Hence each such a ring has only two idempotents, namely $0$ and $1$. It follows that the elements $e_{{\lambda}}=(0,\cdots,0,1,0,\cdots,0)\in B$ (where the $1$ appears at the component with index ${\lambda}$) form an [*orthogonal basis of idempotents of $B$*]{}, i.e. each $e_{{\lambda}}$ is a non-zero idempotent of $B$, $e_{{\lambda}}\cdot e_{\mu}=0$ for all ${\lambda}\neq\mu\in{\Lambda}$ and each non-zero idempotent of $B$ is of the form $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}^{'}}e_{{\lambda}}$, for some non-empty subset ${\Lambda}^{'}$ of ${\Lambda}$. By the isomorphism ${\phi}$ there exist $g_{{\lambda}}\in k[x]$, such that ${\phi}(g_{{\lambda}}+I)=e_{{\lambda}}$. Consequently the elements $g_{{\lambda}}+I$ form an orthogonal bases of idempotents of $A$.
To understand the importance of these idempotents we recall two facts from \[10\]. The first fact says that $V$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$ if and only if ${\overline{V}}:=V/I$ is an MZ-space of $A$. So we need to study MZ-spaces of $A$. Therefore observe that $A$ is finite dimensional over $k$, so all its elements are algebraic over $k$. It then follows from Zhao’s idempotency theorem (theorem 4.2, \[10\]) that ${\overline{V}}$ is an MZ-space of $A$ if and only if for each idempotent $e$ of $A$, which belongs to ${\overline{V}}$, the ideal $Ae$ is contained in ${\overline{V}}$. Before we can use these results to obtain a first characterization of MZ-spaces of $k[x]$ containing $I$, we need one more result, which will be applied to the ring $A$ and the idempotents $g_{{\lambda}}+I$ described above:
[**Lemma 1.**]{} [*Let $R$ be a commutative ring which has an orthogonal basis $E$ of idempotents. If $M$ is an MZ-space of $R$, then the only idempotents of $R$ in $M$ are $0$ or the elements of the form $\sum_j e_j$, where each $e_j$ belongs to $E_0:=E\cap M$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} Let $e\in M$ be an idempotent and assume that $e\neq 0$. Then $e=\sum_j e_j$, for some $e_j\in E$. Assume that one of these $e_j$ does not belong to $E_0$, say $e_i\notin E_0$. Then $e_i\notin M$. Now observe that $e^m=e\in M$ for all $m>0$. Since $M$ is an MZ-space this implies that $e_ie^m\in M$ for all large $m$. However $e_ie^m=e_ie=e_i^2=e_i$. So $e_i\in M$, a contradiction. So $e_j\in E_0$, for each $j$.
Now we are able to prove the first main theorem. Therefore let ${\Lambda}_0$ be the set of ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ such that $g_{{\lambda}}\in V$. Furhermore, for each ${\Lambda}'\subseteq{\Lambda}$ we put $I({\Lambda}')=\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'}g_{{\lambda}}$ if ${\Lambda}'\neq \emptyset$ and $I({\Lambda}')=0$ otherwise.
[**Theorem 1.**]{} [*$V$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$ if and only if for each non-empty subset ${\Lambda}'$ of ${\Lambda}$ the following conditions hold:\
i) $I({\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0)\notin V$, if ${\Lambda}\backslash{\Lambda}_0\neq\emptyset$.\
ii) $k[x]\cdot I({\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0)\subseteq V$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} $(\Rightarrow)$ Assume ${\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0\neq\emptyset$. Suppose that $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}g_{{\lambda}}\in V$. Then $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}\in {\overline{V}}$. Since $V$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$, ${\overline{V}}$ is an MZ-space in $A$. So by lemma 1 (applied to the ring $A$ and the idempotents $g_{{\lambda}}+I$) it follows that $\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}=g_{{\lambda}}+I\in{\overline{V}}$, for all ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0$. Since $I\subseteq V$, this implies that $g_{{\lambda}}\in V$ for all these ${\lambda}$. However if ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0$, then in particular ${\lambda}\notin{\Lambda}_0$. So $g_{{\lambda}}\notin V$, contradiction. This proves i). To see ii) just observe that $\overline{I({\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0)}=
\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}$ is an idempotent in $A$ which is contained in ${\overline{V}}$. Since ${\overline{V}}$ is an MZ-space in $A$ (for $V$ is one in $k[x]$), it follows from Zhao’s idempotency theorem that $A\cdot \overline{I({\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0)}\subseteq{\overline{V}}$. Using again that $I\subseteq V$ this implies ii).\
$(\Leftarrow)$ It suffices to show that ${\overline{V}}$ is an MZ-space of $A$. We use Zhao’s idempotency theorem. So let $e\in{\overline{V}}$ be a non-zero idempotent of $A$. Then there exists a non-empty subset ${\Lambda}'$ of ${\Lambda}$ such that $e=\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}\in {\overline{V}}$. Split this sum into $$\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}+\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}$$ By definition of ${\Lambda}_0$ the last part belongs to ${\overline{V}}$. Consequently $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}\in{\overline{V}}$, whence $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}g_{{\lambda}}\in V$. It follows from i) that ${\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0=\emptyset$. So each non-zero idempotent of ${\overline{V}}$ is of the form $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}$. By ii) we get that $A\cdot\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}\overline{g_{{\lambda}}}\subseteq{\overline{V}}$. So by Zhao’s idempotency theorem we deduce that ${\overline{V}}$ is an MZ-space of $A$, which completes the proof.
$V$ as the kernel of a linear map
=================================
We recall that $V$ is a $k$-linear subspace of $k[x]$ containing an ideal $I$ of the form $I=(f_1(x_1),\cdots,f_n(x_n))$, where each $f_i$ is a univariate polynomial of positive degree $d_i$. It follows that $A:=k[x]/I$ is finite dimensional over $k$ and hence so is $k[x]/V$. If $r$ denotes the dimension of this space, there exists a $k$-linear isomorphism $\psi:k[x]/V\rightarrow k^r$. Let $\pi$ be the canonical map from $k[x]$ to $k[x]/V$. Then $\frak{L}:=\psi\circ\pi$ is a surjective $k$-linear map from $k[x]$ to $k^r$ such that $V=ker\,\frak{L}$. Write $\frak{L}=(L_1,\cdots,L_r)$. Then each $L_i:k[x]\rightarrow k$ is a $k$-linear map having $I$ in its kernel. In the remainder of this section we give an explicit description of such $k$-linear maps. In order to do so we introduce some more notation: if $f\in k[x]$ we let $$Deg\,f:=(deg_{x_1}f,\cdots,deg_{x_n}f)$$ and if $a,b\in{\mathbb Z}^n$ we define $a<b$ if and only if $a_i<b_i$ for all $i$. Furthermore we introduce two types of operators on $k[x]$: the differential operators $D_j=x_j{\partial}_{x_j}$, for each $j$ and the substitution maps $S_{{\lambda}}:k[x]\rightarrow k$, given by $S_{{\lambda}}(g)=g({\lambda})$, for all $g\in k[x]$ and each ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$. Finally write $D:=(D_1,\cdots,D_n)$. With these notations we have:
[**Theorem 2.**]{} [*Let $L:k[x]\rightarrow k$ be a $k$-linear map such that $I\subseteq ker\,L$. Then for every ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ there exists a polynomial $P_{{\lambda}}\in k[x]$ with $Deg\,P_{{\lambda}}<m({\lambda})$ such that $L=\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}} S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}(D)$.*]{}
To prove this result we need some preparations:
[**Lemma 2.**]{} [*$D_i^p(k[x](x_i-{\lambda}_i)^q)\subseteq k[x](x_i-{\lambda}_i)^{q-p}$, if $q>p\geq 0$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} Follows readily from Leibniz’ rule and induction on $p$.
[**Corollary.**]{} [*If $P_{{\lambda}}\in k[x]$ with $deg\,P_{{\lambda}}<m({\lambda})$, then $I\subseteq ker\,S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}(D)$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} We need to prove that $S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}(D)(k[x]f_i(x_i))=0$, for all $i$. We only treat the case $i=1$. So let $a(x)\in k[x]$, we will show that $S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}(D)(a(x)f_1(x_1))=0$. Write $a(x)f_1(x_1)=b(x)(x_1-{\lambda}_1)^{m({\lambda}_1)}$. Now observe that a typical monomial appearing in $P_{{\lambda}}(x)$ is of the form $cx_1^{i_1}\cdots x_n^{i_n}$, with $c\in k$ and $i_j<m({\lambda}_j)$ for all $j$. So for the corresponding monomial in $P_{{\lambda}}(D)$ we get $$cD_1^{i_1}\cdots D_n^{i_n}(a(x)f_1(x_1))=cD_2^{i_2}\cdots D_n^{i_n}D_1^{i_1}(b(x)(x_1-{\lambda}_1)^{m({\lambda}_1)})$$ $$=_{lemma\,2}cD_2^{i_2}\cdots D_n^{i_n}(g(x)(x_1-{\lambda}_1)^{m({\lambda}_1)-i_1}),\,\, g(x)\in k[x]$$ $$=cD_2^{i_2}\cdots D_n^{i_n}(g(x))(x_1-{\lambda}_1)^{m({\lambda}_1)-i_1}$$ Since $i_1<m({\lambda}_1)$ applying the substitution map $S_{{\lambda}}$ gives zero. Since this holds for every monomial appearing in $P_{{\lambda}}(x)$, this completes the proof.
[*Proof of theorem 2.*]{} If $L=0$, choose $P_{{\lambda}}=0$ for all ${\lambda}$. So let $L\neq 0$. Then there exists $v\in k[x]$ with $L(v)=1$ and $k[x]/ker\,L\simeq k$. In particular $k[x]=ker\,L\oplus kv$. Since $I\subseteq ker\,L$ reduction modulo $I$ gives that $A=k[x]/I=\overline{ker\,L}\oplus k\overline{v}$. Let $d=dim_k A$. Choose a $k$-basis $\overline{v_1},\cdots,\overline{v_{d-1}}$ of $\overline{ker\,L}$. Then $k[x]=I\oplus kv_1\oplus\cdots\oplus kv_{d-1}\oplus kv$.
For each ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ we define the universal polynomial $$P_{{\lambda}}^U:=\sum_{i<m({\lambda})}P_{{\lambda},i} x^i$$ where the $P_{{\lambda},i}$ are variables. We will show that there exist $p_{{\lambda},i}\in k$ such that $L$ equals $L(p):=\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}} S_{{\lambda}}\circ (\sum_{i<m({\lambda})} p_{{\lambda},i}D^i)$. Therefore we first observe that there are $m({\lambda}_1)\cdots m({\lambda}_n)$ monomials $x^i$ with $i<m({\lambda})$. Hence there are $m({\lambda}_1)\cdots m({\lambda}_n)$ corresponding variables $P_{{\lambda},i}$. So summing over all ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ we get $$\sum_{{\lambda}_1\in{\Lambda}_1}\cdots\sum_{{\lambda}_n\in{\Lambda}_n} m({\lambda}_1)\cdots m({\lambda}_n)=\sum_{{\lambda}_1\in{\Lambda}_1}m({\lambda}_1)\cdots\sum_{{\lambda}_n\in{\Lambda}_n}m({\lambda}_n)=d_1\cdots d_n$$ variables, which is precisely $d$, the dimension of $k[x]/I$. From the corollary above we know that for each choice of the $p_{{\lambda},i}\in k$ the corresponding operator $L(p)$ has $I$ in its kernel. Now we need to find $p_{{\lambda},i}\in k$ such that $L(p)$ is equal to $L$. Since the elements $v_1,\cdots,v_{d-1}$ belong to $ker\,L$ (for $\overline{v_i}\in \overline{ker\,L}$ and $I\subseteq ker\,L$), we must choose the $p_{{\lambda},i}\in k$ in such a way that $L(p)(v_i)=0$, for all $1\leq i\leq d-1$. This means that we have to solve a system of $d-1$ linear equations in the $d$ variables $P_{{\lambda},i}$. It follows that there exists at least one non-zero solution of $p_{{\lambda},i}$’s in $k^d$. Let $L(p)$ be the corresponding linear map. So $L$ and $L(p)$ are both zero on $I$ and the $v_i$. Since $k[x]=I\oplus kv_1\oplus\cdots\oplus kv_{d-1}\oplus kv$, it remains to see if they are equal on $v$. In general they are not. But we can change the operator a little as follows: define $a:=L(p)(v)$. We will show below that $a\in k^*$. Since $L(v)=1$ it follows that $L=(1/a)\cdot L(p)$ and $L$ not only agree on $I$ and the $v_i$ (where they both are zero), but also on $v$. So $L=(1/a)\cdot L(p)=L((1/a)p)$, which completes the proof.
It remains to see that $a$ is non-zero. So assume that $a=0$. Then $L(p)$ is the zero-map, so $L(p)(x^m)=0$ for all monomials $x^m=x_1^{m_1}\cdots x_n^{m_n}$. From the definition of $L(p)$ and the fact that $$D^i(x^m)=m_1^{i_1}\cdots m_n^{i_n}x^m$$ it then follows that $$\sum_{({\lambda}_1,\cdots,{\lambda}_n)\in{\Lambda}}\sum_{i<m({\lambda})}p_{{\lambda},i}m_1^{i_1}\cdots m_n^{i_n}{\lambda}_1^{m_1}\cdots{\lambda}_n^{m_n}=0$$ for all $(m_1,\cdots,m_n)\in\overline{{\mathbb N}}^n$. Then lemma 3 below gives that all $p_{{\lambda}, i}$ are zero, a contradiction. So $a\neq 0$.
[**Lemma 3.**]{} [*For each $i=(i_1,\cdots,i_n)\in\overline{{\mathbb N}}^n$ and ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ define $f_{{\lambda},i}:\overline{{\mathbb N}}\rightarrow k$ by $$f_{{\lambda},i}(m_1,\cdots,m_n)=m_1^{i_1}\cdots m_n^{i_n}{\lambda}_1^{m_1}\cdots{\lambda}_n^{m_n}$$ Then the $f_{{\lambda},i}$ are linearly independent over $k$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} By induction on $n$. The case $n=1$ follows from the theory of linear recurrence relations (recall that all ${\lambda}_i$ are non-zero). So let $n\geq 2$ and assume that $\sum a_{{\lambda},i}f_{{\lambda},i}=0$, for some $a_{{\lambda},i}\in k$. Then $$\sum_{(i_n,{\lambda}_n)}(\sum_{(i',{\lambda}')} a_{{\lambda},i}m_1^{i_1}\cdots m_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}{\lambda}_1^{m_1}\cdots{\lambda}_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}})m_n^{i_n}{\lambda}_n^{m_n}=0$$ where $i'=(i_1,\cdots,i_{n-1})$ and ${\lambda}'=({\lambda}_1,\cdots,{\lambda}_{n-1})$. From the case $n=1$ it then follows that for each $i_n,{\lambda}_n$ the coefficent of the term $m_n^{i_n}{\lambda}_n^{m_n}$ equals zero, i.e. $$\sum_{(i',{\lambda}')} a_{{\lambda},i}m_1^{i_1}\cdots m_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}{\lambda}_1^{m_1}\cdots{\lambda}_{n-1}^{m_{n-1}}=0$$ Then the induction hypothesis implies that all $a_{{\lambda},i}$ are zero, which completes the proof.
The main theorem
================
Now we are able to give the main theorem of this paper. The notations are as introduced before. So $I=(f_1(x_1),\cdots,f_n(x_n))$ is contained in the $k$-linear subspace $V$ of $k[x]$ and the $g_{{\lambda}}+I$ form an orthogonal basis of idempotents of $A=k[x]/I$. Furthermore $V=ker\,\frak{L}$, where $\frak{L}=(L_1,\cdots,L_r):k[x]\rightarrow k^r$ and each $L_i$ is of the form $L_i=\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}}S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}^{(i)}(D)$, for some $P_{{\lambda}}^{(i)}\in k[x]$ with Deg $P_{{\lambda}}^{(i)}<m({\lambda})$, for all ${\lambda}$.
[**Theorem 3.**]{} [*$V$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$ if and only if the following two properties hold:\
i) For each ${\Lambda}'\subseteq{\Lambda}$ such that ${\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0\neq\emptyset$ there exists an $i$ such that $$\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}P_{{\lambda}}^{(i)}(0)\neq 0$$ ii) $L_i(\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}k[x]g_{{\lambda}})=0$, for all $1\leq i\leq r$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} By theorem 1 we know that $V$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$ if and only if $I({\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0)\notin V$, when ${\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0\neq\emptyset$ and $k[x]\cdot I({\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0)\subseteq V$. The first condition is equivalent to $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}\frak{L}(g_{{\lambda}})\neq 0$, i.e. to $\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0}L_i(g_{{\lambda}})\neq 0,\,\mbox{ for some } i$. By lemma 4 below $L_i(g_{{\lambda}})=P_{{\lambda}}^{(i)}(0)$, which gives the first part of the theorem. The second condition $k[x]\cdot I({\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0)\subseteq V$ is equivalent to statement ii) of the theorem. This completes the proof.
[**Lemma 4.**]{} [*Let $L$ be as in theorem 2. Then $L(g_{{\lambda}})=P_{{\lambda}}(0)$.*]{}
[*Proof.*]{} $L(g_{{\lambda}})=\sum_{\mu\in{\Lambda},\mu\neq{\lambda}}S_{\mu}\circ P_{\mu}(D)(g_{{\lambda}})+S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}(D)(g_{{\lambda}})$. Since by definition $g_{{\lambda}}\in [(x-\mu)]^{m(\mu)}$, for all $\mu\neq{\lambda}$, it follows from the fact that Deg $P_{\mu}<m(\mu)$ that the first sum equals zero (copy the argument in the proof of the corollary above). So $L(g_{{\lambda}})=S_{{\lambda}}\circ P_{{\lambda}}(D)(g_{{\lambda}})$. Finally, using the fact that $g_{{\lambda}}\equiv 1\,mod\,[(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})}$ and that $D_i(1)=0$ for all $i$, the result follows.
Some final remarks
==================
An algorithm {#an-algorithm .unnumbered}
------------
In the previous section we gave a complete description of the MZ-spaces of $k[x]$ containing an ideal of finite codimension. It turned out that all these spaces are of the form $$I+kv_1+\cdots +kv_h$$ where $I=(f_1(x_1),\cdots,f_n(x_n))$ and each $f_i(x_i)$ is an univariate polynomial of positive degree. As we will show now the results obtained above can also be used to give an algorithm which decides if a given space of the form $I+kv_1+\cdots +kv_h$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$, when $I$ has finite codimension.
First, using Gröbner basis theory one can decide if $I$ has finite codimension and in case it has find monic univariate polynomials $f_i(x_i)$ of positive degrees $d_i$ contained in $I$. As observed in the beginning of this paper, we can replace $I$ by the ideal generated by these $f_i(x_i)$. This also gives us the set ${\Lambda}$. Next we need to determine the elements $g_{{\lambda}}$. Since for each pair ${\lambda},\mu\in{\Lambda}$, with ${\lambda}\neq\mu$, the ideals $[(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})}$ and $[(x-\mu)]^{m(\mu)}$ are comaximal, we can find elements $i_{{\lambda}}\in [(x-{\lambda})]^{m({\lambda})}$ and $i_{\mu}\in [(x-\mu)]^{m(\mu)}$ such that $i_{{\lambda}}+i_{\mu}=1$. Then one readily verifies that if we define $$g_{{\lambda}}=\prod_{\mu\neq{\lambda}} i_{\mu}$$ these elements have the desired properties.
Next we want to write $V$ as the kernel of a suitable linear map $\frak{L}$. Since the classes $\overline{x^m}$ with $m<(d_1,\cdots,d_n)$ form a basis of $k[x]/I$ it follows that the dimension of $k[x]/I$ equals $d:=d_1\cdots d_n$. Furthermore we can construct a $k$-basis of $\overline{V}:=V/I$. In other words replacing the original $v_i$ by better $v$’s we may assume that the elements $\overline{v_1}\cdots,\overline{v_h}$ form a $k$-basis of $\overline{V}$. Since $k[x]/I\big /V/I\simeq k[x]/V$ it follows that the dimension of $k[x]/V$ equals $r:=d-h$.
Then following the argument in the proof of theorem 2 one can construct a linear map $\frak{L}=(L_1,\cdots,L_r):k[x]\rightarrow k^r$, with ker $\frak{L}=V$ and each $L_i$ of the form as in theorem 2. Then to decide if $V$ is an MZ-space of $k[x]$ we need to check the two properties given in theorem 3.
To do this we first compute ${\Lambda}_0$, just by checking for which ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$ we have $\frak{L}(g_{{\lambda}})=0$. The first condition of theorem 3 consist of a finite number of calculations, just one for each subset ${\Lambda}'$ of ${\Lambda}$ such that ${\Lambda}'\backslash{\Lambda}_0\neq\emptyset$. Finally, the second condition $L_i(\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}k[x]g_{{\lambda}})=0$, for all $1\leq i\leq r$, is equivalent to $L_i(\sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}'\cap{\Lambda}_0}x^mg_{{\lambda}})=0$, for all $1\leq i\leq r$ and all $m<(d_1,\cdots,d_n)$ (since each element of $k[x]$ is equivalent mod $I$ to a lineair combination of monomials of the form $x^m$, with $m<(d_1,\cdots,d_n)$ and each $L_i$ has $I$ in its kernel). So again this only needs a finite number of calculations.
MZ-spaces of finitely generated Artin rings {#mz-spaces-of-finitely-generated-artin-rings .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
Let $R$ be a finitely generated $k$-algebra. Then $R$ is an Artin ring if and only if the dimension of $R$ is zero, or equivalently if $R$ is isomorphic to a quotient ring of the form $k[x_1,\cdots,x_n]/I$, for some $n$ and an ideal $I$ of finite codimension. So studying MZ-spaces of $R$ amounts to studying MZ-spaces of $k[x]/I$, which in turn amounts to studying MZ-spaces of $k[x]$ containing an ideal $I$ of finite codimension. This is exactly what we did in the previous section. In other words, the main theorem of this paper completely describes all MZ-spaces of Artin rings, which are finitely generated over $k$. Furthermore the algorithm given above gives an algorithm to recognize MZ-spaces of R.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
\[1\] A. van den Essen, [*The Amazing Image Conjecture*]{}, http://arxiv.org/abs/\
1006.5801 (2010).\
\[2\] A. van den Essen, [*An introduction to Mathieu subspaces*]{}. Lectures delivered at the Chern Institute of Mathematics, Tianjin, China, July 2014.\
\[3\] A. van den Essen and S. Nieman, [*Mathieu-Zhao spaces of univariate polynomial rings with non-zero strong radical*]{}, J. Pure and Appl. Algebra 220 (9) (2016), 3300-3306.\
\[4\] J.P. Francoise, F. Pakovich, Y.Yomdin, W. Zhao, [*Moment vanishing problem and positivity: Some examples*]{}, Bull. Sci. Math. 135 (2011), 10-32.\
\[5\] L. van Hove, [*Mathieu-Zhao subspaces*]{}, Master’s thesis University of Nijmegen, July 2015.\
\[6\] O. Mathieu, [*Some conjectures about invariant theory and their applications*]{}, Algèbra non commutative, groupes quantiques et invariants (Reims, 1995), Sémin. Congr. 2, Soc. Math. France, 263-279 (1997).\
\[7\] W. Zhao, [*Hessian Nilpotent Polynomials and the Jacobian Conjecture*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 274-294.\
\[8\] W. Zhao, [*Images of commuting differential oparators of order one with constant leading coefficients*]{}, J. Algebra 324 (2010), 231-247.\
\[9\] W. Zhao, [*Generalizations of the image conjecture and the Mathieu conjecture*]{}, J. Pure and Appl. Algebra 214 (7) (2010), 1200-1216.\
\[10\] W. Zhao, [*Mathieu Subspaces of Associative Algebras*]{}, J. Algebra 350 (2012), 245-272.
[^1]: corresponding author: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We studied regenerating bilayered tissue toroids dissected from Hydra vulgaris polyps and relate our macroscopic observations to the dynamics of force-generating mesoscopic cytoskeletal structures. Tissue fragments undergo a specific toroid-spheroid folding process leading to complete regeneration towards a new organism. The time scale of folding is too fast for biochemical signalling or morphogenetic gradients which forced us to assume purely mechanical self-organization. The initial pattern selection dynamics was studied by embedding toroids into hydro-gels allowing us to observe the deformation modes over longer periods of time. We found increasing mechanical fluctuations which break the toroidal symmetry and discuss the evolution of their power spectra for various gel stiffnesses. Our observations are related to single cell studies which explain the mechanical feasibility of the folding process. In addition, we observed switching of cells from a tissue bound to a migrating state after folding failure as well as in tissue injury.
We found a supra-cellular actin ring assembled along the toroid’s inner edge. Its contraction can lead to the observed folding dynamics as we could confirm by finite element simulations. This actin ring in the inner cell layer is assembled by myosin-driven length fluctuations of supra-cellular $\alpha$-actin structures (myonemes) in the outer cell-layer.
address:
- '$^1$Fakultät für Physik und Geowissenschaften, Institut für Experimentelle Physik I, Universität Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany'
- '$^2$Fakultät Maschinenwesen, Institut für Festkörpermechanik, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany'
- '$^3$Translationszentrum für Regenerative Medizin (TRM), Universität Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig, Germany'
author:
- 'Michael Krahe^1^, Iris Wenzel^1^, Kao-Nung Lin^1^, Julia Fischer^1^, Joseph Goldmann^2^, Markus Kästner^2^, and Claus Fütterer^1,3^'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Fluctuations and differential contraction during regeneration of Hydra vulgaris tissue toroids
---
*We wish to dedicate the present publication to Malcolm Steinberg ($\dagger$ February 7, 2012).*
Introduction
============
Regeneration and growth of tissues have mainly been investigated on two scales, the macroscopic one, where the tissue is considered as a piece of continuous material, and the molecular one, where the tissue dynamics is reduced to biochemical signalling. The impressive recent results of cellular and molecular biophysics, however, have revealed a surprizing complexity of the cytoskeletal dynamics. The question, what this complexity is required for may partially be answered by the living conditions in a collective environment. However, the findings about single cells have been integrated into the picture only rudimentarily, so far. We try to close the gap and investigate physical phenomena at a mesoscopic level by combining a minimum of sub-cellular and molecular structures with a coarse-grained description, e. g. as a solid or fluid, in order to explain our experimental findings. However, this field is still in its very infancy and many questions remain to be investigated.
Our multi-cellular system of choice is the cnidarian *Hydra vulgaris*. It displays a simple and uniform morphology (see (a)) and possesses only a small number of cell types. In contrast to many other multi-cellular organisms, signs of ageing could not be stated, so “eternal life” was accorded to this organism [@Martinez1998]. Its reproduction and regeneration capabilities are stunning: Hydra cell assemblies and fragments prove to survive and even regenerate completely. The absence of tissue degradation and decomposition avoids misleading results. These properties, together with the fast proliferation, render Hydra an ideal model organism for research on bio-mechanics and pattern formation in tissues.
Hydra has inspired Alan Turing to his seminal reaction-diffusion principle and, indeed, numerous grafting experiments [@Wetzel1895; @Hefferan1901; @Mutz1930] could be interpreted by postulating local activator and global inhibitor gradients as proposed by him [@Turing1952] and elaborated by Gierer & Meinhardt [@Gierer1972a; @Meinhardt2000a]. Despite great success (e. g. explanation of the existence of a minimal tissue size for regeneration), the gradient-forming molecules still have not been clearly identified [@Bode2009]. Further, a diffusion mechanism across or outside of the tissue as required for building such gradients would hardly be precise and stable enough to control the observed patterning. Unfortunately, Turing did not take into account any cell-mechanical aspects, though, regenerating Hydra tissues, as well as other tissues, show distinct active mechanical movements. As a conclusion we hypothesize that forces and movements are a crucial component for a stable regeneration of the organism.
It was shown that mechanical stress – under certain conditions – influences the chemical state of cells, e. g. $\beta$-catenin increases significantly on compression. Furthermore, $\beta$-catenin not only influences the regulation of the cytoskeleton but also the expression of genes well-known from development and cancer [@Whitehead2008; @Fletcher2010; @Farge2011]. However, the link to the tissue fluctuations and movements is still to be explored.
![(a) Cross-section of a Hydra polyp with two buds. Hydra consists of two cell layers, the gastrodermis and the epidermis (also called endoderm and ectoderm), attached to an extracellular matrix called mesoglea. The polyp forms a tube of which one end is surrounded by 7–12 tentacles with the hypostome (mouth) in the centre while the other end (basal disk) is used to attach to surfaces. (b) Tissue fragments and cellular aggregates of different geometries first transform into the universal spheroidal geometry prior to the regeneration of a new polyp. (c) Hydra possesses two different isoforms of actin, $\alpha$-actin which can build up super-cellular structures, and $\beta$-actin which becomes particularly prominent when the cell starts migrating out of the tissue collective (modified from [@Gunning1997a]).[]{data-label="hydra_hydra_sketch_and_actin_types"}](figure_1a "fig:"){height="4.5cm"} ![(a) Cross-section of a Hydra polyp with two buds. Hydra consists of two cell layers, the gastrodermis and the epidermis (also called endoderm and ectoderm), attached to an extracellular matrix called mesoglea. The polyp forms a tube of which one end is surrounded by 7–12 tentacles with the hypostome (mouth) in the centre while the other end (basal disk) is used to attach to surfaces. (b) Tissue fragments and cellular aggregates of different geometries first transform into the universal spheroidal geometry prior to the regeneration of a new polyp. (c) Hydra possesses two different isoforms of actin, $\alpha$-actin which can build up super-cellular structures, and $\beta$-actin which becomes particularly prominent when the cell starts migrating out of the tissue collective (modified from [@Gunning1997a]).[]{data-label="hydra_hydra_sketch_and_actin_types"}](figure_1b "fig:"){height="4.5cm"} ![(a) Cross-section of a Hydra polyp with two buds. Hydra consists of two cell layers, the gastrodermis and the epidermis (also called endoderm and ectoderm), attached to an extracellular matrix called mesoglea. The polyp forms a tube of which one end is surrounded by 7–12 tentacles with the hypostome (mouth) in the centre while the other end (basal disk) is used to attach to surfaces. (b) Tissue fragments and cellular aggregates of different geometries first transform into the universal spheroidal geometry prior to the regeneration of a new polyp. (c) Hydra possesses two different isoforms of actin, $\alpha$-actin which can build up super-cellular structures, and $\beta$-actin which becomes particularly prominent when the cell starts migrating out of the tissue collective (modified from [@Gunning1997a]).[]{data-label="hydra_hydra_sketch_and_actin_types"}](figure_1c "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
Single cells revealed singular material properties, partially due to their highly dynamic polymer networks. The cytoskeleton built out of these polymers shows complex rheology partially depending on the mechanical past of the cell [@Fernandez2008; @Trepat2007]. This can theoretically be captured since only recently [@LarsWolff2010; @Janmey2007; @Wen2011]. Furthermore, the cell reacts specifically to mechanical stress with softening or stiffening dependent on the entanglement of the fibres and the time scale of observation (“stiffening-softening paradox“) [@Wang2002; @Park2010; @Wolff2012].
In most healthy grown tissues cells usually neither strongly change shape nor migrate. However, it has been stated that tissue grafts lead to increased local cell motility [@Fujisawa1990] and developmental gene activation (Wnt) [@Chera2011] in Hydra organisms. In regenerating tissues cells equally show increased motility and Wnt-activity similar to single cells [@Hobmayer2000; @Galliot2010]. It is plausible that this developmental gene may be related to cell motility and healing. Its relation to our findings remains to be studied.
What determines the large scale ordering during regeneration and development? One mechanism was found by Johannes Holtfreter who investigated embryonic tissues and suggested cell-cell affinity as a sorting mechanism [@Holtfreter1939]. Foty & Steinberg showed the direct dependence of surface tension on adhesion strength between cells in cellular aggregates (“differential adhesion hypothesis”) analogous to demixing of immiscible fluids [@Foty2004; @Foty2005]. Cell assemblies represent a unique material being able to switch between fluid-like, solid-like or a material with mixed properties. Hydra tissues, as studied here, are extracted from adult animals and possess an extracellular matrix and stable inter-cellular junctions. In contrast to embryonic cell assemblies they rather behave like a soft solid material.
Fluctuations during Hydra regeneration have been investigated only rudimentarily so far [@Fuetterer2003; @Soriano2006; @Kosevich2006] and only few publications discuss fluctuations during morphogenesis for other species [@Koth2011; @Solon2009]. It was found that tissue fragments and cellular aggregates always rearrange to spheroids ( (b)). These spheroids show three phases of sawtooth-like semi-periodic fluctuations [@Fuetterer2003]. These phases were found to be related to the expression pattern of a gene associated to the mechanical axis formation [@Soriano2009]. Fluctuations may directly be coupled to gene expression, however, many open questions remain.
In order to measure macroscopic shape changes with a high signal-to-noise ratio GFP-labelled cells have been observed. Therefore we used strains with fluorescent eGFP being co-expressed along with $\beta$-actin in the epidermal as well as in the gastrodermal cells, and we studied them by confocal microscopy. As this isoform was found to be uniformly expressed, we used the variations in fluorescence intensity as an indicator for the deviation from the focal plane caused by tissue deformation.
Hydra cells also possess muscular $\alpha$-actin forming myoneme-like, force-generating structures whereas cortical $\beta$-actin is rather involved in the control of stiffness and shape. Both systems are stabilized and dynamically restructured by motor proteins (myosins) and crosslinkers (e. g. actinin) [@Gunning1997a]. However, we ignore the dynamics on a molecular scale, but concentrate our discussion on the principal functional subsystems: the mesoscopic filamentous structures denoted as “$\alpha$-actin bundles/myonemes” and the “cortical $\beta$-actin”.
While we concentrate on the mechanical properties here, it is clear that the “big picture” has to associate mechanics with signalling and genetic control. We expect that our findings are of general importance for biological pattern formation, complex systems and may lead to the unfolding of new medical approaches.
Folding dynamics
================
Fragments of different shapes were found to reshape into a spheroid in over 90% of cases. The tissue often rejects a larger number of cells during this folding process. The passage through the spheroidal state has been found without exception prior to the regeneration of a polyp, however, the reason of this necessity is not clear.
In order to obtain uniform and comparable temporal regeneration dynamics we used toroids as an initial state (). This simple shape mimicks an infinite tissue for signal spreading and facilitates data analysis and the building of models. The dimensions of our toroidal cross-section are about $80
\times 140$m (radial $\times$ coaxial direction) and 300m (overall diameter). The toroid’s wall consists of a massive inner (gastrodermis) and shell-like outer (epidermis) cell layer. The toroids comprise about 1500$\pm$500 cells in total and for this arrangement we found the regeneration to a small polyp being reproducible in about 80% of our experiments. In the remaining cases we did not observe folding. Instead the tissue just contracted until the inner aperture was closed or the toroid disintegrated completely. In the case of too small sections the folding still occurs but the reproduction probability of the polyp is reduced. Below sizes of 200-300 cells the regeneration fails [@Shimizu1993]. Too large sections do not fold but stay tube-like and heal at both ends prior to regeneration. In that case the axis of the organism is presumably conserved.
The folding process in 90% of our observations requires not more than $(120\pm30)$s from the planar ring-shape to the folded ring. The folding was considered as completed when the opposite loops got into contact. The observed time period is clearly too short for diffusive signalling across the toroid, especially as an appropriate control loop would need several passages of wave fronts of signalling molecules before a gradient obtains stability. Half of the perimeter accounts for at least 20 cells and free diffusion would disperse a signal in not less than 10min to reach the opposite side [@Francis1997].
During wing morphogenesis of the fruit-fly a Dpp (morphogen) gradient expansion speed of 6m in 5 hours (this corresponds to 3 days to cross a Hydra toroid) has been measured [@Entchev2000], which is by far too slow to explain Hydra toroid folding. Gene expression would also need many hours [@Noble2010; @Cheadle2005; @Fan2010]. A sufficient control of diffusion based on gradients outside of the tissue is hardly imaginable. In addition, the Hydra polyp lives in an aqueous environment which would strongly perturb such gradients.
Hydra possesses a primitive neuronal system mainly concentrated in the hypostome and peduncle region [@Grimmelikhuijzen1982]. The toroids are taken from the centre of the gastric column which is only sparsely populated with neurons. As most of their connections are destroyed during the dissection process, we assume that their contribution to the control of the folding process is at best marginal.
Other signal paths are provided by gap-junctions, prominent for cardiomyocytes but still unknown for Hydra. They allow for a direct and extremely fast intercellular signal exchange based on electrical potential differences driving ion flow [@McDowall1980]. However, an organizer as the sinoatrial node for the heart would be required to provide timing stability. Such a system is unknown in Hydra and presumably negligible in our toroids.
![(a–d) The figure shows the Hydra folding process (bar: 100m) observed with confocal microscopy (upper row) and as a simulation (lower row). The confocal images only show a horizontal cross-section of the 3D-structure. In the results of the simulation (discussed in ) the location of the inner actin ring (toroid diameter 300m, cross section diameter 90 m) is indicated by the increase of stress along the inner circumference of the torus due to myosin-actin contraction. The vertically arranged states correspond approximately.[]{data-label="hydra_folding_mechanism"}](figure_2){width="\textwidth"}
Osmotic pressure of the gastrodermal cells as a possible origin of contraction and deformation can be excluded since the enteron (inner cavity of a closed Hydra tissue) is hyperosmotic. This would result in a cellular swelling and not a contraction once these cells are exposed to the external medium [@Kuecken2008]. These reasons support our conclusion that the gastrodermal cells are the force-generating cell type.
Mechanical stress-relaxation waves, in contrast, propagate at the speed of sound and provide a means of very fast signal transmission. The corresponding speed $v = \sqrt{G/\rho}$ is in the range of about 0.1m/s when assuming a shear modulus $G \approx 100\,$Pa (soft cells; stiffer cells lead to even higher velocities) and a net tissue density $\rho \approx 1$g/ml [@OrescaninM2009]. Mechanical waves cross Hydra rings in milli seconds. The shear modulus is controlled by the cell cortex, which stabilizes cellular shape against external mechanical stress and osmotic pressure [@Kuecken2008].
During the folding process, the gastrodermal cells in the fold are submitted to a considerable compression leading to strong deformation. In some cases this deformation results in a local tissue disassembly as some cells start migrating individually first, then they round up, their $\beta$-actin related fluorescence is strongly increased and, finally, some quit the tissue. This process resembles the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) which plays a role in tumours and inflammation, for stem cells and during embryogenesis [@Zhao2011; @Dave2012; @Holley2007]. To our knowledge, a purely mechanical triggering of this transition has not been described before.
Cells remaining tissue-bound show a low, constant and uniform $\beta$-actin activity. The cortex provides stiffness to assure the stability of the cells and the tissue. Even for strongly deformed cells an increase of the corresponding fluorescence intensity could not be stated as long as the cells remain tissue-bound. These observations agree with gene expression studies where the $\beta$-actin expression rate has been found stable enough to serve as a reference for normalization of gene expression measurements [@Ferguson2005]. However, this statement has to be revised in our case as we observed significantly higher activity of $\beta$-actin once the cells switch from the “tissue state” to the individual migrating state. As we did only observe exclusively tissue-bound (low fluorescence) or migrating (strong fluorescence) cells, we suggest a two state approach for future models.
The actin machinery
===================
The $\alpha$-actin system of Hydra forms super-cellular bundles in the epidermis (myonemes) as well as in the gastrodermis. They are able to span across as much as 7 cells. One epidermal cell contains about 7–10 bundles. The bundles in the two cell layers are oriented orthogonally to each other and form a two-dimensional cartesian coordinate system, which allows to absorb as well as generate stress in any direction. This explains the impressive motility of the organism. The epidermal bundles are oriented coaxially to the Hydra body and the dissected-toroid axis, and they are positioned regularly with an average distance of 3–5m. The gastrodermal bundles follow the contour of the toroid, with strongly varying density. We observed strong bending and length fluctuations in both systems. The gastrodermal bundles are much less pronounced than the epidermal bundles and usually appear more clearly once the tissue is slightly stimulated mechanically.
In (a) the toroid just started the folding process. The observed $\beta$-actin fluorescence intensity did not display any specific dynamics during that process neither in the gastrodermis nor in the epidermis. We conclude that $\beta$-actin may rather serve for maintaining a uniform stiffness of the cellular material. The fluorescent gastrodermal actin forms bright zones prior to the folding event. Initially the actin is scattered in the apical cortex of the irregularly shaped gastrodermal cells. In course of time the actin structures become more dense and get aligned to bundles ( (b–d)). Finally, a dense and strong actin ring is formed along the inner side of the toroid and the cell’s apical side is flattened to a smooth inner contour. This is presumably due to increasing internal mechanical stress reducing the surface roughness. It is conceivable that the bundling process itself is self-sustained and amplified by this stress along the curved geometry. Simultaneous to the bundle formation we observed a decrease in fluorescence intensity of the cytoplasm probably due to actin depletion.
The epidermis arches as a relatively thin layer over the outer bound of the gastrodermis, which is much more voluminous. Due to their orientation, the epidermal $\alpha$-actin bundles cannot be directly responsible for the folding. We assume that one of their duties is rather to distribute the stress field generated by the contracting gastrodermal bundle ring over the entire toroid. This assures stability and reproducibility of the described dynamics.
The epidermis covers as a relatively thin layer the voluminous gastrodermis and possesses a system of long and equidistant epidermal bundles (). Their length was observed to fluctuate between 10 and 80m with rates up to 150m/min. Actin polymerization is clearly too slow to yield such rates, hence myosin is assumed to be at the origin [@Kuhn2005]. The gastrodermal tissue beneath is periodically compressed by these fluctuations which would explain the observed densification and orientation of the gastrodermal actin structure. These contractile forces are transmitted to the adjacent cell layer by the flexible and porous extracellular matrix network [@Shimizu2008]. The a priori highly oriented epidermal bundles presumably determine the orientation of the gastrodermal bundles which in turn generate the mechanical stress expressed in transversal epidermal fluctuations. The gastrodermal system was observed to regularly fractionate again and split up between the epidermal contractions. So it is much less stable than the epidermal one which may allow it to be more adaptive with respect to external changes in stress and shape.
We hypothesize that the gastrodermal actin ring as seen in (b–d) and in (b–d) is responsible for the folding process. This is supported by partially dissolving the gastrodermis by application of cytochalasin — an actin polymerization inhibitor. Degradation of the gastrodermis results when doses above 20mol/$\ell$ are applied for 10 min. The epidermis is less prone to degradation than the gastrodermis. In (c) it can be observed that the epidermis is significantly more curved in regions where some gastrodermal cells are still attached to the tissue.
![(a) The gastrodermal $\alpha$-actin bundles usually are faint. However, if the fast deformation leads to an internal shear stress these structures are expressed more strongly (ends of bundles indicated by arrows). The folding axis is oriented horizontally. (b) During folding, the actin intensity is strongly increased on the apical side of the gastrodermal cells, indicating the contraction of this cell layer. (c) Cytochalasin at concentrations above 20mol/$\ell$ destroys the gastrodermis whereas the epidermis seems to be more stable. Still some gastrodermal cells (red) remained intact in this picture. The curvature of the ring is more pronounced at that sites (indicated by the arrow). This shows the crucial role of the gastrodermis for the folding process. All bars represent 100m.[]{data-label="hydra_folding_images"}](figure_3a "fig:"){height="4.5cm"} ![(a) The gastrodermal $\alpha$-actin bundles usually are faint. However, if the fast deformation leads to an internal shear stress these structures are expressed more strongly (ends of bundles indicated by arrows). The folding axis is oriented horizontally. (b) During folding, the actin intensity is strongly increased on the apical side of the gastrodermal cells, indicating the contraction of this cell layer. (c) Cytochalasin at concentrations above 20mol/$\ell$ destroys the gastrodermis whereas the epidermis seems to be more stable. Still some gastrodermal cells (red) remained intact in this picture. The curvature of the ring is more pronounced at that sites (indicated by the arrow). This shows the crucial role of the gastrodermis for the folding process. All bars represent 100m.[]{data-label="hydra_folding_images"}](figure_3b "fig:"){height="4.5cm"} ![(a) The gastrodermal $\alpha$-actin bundles usually are faint. However, if the fast deformation leads to an internal shear stress these structures are expressed more strongly (ends of bundles indicated by arrows). The folding axis is oriented horizontally. (b) During folding, the actin intensity is strongly increased on the apical side of the gastrodermal cells, indicating the contraction of this cell layer. (c) Cytochalasin at concentrations above 20mol/$\ell$ destroys the gastrodermis whereas the epidermis seems to be more stable. Still some gastrodermal cells (red) remained intact in this picture. The curvature of the ring is more pronounced at that sites (indicated by the arrow). This shows the crucial role of the gastrodermis for the folding process. All bars represent 100m.[]{data-label="hydra_folding_images"}](figure_3c "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
![(a) The $\beta$-actin fluorescence intensity distribution in the gastrodermis of a projection of a partially folded (about 50%) Hydra does not indicate the axis along which the folding occurs later (axis in yellow). Therefore we think that the folding axis selection is random. (b–d) shows a sequence of gastrodermal actin bundle formation in a later state of the folding process. Initially, (b), the actin is scattered over the apical sides of the cells. After about 2 1/2 min, (c) the bundle starts forming and at later times (d) it becomes straight and dense (folding axis in yellow). All bars represent 100m.[]{data-label="endo_la_bundle_formation"}](figure_4a "fig:"){height="4.5cm"} ![(a) The $\beta$-actin fluorescence intensity distribution in the gastrodermis of a projection of a partially folded (about 50%) Hydra does not indicate the axis along which the folding occurs later (axis in yellow). Therefore we think that the folding axis selection is random. (b–d) shows a sequence of gastrodermal actin bundle formation in a later state of the folding process. Initially, (b), the actin is scattered over the apical sides of the cells. After about 2 1/2 min, (c) the bundle starts forming and at later times (d) it becomes straight and dense (folding axis in yellow). All bars represent 100m.[]{data-label="endo_la_bundle_formation"}](figure_4b_4d "fig:"){height="4.5cm"}
Differential contraction and toroidal symmetry breaking {#contraction}
=======================================================
In order to perform the described folding process the cylindrical symmetry of the toroid has to be violated. Due to the contraction of the actin ring in the gastrodermis the whole tissue experiences an internal stress gradient (“differential contraction“) between the actin-ring-forming and the other cells and the toroidal shape becomes unstable. Small randomly distributed irregularities (”critical fluctuations“) may be amplified now. As a consequence the tissue increases its curvature transversally and becomes wavy. The nature of the irregularities is not obvious, as thermal fluctuations are negligible at this length scale. The origin of these active fluctuations is presumably linked to the actin cytoskeleton which is known to be highly dynamic and a source of fluctuations [@Wen2011].
In this section we relate single cell mechanics to the described fluctuations of Hydra tissue toroids. The mechanics of single cells under different types of external forces and strains is currently being investigated extensively [@Trepat2007; @Angelini2010; @Lin2010; @Klein2009; @Janmey2007; @Tee2009; @Tee2011]. The spatial scale of these fluctuations was found to be larger than just a single cell, therefore, it presents a collective phenomenon.
During folding cells are deformed strongly. This can be lead to disassembly of the cytoskeletal actin crosslinkers. These crosslinkers are point-like and, therefore, they concentrate the mechanical stress field strongly which increases rupture probability. Therefore even small strains ($> 10 \%$) lead to an irreversible actin network rupture [@Wolff2012; @Trepat2007]. The strain-softened cells extend and the overall stress is relaxed. However, the disrupted cytoskeletal structure of these cells reorganize an stiffen slowly again after several minutes [@Trepat2007]. As the recovered stiffness exceeds the stiffness of the non-softened adjacent cells as can be seen in [@Trepat2007], the latter are stretched and shear-softened during a new folding trial. Therefore repeated folding would occur along a varying axis. Indeed, we occasionally observed toroids to unfold and refold at a different axes. Apparently the toroids ”check out“ if the folding was correct and repeat it on missmatch.
Cells actively react on stress. In preliminary experiments with toroids exposed to strong mechanical stress (2–5N) in a mechanical stretching device we were unable to predict the position of rupture. $\alpha$-actin was found to reinforce by bundling at the thinnest site presumably permitting the tissue to cope with the densified mechanical stress field. The active reinforcement of actin bundles in the gastrodermis protects the tissue from rupture.
![Hydra tissue in low melting agarose gel with concentrations of (a) 0.4, and (b) 1% is shown here. The gel inhibits the folding process and allows the long-term observation of the mode dynamics on the toroid. (a) Previous to the folding we found presence of the modes 2–7 with similar amplitudes. After a few minutes the higher modes disappear in favour of the 2^nd^ mode finally leading to the folding process. We found a cascade dissipation mechanism (i) as well as the coupling of a number of even or odd modes (ii) reflecting even or odd mirror symmetry. In (b) the very stiff gel results in a winning 3^rd^ mode (iii). No higher modes are significant here. (c) Spectra, normalized with the initial value of the 2^nd^ mode and averaged over a short interval at the indicated times, are compared for the two gels: In the softer gel a block (2-6) of modes are of equal strength (iv) during the symmetry breaking (25-35 min), which decay later. Only the 2^nd^ mode survives and dominates finally. In stiffer gels no block could be seen, usually the 2^nd^ mode dominates during the transition. The presented case was observed in the stiffest gel: mode switching from the 2^nd^ to the 3^rd^ was found. The polyp was not able to be regenerated in this case. (d) A typical tissue ring with GFP-labelled epidermis is shown together with the sampling strip along which the intensity was extracted and radially averaged for the Fourier analysis. (bar: 100m)[]{data-label="hydra_waves_on_the_ring"}](figure_5a_5b "fig:") ![Hydra tissue in low melting agarose gel with concentrations of (a) 0.4, and (b) 1% is shown here. The gel inhibits the folding process and allows the long-term observation of the mode dynamics on the toroid. (a) Previous to the folding we found presence of the modes 2–7 with similar amplitudes. After a few minutes the higher modes disappear in favour of the 2^nd^ mode finally leading to the folding process. We found a cascade dissipation mechanism (i) as well as the coupling of a number of even or odd modes (ii) reflecting even or odd mirror symmetry. In (b) the very stiff gel results in a winning 3^rd^ mode (iii). No higher modes are significant here. (c) Spectra, normalized with the initial value of the 2^nd^ mode and averaged over a short interval at the indicated times, are compared for the two gels: In the softer gel a block (2-6) of modes are of equal strength (iv) during the symmetry breaking (25-35 min), which decay later. Only the 2^nd^ mode survives and dominates finally. In stiffer gels no block could be seen, usually the 2^nd^ mode dominates during the transition. The presented case was observed in the stiffest gel: mode switching from the 2^nd^ to the 3^rd^ was found. The polyp was not able to be regenerated in this case. (d) A typical tissue ring with GFP-labelled epidermis is shown together with the sampling strip along which the intensity was extracted and radially averaged for the Fourier analysis. (bar: 100m)[]{data-label="hydra_waves_on_the_ring"}](figure_5c_5d "fig:")
The tissue fragment folds rapidly. When embedded in very soft agarose gel of concentrations from 0.2 to 1% [@Normand2000], the folding onset can be retarded or stopped allowing for longer observation times. On a long term (about 1 hour) we found three phases of shape fluctuations – first a semi-periodic phase with typical frequencies in the range of 10mHz, then a second phase with pulsations every few minutes – and finally a silent phase. In the last phase the tissue organization starts to disintegrate partially (EMT).
Regarding the initial fluctuations leading to the instability, we observed mainly creation and decay of stationary waves. Corresponding to the periodicity of the system we used discrete Fourier analysis of the fluorescence intensity along the toroid with the toroidal angle as variable. We restricted our analysis to the modes 2 to 15. Higher modes would account for sub-cellular deformations which go beyond the scope of this publication. Modes 0 and 1 correspond to translation and rotation and are therefore irrelevant for the folding dynamics.
Our data are discussed qualitatively only as the described phenomena are reproducible, though, not yet numerically. Initially, several of the lowest modes (2–10) were of about equal amplitude (see (iv) in (c)). At the time scale of several 10^ths^ of minutes, all modes decayed with exception of the 2^nd^. This mode led directly to the correct folding geometry. For stiffer gels we observed a reduction of excited modes and a slowing down of the dynamics. In an almost liquid 0.2% gel the second mode dominated after less than 5 min, in stiffer gels it needed significantly more time. Only in the stiffest gel (1%) the 3^rd^ mode was able to supersede the 2^nd^ in the end (see (iii) in (b)). This mode exchange can be explained by considering the distribution of the mechanical energy. We consider bending into the direction of the toroidal axis only and neglect modulations in the toroid plane. The bending energy of the toroid scales for excursion amplitudes $a$, which is small, like $E_\mathrm{bend} \sim a^2\, n^4$ ($n$ is the mode number). In the gel-less case the energy is distributed equally among the modes according to the equipartition theorem. Then, the lowest modes dominate since $a \sim 1/n^2$. In linear approximation and assuming that the average force applied against the gel $F$ is constant, the elastic energy of the gel is $E_\mathrm{el} \sim
F^2/D$ ($D$ is the elasticity constant) and the energy created by the contraction of the actin ring increases in time. The contraction process continuously delivers mechanical energy into the system being distributed between the gel and the bent toroid. However, the stiffer the gel is, the less energy it can store: $E_\mathrm{el}
\sim 1/D$. Therefore, for stiffer gels the energy generated by the contraction goes preferably into the tissue deformation. Eventually, the even 2^nd^ mode is not absorptive enough anymore and the odd 3^rd^ is involved to take over the excess energy. As the latter can store $5\times$ more energy compared to the 2^nd^ mode at equal excursion amplitudes ($E_\mathrm{bend} \sim n^4$) and dominates and suppresses the 2^nd^ mode by still unknown non-linear mode coupling.
The modes superior to the 2^nd^ one frequently decayed in a cascade through which their energy was progressively transferred to increasingly higher modes (a typical case is shown in (i) in (a)). This again can be explained by the better ability of higher modes to absorb the increasing amount of mechanical energy generated by the contracting actin ring. This might be a biological dissipation mechanism to transfer the steadily increasing energy from macroscopic to mesoscopic and possibly microscopic length scales, i. e. to the molecular level. The energy is completely transferred to the next higher mode, which indicates again a non-linear competition of modes with different symmetries. We generally observed transient coupling of exclusively odd or even modes (a typical case is shown in (ii) in (a)). The modes of equal symmetries collaborate and modes of mixed symmetry compete. However, an explanation is still unavailable.
Finally, after a longer period when the folding process failed, cells round up, increase $\beta$-actin expression, form lamellipods and start migrating individually over the remaining tissue. We assume to have observed for the first time a purely mechanically triggered epithelial-mesenchymal transition.
![The actin ring seems to play an important role even in the already folded ring. Slight compression significantly amplifies this otherwise only hardly visible structure (a). The cells of the epidermis and the gastrodermis are pressed together and after 1/2 hour (b) the cells in contact connect inducing the closure of the gaps. Finally (c), the $\alpha$-actin bundles start to disappear and a perfect spherical symmetry is established (bar: 100m). This spheroid, being symmetric in shape and mechanical properties (actin), is the starting point inevitable for the development of a novel organism.[]{data-label="hydra_hydra_under_glass"}](figure_6a_6c){width="\textwidth"}
![(a) top view of the epidermal $\alpha$-actin structure (myonemes) which (b) builds arches over the gastrodermal loops (bars: 100m). The stiffness of these bundles stabilizes while providing enough flexibility to follow the transverse and longitudinal fluctuations due to the gastrodermal cells. The orientation of (b) is visualized in (c).[]{data-label="hydra_ecto_lifeact_structure"}](figure_7a_7c){width="\textwidth"}
Finite element simulations {#simulation}
==========================
In this section we describe numerical simulations of the folding process using a three dimensional finite element model. The calculation assumes quasi-equilibrium and outputs the state as a function of the stress generated by the contractile actin ring.
In order to account for large deformations, an *Updated Lagrangian formulation* [@Belytschko2000] is chosen. The deformation behaviour is modelled by an Ogden material model of isotropic non-linear elasticity [@OGDEN1972; @OGDEN1972a; @Simo1991], characterized by the free energy function $\psi\left(\lambda_k\right)=\sum_{I=1}^n
\frac{\mu_I}{\alpha_I}\left(J^{-\frac{\alpha_I}{3}}\left(\lambda_1^{\alpha_I}
+\lambda_2^{\alpha_I}+\lambda_3^{\alpha_I}\right)-3\right)+g(J),$ with principal stretches $\lambda_i$, material parameters $\mu_I$ and $\alpha_I$ as well as $n$, the number of individual functions. The function $g(J)$ of the Jacobian $J=\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3$ is used to model compressible material behaviour. Here, we use an Ogden formulation with $n=1$, $\alpha_1=2$ and $g(J)=\frac{9K}{2}\left(J^\frac{1}{3}-1\right)^2$, which is also known as a compressible Neo-Hooke material, where $K$ is the bulk modulus. In the limit case of small strains this formulation reduces to linear elastic Hooke material. Regarding the material parameters, we chose a Young’s modulus of $E=100$Pa and a Poisson’s ratio of $\nu=0.4$. The Poisson’s ratio quantifies the negative ratio of transverse and longitudinal strain in a specimen undergoing uniaxial tension. The chosen number 0.4 allows for a small volume increase on extension, meaning the material is assumed to be slightly compressible. From those parameters $\mu_1=\frac{E}{2(1+\nu)}$ and $K=\frac{E}{3(1-2\nu)}$ can be calculated.
Tori with major radii of $R=150$m and varying minor radii $r$ have been investigated. These were discretized by *hexahedral serendipity elements* with quadratic shape functions [@Cook2001]. The inner actin ring, assumed to be responsible for the folding process, was modelled by linear truss elements. These are attached to the toroid along its inner circumference. To drive the folding process an increasing intrinsic strain was prescribed to the truss elements.
Simulations showed that numerical noise is not sufficient to break the symmetry of the toroid model. Thus four equal additional forces distributed evenly around the toroid are applied, forcing the toroid slightly into the experimentally observed configuration. While reducing these additional forces back to zero, the simultaneously increasing intrinsic strain in the inner actin ring will keep the toroid in its bended shape. Further increase of the intrinsic strain then drives the folding. The hereby described process is adequate to prove the ability of the inner actin ring to fold the toroid if the initial condition describes a sufficiently bended configuration. We suggest that the active fluctuations described in serve to overcome this folding threshold.
features a toroid of 45m minor radius modelled by 2304 hexahedral and 96 truss elements. As the simulations show, the inner actin ring is able to fold the toroid, which proves the viability of our hypothesis. In (d) the inner ring exhibits tensile forces between about 50 and 150nN. This results in von Mises stress $\sigma_\mathrm V$ of up to about 100Pa in the toroid. Thicker toroids did not succeed in folding but would rather return to their plane configuration when reducing the additional forces. This is to be expected since for thick structures bending becomes less favourable compared to tension. Therefore, simulated toroids with aspect ratios $r/R > 0.3$ would rather tighten staying flat than to deflect from of their plane configuration which we occasionally could also observe in our experiments.
The model is well suited to describe the observations qualitatively, whereas any numerical quantity values should be regarded as describing the order of magnitude of effects. Simplifications of the model are: ignoring the nature of the two cell layers as well as the presence of the extracellular matrix (mesoglea), the other actin structures, and finally, the simulation is based on a simple isotropic Ogden model. Furthermore, apart from the contractile actin ring we ignored active cellular reactions which modulate cellular stiffness and shape and which are presumably responsible for the described fluctuations.
Conclusion
==========
During regeneration, cellular toroids composed of about 1500 Hydra vulgaris cells display a highly symmetric and unusually fast folding dynamics. At the end a compact form is achieved which transforms into a spheroid with a correct cellular bilayered structure. It must be emphasized that this process evolves by far too fast for biochemical signalling and gene expression. Furthermore, a central organizer as e. g. required for the synchroneous heart contraction has not been found. Therefore we assume mechanical signalling to accomplish this transformation.
In order to study the onset of the folding we embedded the toroids into gels of varying stiffnesses and analyzed the modulation dynamics by circular Fourier decomposition. For soft gels the 2^nd^ mode prevails which matches perfectly the folding geometry. For stiff gels we observed a dominant 3^rd^ mode. Higher modes are capable to accommodate more bending energy for a given amplitude than lower modes. As the amplitude is restricted by the gel constraint the energy distribution is distorded correspondingly. Energy transfer cascades to higher modes were also found for modes beyond the 3^rd^ order. The observed phases of exclusively excited even or odd modes indicate a symmetry dependent interaction between modes of different order. We suggest that cells accomplish control of the large scale geometry by tissue bending modes. They also are able to store mechanical energy by this means. The pulsation dynamics may be required to explore the phase space for the correct regeneration path.
The subsequent folding process can be explained purely mechanically based on ”Differential Contraction“: a subgroup of the cells in a tissue contracts collectively which leads to stress gradients deforming locally the tissue due to its elasticity. As the driving force of the stress we found the formation of a distinct mesoscopic contractile actin ring at the inner bound of the gastrodermis. Latter can lead to the described folding process as we could show by numerical calculations. The ring contraction destabilizes increasingly the arrangement of the otherwise stable flat toroid. Once a threshold value (found in the numerical model) is reached the tissue toroid starts bending – preferably according to the 2^nd^ mode.
Since the $\beta$-actin concentration was not found to be significantly changed during folding in both cell layers, our observations lead us to the conclusion that gastrodemal $\alpha$-actin determines the dynamics. The differential contraction may self-amplify as the resulting shear stress may also support the actin filament alignment and bundling.
The finite element simulation revealed that the ratio between the cross section and the major diameter had to be below a critical value to accomplish folding. Otherwise the inner bound of the toroid only contracts without excursion into the third dimension. Furthermore, it was found that the fluctuations responsible for the transition have to pass a minimal amplitude in order to initiate the dynamics. We hypothesize that this is the reason for cells and groups of cells to actively drive and maintain the observed strong fluctuations in a band of different modes.
We suggest following mechanical feed-back control loop for the folding: the epidermis provides equidistant $\alpha$-actin stripes performing fast longitudinal myosin-driven fluctuations. They contribute to the bundling and reinforcement of the perpendicularly oriented gastrodermal actin fibres which finally form the contractile actin ring. Gastrodermal contracting fluctuations, in turn, are also fed back to the epidermal cells, which results in transverse fluctuations of the epidermal actin structure. This may present a mechanical closed control loop organizing the described folding so perfectly.
In the end state of folding the outermost cells join until a double layered spotless spheroid is obtained. This is the starting point of the morphogenesis of a new Hydra as described elsewhere.
![The scheme shows the hypothetical control dependencies of the different actin systems. The fluctuations of the epidermal actin structure bundle the gastrodermal actin forming a ring. As a consequence the stress is increased which leads to the folding process or to the transverse epidermal fluctuations as well as the tissue contractions when embedded in gel. We speculate that mechanical feed back (dashed lines) is responsible for synchrony and stability of the epidermal actin fluctuations. []{data-label="hydra_healing"}](figure_9)
The folding was related to single cell dynamics. Tissue cells are put under stress by deforming neighbouring cells. SLarge enough strain stress-softens the actin network which stabilizes the folding site and reduces the folding force. The cells remain soft for several minutes after stress release. Afterwards they recover but the stiffness reinforcement overshoots the previous value: in case of faulty folding the tissue changes folding site as a consequence.
The long term observation of tissue toroids in gels revealed a new mechanically induced transition to individual cellular behaviour (EMT). The tissue bound cells evade and migrate as individuals over the remaining tissue. We also observed the inverse process, i. e. migrating cells penetrate the tissue again an re-integrate. The $\beta$-actin level in the migrating state is significantly increased in contrast to $\alpha$-actin, which is unexpected. The cells seem to be able to switch between these two state presumably corresponding to biochemical signals. A future theoretical model may therefore be based on two cellular states with corresponding transition rates depending on external signals.
Materials and methods
=====================
We cultivate four transgenic Hydra vulgaris strains with fluorescence labelled epithelial-muscle cells either for the gastrodemis or the epidermis. Two cultures are transfected with the F-actin binding Lifeact peptide [@Riedl2008] whereas the other two cultures express eGFP with a $\beta$-actin promoter and terminator [@Wittlieb2006] simultaneously to the functional $\beta$-actin of the cells. Therefore, the eGFP signal quantifies the $\beta$-actin concentration. All strains are kept in crystallizing dishes in our chemistry lab at temperatures of $(18\pm1)$. All cultures are fed with freshly hatched Artemia salina nauplii once a day and the medium is changed 3–5 hours after feeding. Our medium is composed of 1.0mmol/$\ell$ CaCl$_2$, 0.1mmol/$\ell$ MgCl$_2$, 0.03mmol/$\ell$ KNO$_3$, 0.5mmol/$\ell$ NaHCO$_3$ and 0.08mmol/$\ell$ MgSO$_4$ in Millipore water.
The rings were obtained by dissecting the tissue from the central gastric column and immediately transferred to a modified petri dish with a 170m cover slip mounted over an aperture and with a PTFE plate containing holes with a diameter of 1mm. The teflon plate suppresses parasitic convective flow carrying the Hydra rings out of the observation field. The chamber was filled either with medium or low temperature melting agarose gel (Sigma-Aldrich A0701) and all together was completely submerged into Hydra medium to avoid osmotic and concentration change due to evaporation.
The toroids were observed on a Leica DM IRE2 inverted microscope coupled with a Leica TCS SP2 AOBS confocal scanner and a Leica HC PL Fluotar 10$\times$/0.30 objective.
The toroids were made from polyps starved for 24 hours and selected for healthy shape prior to dissection. A double-blade scalpel was used to cut out the segments. With this technique we avoid large thickness variations due to polyp contractions. As the tissue movements are considerable during the first 30s the toroid had to be transferred fast to the observation platform.
The images were visualized and analyzed with ImageJ 1.45s and in-house developed Mathematica 8.0 and MatLab R2011a scripts.
For the gastrodermal tissue degradation Cytochalasin D (Sigma-Aldrich C8273) was applied at concentrations up to 20mol/$\ell$ for 10 min. The petri dish was gently shaken for 10s before observation.
The finite element simulations were done using Marc Mentat 2010.1.0. One calculation for the chosen resolution took about one hour.
The work presented in this paper was made possible by funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, PtJ-Bio, 0315883). We are indepted to Prof. Josef Käs, Prof. Klaus Kroy and Matti Gralka (Leipzig), Prof. Thomas Bosch and Dr. Konstantin Khalturin (Kiel), Prof. Bert Hobmayer (Innsbruck), Prof. Albrecht Ott (Saarbrücken), Dr. Roland Aufschnaiter (München) for many discussions, and providing us with materials, especially the transgenic Hydra strains as well as giving access to the confocal microscopy post. We are further grateful for the support of Magna Diagnostics GmbH (Leipzig).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'There has been a tremendous progress in Domain Adaptation (DA) for visual recognition tasks. Particularly, open-set DA has gained considerable attention wherein the target domain contains additional unseen categories. Existing open-set DA approaches demand access to a labeled source dataset along with unlabeled target instances. However, this reliance on co-existing source and target data is highly impractical in scenarios where data-sharing is restricted due to its proprietary nature or privacy concerns. Addressing this, we introduce a practical DA paradigm where a source-trained model is used to facilitate adaptation in the absence of the source dataset in future. To this end, we formalize knowledge inheritability as a novel concept and propose a simple yet effective solution to realize inheritable models suitable for the above practical paradigm. Further, we present an objective way to quantify inheritability to enable the selection of the most suitable source model for a given target domain, even in the absence of the source data. We provide theoretical insights followed by a thorough empirical evaluation demonstrating state-of-the-art open-set domain adaptation performance. Our code is available at [**https://github.com/val-iisc/inheritune**]{}.'
author:
- |
Jogendra Nath Kundu[^1] Naveen VenkatAmbareesh Revanur Rahul M V R. Venkatesh Babu\
Video Analytics Lab, CDS, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore\
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: '[Towards Inheritable Models for Open-Set Domain Adaptation]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Deep neural networks perform remarkably well when the training and the testing instances are drawn from the same distributions. However, they lack the capacity to generalize in the presence of a *domain-shift* [@shimodaira2000improving] exhibiting alarming levels of dataset bias or domain bias [@datasetbias]. As a result, a drop in performance is observed at test time if the training data (acquired from a *source* domain) is insufficient to reliably characterize the test environment (the *target* domain). This challenge arises in several Computer Vision tasks [@nath2018adadepth; @long2015fully; @kundu2019_um_adapt] where one is often confined to a limited array of available source datasets, which are practically inadequate to represent a wide range of [target]{} domains. This has motivated a line of Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) works that aim to generalize a model to an unlabeled [target]{} domain, in the presence of a labeled [source]{} domain.
In this work, we study UDA in the context of image recognition. Notably, a large body of UDA methods is inspired by the potential of deep CNN models to learn transferable representations [@howtransferable]. This has formed the basis of several UDA works that learn *domain-agnostic* feature representations [@long2015learning; @sun2016deepcoral; @tzeng2014deep] by aligning the marginal distributions of the [source]{} and the [target]{} domains in the latent feature space. Several other works learn *domain-specific* representations via independent domain transformations [@tzeng2017adversarial; @dsbn; @nath2018adadepth] to a common latent space on which the classifier is learned. The latent space alignment of the two domains permits the reuse of the [source]{} classifier for the [target]{} domain. These methods however operate under the assumption of a shared label-set ($\mathcal{C}_s=\mathcal{C}_t$) between the two domains (*closed-set*). This restricts their real-world applicability where a [target]{} domain often contains additional unseen categories beyond those found in the source domain.
\[vendor\_client\_paradigm\] {width="\columnwidth"}
\[fig:my\_label\]
Recently, *open-set* DA [@panareda2017open; @saito2018open] has gained much attention, wherein the [target]{} domain is assumed to have unshared categories ($\mathcal{C}_s\subset\mathcal{C}_t$), a.k.a *category-shift*. Target instances from the unshared categories are assigned a single *unknown* label [@panareda2017open] (see Fig. \[vendor\_client\_paradigm\][B]{}). *Open-set* DA is more challenging, since a direct application of distribution alignment (as in *closed-set* DA [@li2017mmd; @sun2016deepcoral]) reduces the model’s performance due to the interference from the unshared categories (an effect known as *negative-transfer* [@pan2009survey]). The success of *open-set* DA relies not only on the alignment of shared classes, but also on the ability to mitigate *negative-transfer*. State-of-the-art methods such as [@UDA_2019_CVPR] train a domain discriminator using the source and the target data to detect and reject [target]{} instances that are out of the [source]{} distribution, thereby minimizing the effect of *negative-transfer*. In summary, the existing UDA methods assume access to a labeled [source]{} dataset to obliquely receive a *task-specific* supervision during adaptation. However, this assumption of co-existing source and target datasets poses a significant constraint in the modern world, where coping up with strict digital privacy and copyright laws is of prime importance [@zskd]. This is becoming increasingly evident in modern corporate dealings, especially in the medical and biometric industries, where a source organization (the model *vendor*) is often restricted to share its proprietary or sensitive data, alongside a pre-trained model to satisfy the *client’s* specific deployment requirements [@chidlovskii2016domain; @hynes2018efficient]. Likewise, the *client* is prohibited to share private data to the model *vendor* [@federatedlearning]. Certainly, the collection of existing *open-set* DA solutions is inadequate to address such scenarios. Thus, there is a strong motivation to develop practical UDA algorithms which make no assumption about data-exchange between the *vendor* and the *client*. One solution is to design self-adaptive models that effectively capture the *task-specific* knowledge from the *vendor’s* source domain and transfer this knowledge to the *client’s* target domain. We call such models as *inheritable* models, referring to their ability to inherit and transfer knowledge across domains without accessing the source domain data. It is also essential to quantify the knowledge *inheritability* of such models. Given an array of *inheritable* models, this quantification will allow a *client* to flexibly choose the most suitable model for the *client’s* specific target domain.
Addressing these concerns, in this work we demonstrate how a *vendor* can develop an *inheritable* model, which can be effectively utilized by the *client* to perform unsupervised adaptation to the [target]{} domain, without any data-exchange. To summarize, our prime contributions are:
- We propose a practical UDA scenario by relaxing the assumption of co-existing source and target domains, called as the *vendor-client* paradigm.
- We propose *inheritable* models to realize *vendor-client* paradigm in practice and present an objective measure of *inheritability*, which is crucial for model selection.
- We provide theoretical insights and extensive empirical evaluation to demonstrate state-of-the-art open-set DA performance using *inheritable* models.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
**Closed-set DA.** Assuming a shared label space ($\mathcal{C}_s=\mathcal{C}_t$), the central theme of these methods is to minimize the distribution discrepancy. Statistical measures such as MMD [@yan2017mindtheclassweightbias_weightedmmd; @long2016unsupervised; @long2017deepJAN], CORAL [@sun2016deepcoral] and adversarial feature matching techniques [@ganin2016domain; @tzeng2014deep; @tzeng2015simultaneous; @tzeng2017adversarial; @Sankaranarayanan_2018_CVPR_GTA] are widely used. Recently, domain specific normalization techniques [@adabn; @dsbn; @cariucci2017autodial; @featurewhiteningandconsensusloss] has started gaining attention. However, due to the shared label-set assumption these methods are highly prone to *negative-transfer* in the presence of new target categories.
**Open-set DA.** ATI-$\lambda$ [@panareda2017open] assigns a pseudo class label, or an *unknown* label, to each target instance based on its distance to each source cluster in the latent space. OSVM [@openSetjain2014multi] uses a class-wise confidence threshold to classify target instances into the source classes, or reject them as *unknown*. OSBP [@saito2018open] and STA [@sta_open_set] align the source and target features through adversarial feature matching. However, both OSBP and ATI-$\lambda$ are hyperparameter sensitive and are prone to *negative-transfer*. In contrast, STA [@sta_open_set] learns a separate network to obtain instance-level weights for target samples to avoid *negative-transfer* and achieves state-of-the-art results. All these methods assume the co-existance of source and target data, while our method makes no such assumption and hence has a greater practical significance.
**Domain Generalization.** Methods such as [@d2018domain_DomGen; @li2017deeper_DomGen; @ding2017deep_DomGen; @li2019episodic_DomGen; @muandet2013domain_DomGen; @khosla2012undoing_DomGen] largely rely on an arbitrary number of co-existing source domains with shared label sets, to generalize across unseen target domains. This renders them impractical when there is an inherent *category-shift* among the data available with each *vendor*. In contrast, we tackle the challenging *open-set* scenario by learning on a single source domain.
**Data-free Knowledge Distillation (KD).** In a typical KD setup [@hinton2015distilling], a student model is learned to match the teacher model’s output. Recently, DFKD [@dfkd] and ZSKD [@zskd] demonstrated knowledge transfer to the student when the teacher’s training data is not available. Our work is partly inspired by their *data-free* ideology. However, our work differs from KD in two substantial ways; 1) by nature of the KD algorithm, it does not alleviate the problem of *domain-shift*, since any domain bias exhibited by the teacher will be passed on to the student, and 2) KD can only be performed for the task which the teacher is trained on, and is not designed for recognizing new (*unknown*) target categories in the absence of labeled data. Handling *domain-shift* and *category-shift* simultaneously is necessary for any *open-set* DA algorithm, which is not supported by these methods.
Our formulation of an *inheritable* model for *open-set* DA is much different from prior arts - not only is it robust to *negative-transfer* but also facilitates domain adaptation in the absence of data-exchange.
Unsupervised Open-Set Domain Adaptation {#sec:osda}
=======================================
In this section, we formally define the *vendor-client* paradigm and *inheritability* in the context of unsupervised *open-set* domain adaptation (UODA).
Preliminaries
-------------
**Notation.** Given an input space $\mathcal{X}$ and output space $\mathcal{Y}$, the [source]{} and target domains are characterized by the distributions $p$ and $q$ on $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$ respectively. Let $p_{x}$, $q_{x}$ denote the marginal input distributions and $p_{y|x}, q_{y|x}$ denote the conditional output distribution of the two domains. Let $\mathcal{C}_s, \mathcal{C}_t \subset \mathcal{Y}$ denote the respective label sets for the classification tasks ($\mathcal{C}_s \subset \mathcal{C}_t$). In the UODA problem, a labeled [source]{} dataset $\mathcal{D}_s = \{(x_s, y_s):x_s\sim{p_{x}}, y_s\sim{p_{y|x}}\}$ and an unlabeled [target]{} dataset $\mathcal{D}_t = \{x_t:x_t\sim{q_{x}}\}$ are considered. The goal is to assign a label for each [target]{} instance $x_t$, by predicting the class for those in shared classes ($\mathcal{C}_t^{sh} = \mathcal{C}_s$), and an ‘*unknown*’ label for those in unshared classes ($\mathcal{C}_t^{uk} = \mathcal{C}_t \setminus \mathcal{C}_s$). For simplicity, we denote the distributions of target-shared and target-*unknown* instances as $q^{sh}$ and $q^{uk}$ respectively. We denote the model trained on the [source]{} domain as $h_s$ ([source]{} predictor) and the model adapted to the [target]{} domain as $h_t$ ([target]{} predictor).
**Performance Measure.** The primary goal of UODA is to improve the performance on the [target]{} domain. Hence, the performance of any UODA algorithm is measured by the error rate of target predictor $h_t$, $\xi_{q}(h_t)$ which is empirically estimated as $\hat{\xi}_{q}(h_t) = \mathbb{P}_{\{(x_t, y_t) \sim q\}} [h_t(x_t) \neq y_t]$, where $\mathbb{P}$ is the probability estimated over the instances $\mathcal{D}_t$.
The vendor-client paradigm
--------------------------
The central focus of our work is to realize a practical DA paradigm which is fundamentally viable in the absence of the co-existance of the source and target domains. With this intent, we formalize our DA paradigm.
**Definition 1** (*vendor-client* paradigm). *Consider a *vendor* with access to a labeled [source]{} dataset $\mathcal{D}_s$ and a *client* having unlabeled instances $\mathcal{D}_t$ sampled from the [target]{} domain. In the *vendor-client* paradigm, the *vendor* learns a [source]{} predictor $h_s$ using $\mathcal{D}_s$ to model the conditional $p_{y|x}$, and shares $h_s$ to the *client*. Using $h_s$ and $\mathcal{D}_t$, the *client* learns a [target]{} predictor $h_t$ to model the conditional $q_{y|x}$.*
This paradigm satisfies the two important properties; 1) it does not assume data-exchange between the *vendor* and the *client* which is fundamental to cope up with the dynamically reforming digital privacy and copyright regulations and, 2) a single *vendor* model can be shared with multiple *clients* thereby minimizing the effort spent on [source]{} training. Thus, this paradigm has a greater practical significance than the traditional UDA setup where each adaptation step requires an additional supervision from the source data [@sta_open_set; @saito2018open]. Following this paradigm, our goal is to realize the conditions on which one can successfully learn a [target]{} predictor. To this end, we formalize the *inheritability* of *task-specific* knowledge of the source-trained model.
Inheritability
--------------
We define an *inheritable* model from the perspective of learning a predictor ($h_t$) for the target task. Intuitively, given a hypothesis class $\mathcal{H} \subseteq \{h ~|~h:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}\}$, an *inheritable* model $h_s$ should be sufficient (in the absence of source domain data) to learn a [target]{} predictor $h_t$ whose performance is close to that of the best predictor in $\mathcal{H}$.
**Definition 2** (Inheritability criterion). *Let $\mathcal{H} \subseteq \{h ~|~h:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}\}$ be a hypothesis class, $\epsilon > 0$, and $\delta \in (0,1)$. A [source]{} predictor $h_s : \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ is termed *inheritable* relative to the hypothesis class $\mathcal{H}$, if a [target]{} predictor $h_t : \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ can be learned using an unlabeled [target]{} sample $\mathcal{D}_t=\{x_t~:~x_t\sim{q_x}\}$ when given access to the parameters of $h_s$, such that, with probability at least $(1-\delta)$ the target error of $h_t$ does not exceed that of the best predictor in $\mathcal{H}$ by more than $\epsilon$. Formally,*
$$\label{eq:inheritability_bound}
\mathbb{P}[\xi_{q}(h_t) \leq \xi_{q}(\mathcal{H}) + \epsilon~|~h_s, \mathcal{D}_t] \geq 1 - \delta$$
where, $\xi_{q}(\mathcal{H}) = \min_{h\in\mathcal{H}} \xi_{q}(h)$ and $\mathbb{P}$ is computed over the choice of sample $\mathcal{D}_t$. This definition suggests that an *inheritable* model is capable of reliably transferring the *task-specific* knowledge to the target domain in the absence of the source data, which is necessary for the *vendor-client* paradigm. Given this definition, a natural question is, how to quantify *inheritability* of a *vendor* model for the [target]{} task. In the next Section, we address this question by demonstrating the design of *inheritable* models for UODA.
Approach {#sec:Approach}
========
How to design *inheritable* models? There can be several ways, depending upon the *task-specific* knowledge required by the *client*. For instance, in UODA, the *client* must effectively learn a classifier in the presence of both *domain-shift* and *category-shift*. Here, not only is the knowledge of class-separability essential, but also the ability to detect new target categories as *unknown* is vital to avoid *negative-transfer*. By effectively identifying such challenges, one can develop *inheritable* models for tasks that require *vendor’s* dataset. Here, we demonstrate UODA using an *inheritable* model.
![The architectures for **A)** *vendor*-side training and **B)** *client*-side adaptation. Dashed border denotes a frozen network.[]{data-label="fig:architecture"}](figures/Architecture.pdf){width="0.84\linewidth"}
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
Vendor trains an inheritable model {#sec:vendor_trains}
----------------------------------
In UODA, the primary challenge is to tackle *negative-transfer*. This challenge arises due to the overconfidence issue [@lee2018training_ood] in deep models, where *unknown* target instances are confidently predicted into the shared classes, and thus get aligned with the source domain. Methods such as [@UDA_2019_CVPR] tend to avoid *negative-transfer* by leveraging a domain discriminator to assign a low instance-level weight for potentially *unknown* target instances during adaptation. However, solutions such as a domain discriminator are infeasible in the absence of data-exchange between the *vendor* and the *client*. Thus, an *inheritable* model should have the ability to characterize the [source]{} distribution, which will facilitate the detection of *unknown* target instances during adaptation. Following this intuition, we design the architecture.
**a) Architecture.** As shown in Fig. \[fig:architecture\][A]{}, the feature extractor $F_s$ comprises of a backbone CNN model $M_s$ and fully connected layers $E_s$. The classifier $G$ contains two sub-modules, a source classifier $G_s$ with $|\mathcal{C}_s|$ classes, and an auxiliary *out-of-distribution* (OOD) classifier $G_n$ with $K$ classes accounting for the ‘*negative*’ region not covered by the source distribution (Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][C]{}). The output $\hat{y}_s$ for each input $x_s$ is obtained by concatenating the outputs of $G_s$ and $G_n$ (concatenating $G_s(F_s(x_s))$ and $G_n(F_s(x_s))$) followed by softmax activation. This equips the model with the ability to capture the class-separability knowledge (in $G_s$) and to detect OOD instances (via $G_n$). This setup is motivated by the fact that the overconfidence issue can be addressed by minimizing the classifier’s confidence for OOD instances [@lee2018training_ood]. Accordingly, the confidence of $G_s$ is maximized for *in-distribution* (source) instances, and minimized for OOD instances (by maximizing the confidence of $G_n$).
**b) Dataset preparation.** To effectively learn OOD detection, we augment the source dataset with synthetically generated *negative* instances, $\mathcal{D}_n = \{(u_n, y_n) : u_n\sim{r_u}, y_n\sim{r_{y|u}}\}$, where $r_u$ and $r_{y|u}$ are the marginal latent space distribution and the conditional output distribution of the *negative* instances respectively. We use $\mathcal{D}_n$, to model the low source-density region as *out-of-distribution* (see Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][C]{}). To obtain $\mathcal{D}_n$, a possible approach explored by [@lee2018training_ood] could be to use a GAN framework to generate ‘boundary’ samples. However, this is computationally intensive and introduces additional parameters for training. Further, we require these *negative* samples to cover a large portion of the OOD region. This eliminates a direct use of linear interpolation techniques such as *mixup* [@mixup; @verma2019manifoldmixup] which result in features generated within a restricted region (see Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][A]{}). Indeed, we propose an efficient way to generate OOD samples, which we call as the feature-splicing technique.
**Feature-splicing.** It is widely known that in deep CNNs, higher convolutional layers specialize in capturing class-discriminative properties [@zeiler2014visualizingandunderstandingcnn]. For instance, [@zhang2018interpretable] assigns each filter in a high conv-layer with an object part, demonstrating that each filter learns a different *class-specific* trait. As a result of this specificity, especially when a rectified activation function (ReLU) is used, feature maps receive a high activation whenever the learned *class-specific* trait is observed in the input [@Chen_2019_ICCV_DAFL]. Consequently, we argue that, by suppressing such high activations, we obtain features devoid of the properties specific to the source classes and hence would more accurately represent the OOD samples. Then, enforcing a low classifier confidence for these samples can mitigate the overconfidence issue. Feature-splicing is performed by replacing the top-$d$ percentile activations, at a particular feature layer, with the corresponding activations pertaining to an instance belonging to a different class (see Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][B]{}). Formally, $$u_n = \phi_{d}(u_s^{c_i}, u_s^{c_j}) ~~\text{for}~~ c_i,c_j \in \mathcal{C}_s, {c_i}\neq{c_j}$$
where, $u_s^{c_i} = M_s(x_s^{c_i})$ for a source image $x_s^{c_i}$ belonging to class $c_i$, and $\phi_d$ is the feature-splicing operator which replaces the top-$d$ percentile activations in the feature $u_s^{c_i}$ with the corresponding activations in $u_s^{c_j}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][B]{} (see Suppl. for algorithm). This process results in a feature which is devoid of the *class-specific* traits, but lies near the source distribution. To label these *negative* instances, we perform a $K$-means clustering and assign a unique *negative* class label to each cluster of samples. By training the auxiliary classifier $G_n$ to discriminate these samples into these $K$ *negative* classes, we mitigate the overconfidence issue as stated earlier. We found feature-splicing to be effective in practice. See Suppl. for other techniques that we explored.
**c) Training procedure.** We train the model in two steps. First, we pre-train $\{F_s, G_s\}$ using source data $\mathcal{D}_s$ by employing the standard cross-entropy loss,
$$ \mathcal{L}_{b} = \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\sigma(G_s(F_s(x_s))), y_s)$$
where, $\sigma$ is the softmax activation function. Next, we freeze the backbone model $M_s$, and generate *negative* instances $\mathcal{D}_n=\{(u_n, y_n)\}$ by performing feature-splicing using source features at the last layer of $M_s$. We then continue the training of the modules $\{E_s, G_s, G_n\}$ using supervision from both $\mathcal{D}_s$ and $\mathcal{D}_n$,
$$ \label{eq:vendor_loss}
\mathcal{L}_{s} = \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\hat{y}_s, y_s) + \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\hat{y}_n, y_n)$$ where, $\hat{y}_s = \sigma(G(F_s(x_s)))$ and $\hat{y}_n = \sigma(G(E_s(u_n)))$, and the output of $G$ is obtained as described in Sec. \[sec:vendor\_trains\][a]{} (and depicted in Fig. \[fig:architecture\]). The joint training of $G_s$ and $G_n$, allows the model to capture the class-separability knowledge (in $G_s$) while characterizing the *negative* region (in $G_n$), which renders a superior knowledge *inheritability*. Once the *inheritable* model $h_s=\{F_s,G\}$ is trained, it is shared to the *client* for performing UODA.
Client adapts to the target domain {#sec:client_adapts}
----------------------------------
With a trained *inheritable* model ($h_s$) in hand, the first task is to measure the degree of *domain-shift* to determine the *inheritability* of the *vendor’s* model. This is followed by a selective adaptation procedure which encourages shared classes to align while avoiding *negative-transfer*.
**a) Quantifying inheritability.** In presence of a small *domain-shift*, most of the target-shared instances (pertaining to classes in $\mathcal{C}_t^{sh}$) will lie close to the high source-density regions in the latent space (Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][E]{}). Thus, one can rely on the class-separability knowledge of $h_s$ to predict target labels. However, this knowledge becomes less reliable with increasing *domain-shift* as the concentration of target-shared instances near the high density regions decreases (Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][D]{}). Thus, the *inheritability* of $h_s$ for the target task would decrease with increasing *domain-shift*. Moreover, target-*unknown* instances (pertaining to classes in $\mathcal{C}_t^{uk}$) are more likely to lie in the low source-density region than target-shared instances. With this intuition, we define an *inheritability* metric $w$ which satisfies,
$$\label{eq:inheritability_inequality}
\operatorname*{\mathop{\mathbb{E}}}_{x_s \sim p_x} w(x_s) \ge \operatorname*{\mathop{\mathbb{E}}}_{x_t \sim q_x^{sh}} w(x_t) \ge \operatorname*{\mathop{\mathbb{E}}}_{x_t \sim q_x^{uk} } w(x_t)$$
We leverage the classifier confidence to realize an instance-level measure of *inheritability* as follows,
$$\label{eq:instance_level_inheritability}
w(x) = \max_{c_i \in \mathcal{C}_s} ~[\sigma(G(F_s(x)))]_{c_i}$$
where $\sigma$ is the softmax activation function. Note that although softmax is applied over the entire output of $G$, $\max$ is evaluated over those corresponding to $G_s$ (shaded in blue in Fig. \[fig:architecture\]). We hypothesize that this measure follows Eq. \[eq:inheritability\_inequality\], since, the source instances (in the high density region) receive the highest $G_s$ confidence, followed by target-shared instances (some of which are away from the high density region), while the target-*unknown* instances receive the least confidence (many of which lie away from the high density regions). Extending the instance-level *inheritability*, we define a model *inheritability* over the entire target dataset as,
$$\label{eq:model_inheritability}
\mathcal{I}(h_s, \mathcal{D}_s, \mathcal{D}_t) = \dfrac{\operatorname{mean}_{x_t \in \mathcal{D}_t}{w(x_t)}}{\operatorname{mean}_{x_s \in \mathcal{D}_s}{w(x_s)}}
$$
A higher $\mathcal{I}$ arises from a smaller *domain-shift* implying a greater *inheritability* of *task-specific* knowledge (class-separability for UODA) to the target domain. Note that $\mathcal{I}$ is a constant for a given triplet $\{h_s, \mathcal{D}_s, \mathcal{D}_t\}$ and the value of the denominator in Eq. \[eq:model\_inheritability\] can be obtained from the *vendor*.
**b) Adaptation procedure.** For performing adaptation to the target domain, we learn a target-specific feature extractor $F_t=\{M_t, E_t\}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:architecture\][B]{} (similar in architecture to $F_s$). $F_t$ is initialized from the source feature extractor $F_s = \{M_s, E_s\}$, and is gradually trained to selectively align the shared classes in the pre-classifier space (input to $G$) to avoid *negative-transfer*. The adaptation involves two processes - *inherit* (to acquire the class-separability knowledge) and *tune* (to avoid *negative-transfer*).
**Inherit.** As described in Sec. \[sec:client\_adapts\][a]{}, the class-separability knowledge of $h_s$ is reliable for target samples with high $w$. Subsequently, we choose top-$k$ percentile target instances based on $w(x_t)$ and obtain pseudo-labels using the source model, $y_p = \operatorname{argmax}_{c_i \in \mathcal{C}_s}~[\sigma(G(F_s(x_t)))]_{c_i}$. Using the cross-entropy loss we enforce the target predictions to match the pseudo-labels for these instances, thereby *inheriting* the class-separability knowledge,
$$\label{loss_inherit}
\mathcal{L}_{inh} = \mathcal{L}_{CE}(\sigma(G(F_t(x_t))), y_p)$$
**Tune.** In the absence of label information, entropy minimization [@long2016unsupervised; @grandvalet2005semi] is popularly employed to move the features of unlabeled instances towards the high confidence regions. However, to avoid *negative-transfer*, instead of a direct application of entropy minimization, we use $w$ as a soft instance weight in our loss formulation. Target instances with higher $w$ are guided towards the high source density regions, while those with lower $w$ are pushed into the *negative* regions (see Fig. \[fig:negative\_clustering\][$\rightarrow$[E]{}]{}). This separation is a key to minimize the effect of *negative-transfer*.
On a coarse level, using the classifier $G$ we obtain the probability $\hat{s}$ that an instance belongs to the shared classes as $\hat{s} = \sum_{c_i \in \mathcal{C}_s} [\sigma(G(F_t(x_t)))]_{c_i}$. Optimizing the following loss encourages a separation of shared and *unknown* classes,
$$\mathcal{L}_{t1} = - w(x_t) \operatorname{log}(\hat{s}) - (1-w(x_t)) \operatorname{log}(1-\hat{s})$$
To further encourage the alignment of shared classes on a fine level, we separately calculate probability vectors for $G_s$ as, $z_t^{sh} = \sigma(G_s(F_t(x_t)))$, and for $G_n$ as, $z_t^{uk} = \sigma(G_n(F_t(x_t)))$, and minimize the following loss,
$$\mathcal{L}_{t2} = w(x_t) \operatorname{H}(z_t^{sh}) + (1-w(x_t)) \operatorname{H}(z_t^{uk})$$
where, $\operatorname{H}$ is the Shannon’s entropy. The total loss $\mathcal{L}_{tune} = \mathcal{L}_{t1} + \mathcal{L}_{t2}$ selectively aligns the shared classes, while avoiding *negative-transfer*. Thus, the final adaptation loss is,
$$\mathcal{L}_a = \mathcal{L}_{inh} + \mathcal{L}_{tune}$$
We now present a discussion on the success of this adaptation procedure from the theoretical perspective.
Theoretical Insights {#theoretical_analysis}
--------------------
We defined the *inheritability* criterion in Eq. \[eq:inheritability\_bound\] for transferring the *task-specific* knowledge to the target domain. To show that the knowledge of class-separability is indeed *inheritable*, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the *inheritability* criterion holds for the shared classes. Extending Theorem [3]{} in [@ben2010theory], we obtain the following result.
**Result 1.** *Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypothesis class of VC dimension $d$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a labeled sample set of $m$ points drawn from $q^{sh}$. If $\widehat{h}_t \in \mathcal{H}$ be the empirical minimizer of $\xi_{q^{sh}}$ on $\mathcal{S}$, and $h_t^{*} = \operatorname{argmin}_{h\in\mathcal{H}}\xi_{q^{sh}}(h)$ be the optimal hypothesis for $q^{sh}$, then for any $\delta \in (0, 1)$, we have with probability of at least $1-\delta$ (over the choice of samples),*
$$\label{result_1}
\xi_{q^{sh}}(\widehat{h}_t) \leq \xi_{q^{sh}}(h^{*}_t) + 4\sqrt{\dfrac{2d\operatorname{log}(2(m+1)) + 2\operatorname{log}(8/\delta)}{m}}$$
See Supplementary for the derivation of this result. Essentially, using $m$ labeled target-shared instances, one can train a predictor (here, $\widehat{h}_t$) which satisfies Eq. \[result\_1\]. However, in a completely unsupervised setting, the only way to obtain target labels is to exploit the knowledge of the *vendor’s* model. This is precisely what the pseudo-labeling process achieves. Using an *inheritable* model ($h_s$), we pseudo-label the top-$k$ percentile target instances with high precision and enforce $\mathcal{L}_{inh}$. In doing so, we condition the target model to satisfy Eq. \[result\_1\], which is the *inheritability* criterion for shared categories (given unlabeled instances $\mathcal{D}_t$ and source model $h_s$). Thus, the knowledge of class-separability is transferred to the target model during the adaptation process. Note that, with increasing number of labeled target instances (increasing $m$), the last term in Eq. \[result\_1\] decreases. In our formulation, this is achieved by enforcing $\mathcal{L}_{tune}$, which can be regarded as a way to self-supervise the target model. In Sec. \[sec:experiments\] we verify that, during adaptation the precision of target predictions improves over time. This self-supervision with an increasing number of correct labels is, in effect, similar to having a larger sample size $m$ in Eq. \[result\_1\]. Thus, adaptation tightens the bound in Eq. \[result\_1\] (see Suppl.).
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
In this section, we evaluate the performance of unsupervised *open-set* domain adaptation using *inheritable* models.
\[tab:exp\_office31\]
\[tab:exp\_officehome\]
\[tab:exp\_visda\]
Experimental Details {#sec:experimental_setup}
--------------------
**a) Datasets.** **Office-31** [@office] consists of 31 categories of images in three different domains: Amazon (**A**), Webcam (**W**) and DSLR (**D**). **Office-Home** [@venkateswara2017deep] is a more challenging dataset containing 65 classes from four domains: Real World (**Re**), Art (**Ar**), Clipart (**Cl**) and Product (**Pr**). **VisDA** [@visda] comprises of 12 categories of images from two domains: Real (**R**), Synthetic (**S**). The label sets $\mathcal{C}_s$, $\mathcal{C}_t$ are in line with [@sta_open_set] and [@saito2018open] for all our comparisons. See Suppl. for sample images and further details.
**b) Implementation.** We implement the framework in PyTorch and use ResNet-50 [@he2016deep_resnet] (till the last pooling layer) as the backbone models $M_s$ and $M_t$ for **Office-31** and **Office-Home**, and VGG-16 [@vgg] for **VisDA**. For *inheritable* model training, we use a batch size of $64$ ($32$ source and *negative* instances each), and use the hyperparameters $d=15$ and $K=4|\mathcal{C}_s|$. During adaptation, we use a batch size of 32 and set the hyperparameter $k=15$. We normalize the instance weights $w(x_t)$ with the $\operatorname{max}$ weight of each batch $B$, $w(x_t)/\max_{x_t \in B}w(x_t)$. During inference, an *unknown* label is assigned if $\hat{y}_t = \operatorname{argmax}_{c_i}[\sigma(G(F_t(x_t)))]_{c_i}$ is one of the $K$ *negative* classes, otherwise, a shared class label is predicted. See Supplementary for more details. **c) Metrics.** In line with [@saito2018open], we compute the *open-set* accuracy (**OS**) by averaging the class-wise target accuracy for $|\mathcal{C}_s|+1$ classes (considering target-*unknown* as a single class). Likewise, the shared accuracy (**OS\***) is computed as the class-wise average of target-shared classes ($\mathcal{C}_t^{sh}=\mathcal{C}_s$).
Results
-------
**a) State-of-the-art comparison.** In Tables \[tab:exp\_office31\][-]{}\[tab:exp\_visda\], we compare against the state-of-the-art UODA method STA [@sta_open_set]. The results for other methods are taken from [@sta_open_set]. Particularly, in Table \[tab:exp\_office31\], we report the mean and std. deviation of **OS** and **OS\*** over 3 separate runs. Due to space constraints, we report only **OS** in Table \[tab:exp\_officehome\]. It is evident that adaptation using an *inheritable* model outperforms prior arts that assume access to both *vendor’s* data (source domain) and *client’s* data (target domain) simultaneously. The superior performance of our method over STA is described as follows. STA learns a domain-agnostic feature extractor by aligning the two domains using an adversarial discriminator. This restricts the model’s flexibility to capture the diversity in the target domain, owing to the need to generalize across two domains, on top of the added training difficulties of the adversarial process. In contrast, we employ a target-specific feature extractor ($F_t$) which allows the target predictor to effectively *tune* to the target domain, while *inheriting* the class-separability knowledge. Thus, *inheritable* models offer an effective solution for UODA in practice.
**b) Hyperparameter sensitivity.** In Fig. \[fig:exp\_Kd\_sensitivity\], we plot the adaptation performance (**OS**) on a range of hyperparameter values used to train the *vendor’s* model ($K$, $d$). A low sensitivity to these hyperparameters highlights the reliability of the *inheritable* model. In Fig. \[fig:exps\_openness\_A\_sensitivity\][C]{}, we plot the adaptation performance (**OS**) on a range of values for $k$ on **Office-31**. Specifically, $k=0$ denotes the ablation where $\mathcal{L}_{inh}$ is not enforced. Clearly, the performance improves on increasing $k$ which corroborates the benefit of *inheriting* class-separability knowledge during adaptation. **c) Openness ($\mathbb{O}$).** In Fig. \[fig:exps\_openness\_A\_sensitivity\][A]{}, we report the **OS** accuracy on varying levels of Openness [@scheirer2012toward_openness] $\mathbb{O} = 1 - {|\mathcal{C}_s|} / {|\mathcal{C}_t}|$. Our method performs well for a wide range of Openness, owing to the ability to effectively mitigate *negative-transfer*.
**d) Domain discrepancy.** As discussed in [@ben2007analysis], the empirical domain discrepancy can be approximated using the Proxy $\mathcal{A}$-distance $\hat{d}_{\mathcal{A}}=2(1-2\epsilon)$ where $\epsilon$ is the generalization error of a domain discriminator. We compute the *PAD* value at the pre-classifier space for both target-shared and target-*unknown* instances in Fig. \[fig:tsne\_vis\][B]{} following the procedure laid out in [@ganin2016domain]. The *PAD* value evaluated for target-shared instances using our model is much lower than a source-trained ResNet-50 model, while that for target-*unknown* is higher than a source-trained ResNet-50 model. This suggests that adaptation aligns the source and the target-shared distributions, while separating out the target-*unknown* instances.
Discussion
----------
{width="\columnwidth"}
\[fig:exp\_Kd\_sensitivity\]
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
\[fig:exps\_openness\_A\_sensitivity\]
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
**a) Model inheritability** ($\mathcal{I}$)**.** Following the intuition in Sec. \[sec:client\_adapts\][a]{}, we evaluate the model *inheritability* ($\mathcal{I}$) for the tasks **D**$\rightarrow$**W** and **A**$\rightarrow$**W** on **Office-31**. In Fig. \[fig:tsne\_vis\][C]{} we observe that for the target **W**, an *inheritable* model trained on the source **D** exhibits a higher $\mathcal{I}$ value than that trained on the source **A**. Consequently, the adaptation task **D**$\rightarrow$**W** achieves a better performance than **A**$\rightarrow$**W**, suggesting that a *vendor* model with a higher model *inheritability* is a better candidate to perform adaptation to a given target domain. Thus, given an array of *inheritable* *vendor* models, a *client* can reliably choose the most suitable model for the target domain by measuring $\mathcal{I}$. The ability to choose a *vendor* model without requiring the *vendor’s* source data enables the application of the *vendor-client* paradigm in practice. **b) Instance-level inheritability** ($w$)**.** In Fig. \[fig:exps\_openness\_A\_sensitivity\][D]{}, we show the histogram of $w(x_t)$ values plotted separately for target-shared and target-*unknown* instances, for the task **A**$\rightarrow$**D** in **Office-31** dataset. This empirically validates our intuition that the classifier confidence of an *inheritable* model follows the inequality in Eq. \[eq:inheritability\_inequality\], at least for the extent of *domain-shift* in the available standard datasets. **c) Reliability of $w$.** Due to the mitigation of overconfidence issue, we find the classifier confidence to be a good candidate for selecting target sample for pseudo-labeling. In Fig. \[fig:exps\_openness\_A\_sensitivity\][B]{}, we plot the prediction accuracy of the top-$k$ percentile target instances based on target predictor confidence ($\max_{c_i\in\mathcal{C}_s}[\sigma(G(F_t(x_t)))]_{c_i}$). Particularly, the plot for epoch-$0$ shows the pseudo-labeling precision, since the target predictor is initialized with the parameters of the source predictor. It can be seen that the top-15 percentile samples are predicted with a precision close to 1. As adaptation proceeds, $\mathcal{L}_{tune}$ improves the prediction performance of the target model, which can be seen as a rise in the plot in Fig. \[fig:exps\_openness\_A\_sensitivity\][B]{}. Therefore, the bound in Eq. \[result\_1\] is tightened during adaptation. This verifies our intuition in Sec. \[theoretical\_analysis\]
**d) Qualitative results.** In Fig. \[fig:tsne\_vis\][A]{} we plot the t-SNE [@tsne] embeddings of the last hidden layer (pre-classifier) features of a target predictor trained using STA [@sta_open_set] and our method, on the task **A**$\rightarrow$**D**. Clearly, our method performs equally well in spite of the unavailability of source data during adaptation, suggesting that *inheritable* models can indeed facilitate adaptation in the absence of a source dataset. **e) Training time analysis.** We show the benefit of using *inheritable* models, over a source dataset. Consider a *vendor* with a labeled source domain **A**, and two *clients* with the target domains **D** and **W** respectively. Using the state-of-the-art method STA [@sta_open_set] (which requires labeled source dataset), the time spent by each *client* for adaptation using source data is 575s on an average (1150s in total). In contrast, our method (a single *vendor* model is shared with both the *clients*) results in 250s of *vendor’s* source training time (feature-splicing: 77s, $K$-means: 66s, training: 154s), and an average of 69s for adaptation by each client (138s in total). Thus, *inheritable* models provide a much more efficient pipeline by reducing the cost on source training in the case of multiple *clients* (STA: 1150s, ours: 435s). See Supplementary for experiment details.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we introduced a practical *vendor-client* paradigm, and proposed *inheritable* models to address open-set DA in the absence of co-existing source and target domains. Further, we presented an objective way to measure *inheritability* which enables the selection of a suitable source model for a given target domain without the need to access source data. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we demonstrated state-of-the-art open-set DA performance using *inheritable* models. As a future work, *inheritable* models can be extended to problems involving multiple *vendors* and multiple *clients*.
**Acknowledgements.** This work is supported by a Wipro PhD Fellowship (Jogendra) and a grant from Uchhatar Avishkar Yojana (UAY, IISC\_010), MHRD, Govt. of India.
[^1]: Equal Contribution
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We explore the existence of a class of generalised Laplace maps for third order partial differential operators of the form $$\partial_1\partial_2\partial_3+a_1\partial_2\partial_3+a_2\partial_1\partial_3+a_3\partial_1\partial_2+a_{12}\partial_3+a_{23}\partial_1+a_{13}\partial_2+a_{123}$$ and related first order $3\time 3$ systems and show that they require the satisfaction of constraints on the invariants for such operators.'
author:
- Chris Athorne
title: Laplace maps and constraints for a class of third order partial differential operators
---
Introduction
============
The classical Laplace maps are transformations of an essentially algebraic nature between second order, linear, partial differential operators. They were developed by Darboux in [@D] and can be thought about in a variety of ways with application to several areas. They are (generically invertible) maps between invariants associated with different operators.
The nomenclature surrounding this type of map is neither fixed nor always clear. So it is that the classical maps are sometimes described as Laplace transformations (rather than maps), as belonging to the more general class of *Darboux transformations* and as *intertwining* Laplace transformations (in order to distinguish this approach from other possible avenues of generlization). Such maps may also be considered to act either on the partial differential operators themselves or on the elements of their kernels, the homogeneous solution spaces.
In the theory of integrable sytems the Toda lattice [@T] has been an influential paradigm. It is related to the theory of Laplace maps in that the maps generate three term recurrence relations on the (indexed) invariants which are exactly the equations of the Toda chain on $\mathbb Z$ over $\mathbb R^2$ [@W]. The vanishing of an invariant corresponds to the end of the chain and to a factorizable operator. From the kernel of this factorizable case all the invariants on the chain can be generated.
The Laplace maps can also be lifted to transformations of non-linear systems of hydrodynamic type because the Riemann invariants satisfy second order, linear partial differential equations [@F; @ZS].
In geometry the transformations describe maps between immersed surfaces and their accompanying conjugate nets (coordinates), a connection generalised to higher dimensions in [@Kam; @KamT]. This relation can be developed in discrete geometry also [@Dol; @N].
As geometrical objects the invariants themselves can be derived following the Cartan method of moving frames [@SM].
From a purely algebraic point of view, Laplace maps have been studied in work on factorization [@BKar; @JA; @SW1; @SW2; @Ts1; @Ts2]. The general feeling appears to be that the classical instance of Laplace maps is not easily generalizable.
Further classes of generalization include *Darboux transformations of type I* [@S1; @S2; @S3] and of *continued type* [@HS]. A looser and more general notion of *intertwining Laplace transformation* than that presented in this paper can be found in [@G].
Generalizations of an even less classical nature involve quasideterminants [@LN] and supersymmetry or geometry [@LM; @LSV; @HSV].
This paper has two immediate predecessors. The first is [@A] where Laplace maps for $3\times 3$ systems are discussed. The current paper will slightly generalise that work. The second is [@AY] where a classification of certain invariants for a very large class of arbitrary order invariants is given.
Maps of this sort are usually characterised by an intertwining property of the form $$A^\sigma a=a^\sigma A$$ where one is interested in the kernel of $A^\sigma$ in relation to that of $A$: $$a:\ker A\rightarrow\ker A^\sigma.$$
In this account we describe several classes of intertwining relation for third order partial differential operators in scalar and system form and show that intertwining maps of this type can exist only when certain constraints on the invariants of the operators are satisfied. This is perhaps, compared with the second order case, a disappointing result but it is compatible with the general difficulty of generalisation apparent in the literature. It is also the case that these constraints are not preserved as functions of the transformed invariants so that one may not successively apply the Laplace maps.
Further we compare the results for scalar and system forms. It is not generally true that scalar third order partial differential equations can be written in $3\times 3$ system form nor vici versa. Again, certain conditions on invariants have to be satisfied and we look at the way the Laplace maps correspond under these conditions.
In section 2 we review the classical situation, presenting it in a form convenient to generalisation by introducing invariants as zeroth order differential operators constructed from the natural first and second order operators of the theory.
In the next section a technical trick is introduced which allows us to analyse polynomial identities between differential operators by reducing them to successively lower order identities and we introduce a deformation of the standard Laplace map.
Section 4 attempts to generalise the approach of section 2 to third order differential operators considering two scenarios: firstly first order and then second order intertwining operators. We find that constraints arise in each case, but they are fewer in number for the second order intertwiner. We then review the $3\times 3$ system. Laplace maps for this case have been considered before but we clarify here the role of constraints needed for the Laplace map to function and we discuss the relation between scalar and system forms and their overlap when a Laplace map exists.
Throughout the paper our philosophy is to work with noncommutative polynomials generated by a finite set of (noncommuting) linear differential operators. In particular our starting point is always a single linear operator of total degree $n$ in derivations $\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_n$ but which is of degree one only in each distinct derivation. In [@AY] these were called *hyperbolic* but this suggests a reality condition that does not feature in the discussion.
Alhough in that paper systematic processes describe the construction of invariants, the calculations in the current paper are somewhat *ad hoc* and a deeper understanding of their structure would be required for discussion of higher orders to be feasible.
Finally we make some concluding remarks and suggestions for further exploration.
The Classical case
==================
Scalar form
-----------
Consider the second order partial differential operator $$L_{12}=\partial_1\partial_2+a_2\partial_1+a_1\partial_2+a_{12}.$$ The coefficients belong to a differential field with derivations $\partial_1$ and $\partial_2$ and we assume no relations (algebraic or differential) between them. We write $a_i,_j$ for the $\partial_j$ derivative of $a_i$ etc. Note that the operator is symmetric in indices: $L_{12}=L_{21}.$
We are interested in invariants of such operators under transformations of the form: $L_{12}\mapsto L_{12}^g=g^{-1}L_{12}g$ where $g$ is an arbitrary element of the differential field or an extension thereof. Invariants are constructed by defining $$L_1=\partial_1+a_1,\quad L_2=\partial_2+a_2$$ and writing down the functions $$I_{12}=L_{12}-L_1L_2,\quad I_{21}=L_{12}-L_2L_1.$$ These are invariants by virtue of being differential functions (zeroth order operators) of the coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
I^g_{12}&=&L^g_{12}-L^g_1L^g_2\nonumber\\
&=&g^{-1}(L_{12}-L_1L_2)g\nonumber\\
&=&I_{12}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$L_{12}=L_1L_2+I_{12}=L_2L_1+I_{21}$$ where $I_{12}=a_{12}-a_1a_2-a_{2,1}$ and $I_{21}=a_{12}-a_1a_2-a_{1,2}.$
Now suppose there is an element $\phi$ (in a field extension) such that $L_{12}\phi=0.$ Define $\phi^\sigma=L_2\phi$ and $\phi^\Sigma=L_1\phi.$ These satisfy the pairs $$\begin{aligned}
L_2\phi&=&\phi^\sigma\nonumber\\
L_1\phi^\sigma&=&-I_{12}\phi\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L_1\phi&=&\phi^\Sigma\nonumber\\
L_2\phi^\Sigma&=&-I_{21}\phi\end{aligned}$$
The $\sigma-$ and $\Sigma-$Laplace transformed equations are those satisfied by $\phi^\sigma$ and $\phi^\Sigma$ obtained by eliminating $\phi$ from the above pairs.
$$(L_2^\sigma L_1+I_{12})\phi^\sigma=(L_1 L_2^\sigma+I_{12}+[L_2^\sigma,L_1])\phi^\sigma=0$$ $$(L_1^\Sigma L_2+I_{21})\phi^\Sigma=(L_2L_1^\Sigma + I_{21}+[L_1^\Sigma,L_2])\phi^\Sigma=0$$ where $L_2^\sigma=I_{12}L_2I_{12}^{-1}$ and $L_1^\Sigma=I_{21}L_2I_{21}^{-1}$. This implies transformations on the invariants:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{21}^\sigma&=&I_{12}\nonumber\\
I_{12}^\sigma&=&I_{12}+[L_2^\sigma,L_1]\nonumber\\
I_{21}^\Sigma&=&I_{21}+[L_1^\Sigma,L_2]\nonumber\\
I_{12}^\Sigma&=&I_{21}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and correspondingly: $$L_1^\sigma=L_1,\quad L_2^\Sigma=L_2.$$
These relations are all summarised in the simple intertwining relations $$L^\sigma_{12} L_2=L_2^\sigma L_{12}$$ $$L^\Sigma_{12} L_1=L_1^\Sigma L_{12}.$$
For example, the first implies the following chain of argument. $$\begin{aligned}
(L_2^\sigma L_1^\sigma+I_{21}^\sigma)L_2&=&L_2^\sigma(L_1L_2+I_{12}),\nonumber\\
L_2^\sigma(L_1^\sigma-L_1)L_2&=&L_2^\sigma I_{12}-I^\sigma_{21}L_2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By looking at leading order terms in differential operators, $$\begin{aligned}
L_1^\sigma&=&L_1\nonumber\\
I_{21}^\sigma&=&I_{12}\nonumber\\
L_2^\sigma&=&I_{12}L_2I_{12}^{-1}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and finally, since $L^\sigma_{12}=L^\sigma_{21},$ $$\begin{aligned}
I^\sigma_{12}&=&I^\sigma_{21}+[L^\sigma_2,L^\sigma_1]\nonumber\\
&=&I_{12}+[L^\sigma_2,L_1]\nonumber\\
&=&2I_{12}-I_{21}+(\log I_{12}),_{12}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We can however, also deform the intertwining relation by writing: $$\label{def'2}
L^\sigma_{12}L'_2=L'^\sigma_{2}L_{12},$$ where the primed operators are monic in $\partial_2$ still but with coefficients distinct from the unprimed operators. We consider this case at the conclusion of the next section.
System form
-----------
The situation just described can always be represented in system form. We can write the pairs of equations for $\phi^\sigma$ and $\phi^\Sigma$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_2 & -1 \\
I_{12} & L_1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi\\
\phi^\sigma
\end{array}
\right)
&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right)
\nonumber\\
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_2 & I_{21} \\
-1 & L_1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi^\Sigma\\
\phi
\end{array}
\right)
&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
and the intertwining relations become $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L^\sigma_2 & -1 \\
I_{12}^\sigma & L^\sigma_1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_2 & 0 \\
0 & L^\sigma_2
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L^\sigma_2 & 0\\
{[}L_2^\sigma, L_1{]} & L_2^\sigma
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_2 & -1\\
I_{12} & L_1
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L^\Sigma_2 & I^\Sigma_{21}\\
-1 & L^\Sigma_1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_1^\Sigma & 0 \\
0 & L_1
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L^\Sigma_1 & [L_1^\Sigma, L_2]\\
0 & L_1^\Sigma
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_2 & I_{21}\\
-1 & L_1
\end{array}
\right)$$
Methodology
===========
We adopt some ideas from the paper [@AY] where invariants of arbitrary order differential operators were constructed.
Let $I$ be a set of distinct labels. We associate with $I$ a partial differential operator in derivations $\partial_i$ for $i\in I:$ $$L_I=\sum_{J\subseteq I}a_{I\backslash J}\partial_J.$$ Here the symbol $\partial_J$ is the product of all derivations $\partial_j$ for $j\in J.$ All the coefficients $a_K$ for $K\subseteq I$ are algebraically and differentially independent. We associate such an operator with any subset of $I$ in a similar manner.
The coefficients are totally symmetric in their indices so that $L_I$ is a function on the set; that is, $L_I$ is totally symmetric in its indices.
For example if $I=\{1,2,3\},$ $$\begin{aligned}
L_{123}&=&\partial_1\partial_2\partial_3+a_1\partial_2\partial_3+a_2\partial_3\partial_1+a_3\partial_1\partial_2\nonumber\\
&&+a_{12}\partial_3+a_{23}\partial_1+a_{31}\partial_2+a_{123}\nonumber\\
L_{12}&=&\partial_1\partial_2+a_1\partial_2+a_2\partial_1+a_{12}\nonumber\\
L_{23}&=&\partial_2\partial_3+a_2\partial_3+a_3\partial_2+a_{23}\nonumber\\
L_{31}&=&\partial_3\partial_1+a_3\partial_1+a_1\partial_3+a_{31}\nonumber\\
L_1&=&\partial_1+a_1\nonumber\\
L_2&=&\partial_2+a_2\nonumber\\
L_3&=&\partial_3+a_3\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We consider the non-commutative polynomial ring over in these operators over some constants $K:$ $$K_I=K[\{L_J|J\subseteq I\}].$$
The invariants are the zeroth order differential elements of this ring. For example, in $K_{\{1,2\}}$ both $L_{12}-L_1L_2$ and $L_{21}-L_2L_1$ are zeroth order. Quite generally, for any index set $I,$ because the differential operators transform as $L_J\mapsto g^{-1}L_Jg,$ for an arbitrary function $g,$ any polynomial in the $L_J,$ $F(L_J|J\subseteq I),$ transforms similarly: $F\mapsto g^{-1}Fg.$ In the case where such an $F$ happens to be a zeroth order operator (i.e. a function), it is therefore invariant.
In the paper [@AY] a large class of invariants is constructed.
We can describe such invariant elements by finding the kernel of a map $\Theta$ defined by $$\Theta(L)=[L,\theta]$$ $\theta$ being regarded as an arbitrary function.
$\Theta$ acts as a derivation on the ring $K_I.$ We can then take a set of such maps $\{\Theta_i|i\in I\}$ corresponding to differentiation of elements of $K_I$ with respect to indices by choosing $\theta=x_i$.
We illustrate the methodology by a redescription of the classical case. Thus $$\Theta_1(L_{12})=L_2,\quad \Theta_1(L_2)=0,\quad \Theta_1(L_1)=1,$$ and so on. In particular we see that $I_{12}$ and $I_{21}$ are invariants because $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_1(L_{12}-L_1L_2)&=&L_2-L_2=0,\nonumber\\
\Theta_2(L_{12}-L_1L_2)&=&L_1-L_1=0,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for $I_{21}.$
We can use the $\Theta_i$ maps to analyse the intertwining relation. By applying $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$ successively we obtain, for the $\sigma$ case for example, the following non trivial relations: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{12}L_2&=&L_2^\sigma L_{12}\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_1L_2+L^\sigma_{12}&=&L_{12}+L_2^\sigma L_1\nonumber\\
2L_1^\sigma&=&2L_1\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
The last tells us that $L_1^\sigma=L_1$ and we then rearrange the second to give $I^\sigma_{21}=I_{12}.$ The first equation can then be written $$(L_{12}^\sigma-L_2^\sigma L_1^\sigma)L_2=L^\sigma_2(L_{12}-L_1L_2),$$ equivalently $$L_2^\sigma=I_{12}L_2I^{-1}_{12},$$ and finally $$I^\sigma_{12}=I^\sigma_{21}+[L_2^\sigma,L_1^\sigma]=I_{12}+[L_2^\sigma,L_1].$$
Returning to the deformed case (\[def’2\]) we may analyse this is the same way. By derivation using $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$ we obtain the tower: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{12}L'_2&=&L'^\sigma_2L_{12}\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_2L'_2&=&L'^\sigma_2L_2\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_1L'_2+L^\sigma_{12}&=&L_{12}+L'^\sigma_2L_1\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_2+L'_2&=&L'^\sigma_2+L_2\nonumber\\
L_1^\sigma&=&L_1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
From these equations (in reverse order) follow: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_1&=&L_1\nonumber\\
L'^\sigma_2&=&L^\sigma_2+\phi\nonumber\\
L'_2&=&L_2+\phi\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_2\phi&=&\phi L_2\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{21}&=&I_{12}-\phi,_1\label{int1}\\
I^\sigma_{21}\phi,_2-\phi I^\sigma_{21},_2&=&\phi^2(I_{21}-I^\sigma_{21})\label{int2}\end{aligned}$$
Note that this defomation is not equivalent to the undeformed case: we cannot gauge away the $\phi$ term in the primed operators by writing $L'_2=g^{-1}L_2g$ without introducing compensating terms in $L_{12}$ and so on.
From equation (\[int2\]) we obtain, by putting $$\phi=\frac{I^\sigma_{21}}{\psi}$$ the relation $$I^\sigma_{21}=I_{21}+\psi,_2=I_{21}+\left(\frac{I^\sigma_{21}}{\phi}\right),_2.$$
Then $\phi$ is determined by the invariants $I_{12}$ and $I_{21}$ via the following equation: $$I_{12}-I_{21}=\left(\frac{I_{12}}{\phi}\right),_2+\phi,_1-(\log\phi),_{12}.$$
In the limit that $\phi,$ but not $\phi^{-1}\phi,_2,$ tends to zero, we recover the classical case: $$\phi^{-1}\phi,_2=I^{-1}_{12}I_{12},_2$$ and $\phi=I_{12}.$
Otherwise this equation looks not easy to solve and is the object of further study.
Third order case
================
In the third order case, $I=\{1,2,3\}$ there are six invariants on two labels, $$I_{ij}=L_{ij}-L_iL_j,\quad i,j\in \{1,2,3\}.$$ The Jacobi identity, $$[L_1,[L_2,L_3]]+[L_2,[L_3,L_1]]+[L_3,[L_1,L_2]]=0,$$ yields a single identity $$I_{12},_3+I_{23},_1+I_{31},_2-I_{21},_3-I_{32},_1-I_{13},_2=0.$$
On three labels we have the set $$I_{ijk}=L_{ijk}-I_{jk}L_i-I_{ik}L_j-I_{ij}L_k-L_iL_jL_k.$$ Because of the total symmetry of $L_{ijk}$ we may make any of these our choice for one independent invariant. Indeed under transpositions of indices: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{jik}&=&I_{ijk}\nonumber\\
I_{ikj}&=&I_{ijk}+(I_{kj}-I_{jk}),_i\nonumber\\
I_{kji}&=&I_{ijk}+(I_{ki}-I_{ik}),_j\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
One checks the invariance of $I_{123}$ by, for example, $$\Theta_1(I_{123})=L_{23}-I_{23}-L_2L_3=0$$ and likewise with $\Theta_2$ and $\Theta_3.$
We call the expression of $L_{ijk}$ in terms of invariants and the $L_i,$ $$L_{ijk}=L_iL_jL_k+I_{jk}L_i+I_{ik}L_j+I_{ij}L_k+I_{ijk},$$ the [*invariant expansion*]{} of $L_{ijk}$.
We will discuss the system form in a moment. However, it should be emphasised that scalar and system forms are not interchangeable at order three unlike the order two case. We are generally able to write neither the scalar form as a $3\times 3$ system nor such a system in scalar form.
Scalar form
-----------
### First order intertwiner
In seeking to generalise the Laplace maps to the third order case we consider intertwining relations of the form $$L^{\sigma_i}_{123}L_i=L^{\sigma_i}_iL_{123}.$$ For simplicity of notation we will consider $i=1$ and write $\sigma_1=\sigma.$
This definition of the first order intertwiner is a natural, formal generalization of the classical case. It would imply that if $\phi\in\ker L_{123}$ then $L_i\phi\in\ker L^{\sigma_i}_{123}.$
Apply the operators $\Theta_3,\Theta_2, \Theta_1$ and $\Theta_1^2$ to obtain the tower of equations $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{123}L_1&=&L^\sigma_1L_{123}\label{0}\\
L^\sigma_{12}L_1&=&L^\sigma_1L_{12}\label{3}\\
L^\sigma_{13}L_1&=&L^\sigma_1L_{13}\label{2}\\
L^\sigma_{23}L_1+L^\sigma_{123}&=&L^\sigma_1L_{23}+L_{123}\label{1}\\
2L^\sigma_{23}&=&2L_{23}\label{11}\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[3\]) and (\[2\]) are Laplace maps of the earlier kind (with the label $1$ replacing $2$) so that we immediately deduce: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_2&=&L_2\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_3&=&L_3\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{13}&=&I_{31}\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{12}&=&I_{21}\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_1&=&I_{31}L_1I_{31}^{-1}=I_{21}L_1I_{21}^{-1}\label{con1}\\
I^\sigma_{21}-I_{21}&=&I_{21}-I_{12}+(\log I_{21}),_{12}\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{31}-I_{31}&=&I_{31}-I_{13}+(\log I_{31}),_{13}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[11\]) is consistent with the above and requires in addition, $$I^\sigma_{23}=I_{23},\quad I^\sigma_{32}=I_{32}.$$ Equation (\[con1\]) on the other hand implies a constraint on the invariants, a condiation that requires satisfaction, if the Laplace map is to exist. The condition is $$\left(\frac{I_{31}}{I_{21}}\right),_1=0.$$
If we restrict attention to the differential ring in the coefficients of the differential operators, i.e. we do not employ any extension, then, up to a multiplicative scalar, we conclude that $$I_{21}=I_{31}.$$ Unfortunately this relation is not preserved under the Laplace map: $$\begin{aligned}
I^\sigma_{21}-I^\sigma_{31}&=&I^\sigma_{12}+[L^\sigma_1,L_2]-I^\sigma_{13}-[L^\sigma_1,L_3]\nonumber\\
&=&I_{21}-I_{31}+[L_1-(\log I_{21}),_1,L_2]-[L_1-(\log I_{31}),_1,L_3]\nonumber\\
&=&2I_{21}-I_{12}-2I_{31}+I_{13}+(\log I_{31}),_{13}-(\log I_{21}),_{12}\nonumber\\
&=&I_{13}-I_{12}+\left((\log I_{31}),_3-(\log I_{21}),_2\right),_1\nonumber\\
&\neq& 0\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We seek to understand if further constraints arise from equations (\[1\]) and (\[0\]).
Dealing with equation (\[1\]) first, we can write it, using the expansion in invariants, as an expression relating $I^\sigma_{123}$ to $I_{321}:$ $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{123}-L^\sigma_1L^\sigma_{23}&=&L_{123}-L_{23}L_1\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_1L_2L_3+I_{21}L_3+I_{31}L_2&=&L_1L_2L_3+I_{12}L_3+I_{13}L_2\nonumber\\
+I_{23}L^\sigma_1+I^\sigma_{123}-L^\sigma_1(I_{23}+L_2L_3)&&+(L_{23}-L_2L_3)L_1+I_{123}\nonumber\\
I_{21}L_3+I_{31}L_2-I_{23},_1+I^\sigma_{123}&=&[L_1,L_2L_3]+I_{12}L_3+I_{13}L_2+I_{123}\nonumber\\
I_{31}L_2-I_{23},_1+I^\sigma_{123}&=&L_2(I_{31}-I_{13})+I_{13}L_2+I_{123}\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{123}&=&I_{123}+I_{31},_2-I_{13},_2+I_{23},_1\nonumber\\
&=&I_{321}+I_{23},_1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Finally we deal with equation (\[0\]).
Once more using the invariant expansion of $L_{123}$ and $L^\sigma_{123}:$ $$(L^\sigma_1L^\sigma_2L^\sigma_3+I^\sigma_{23}L^\sigma_1+I^\sigma_{13}L^\sigma_2+I^\sigma_{12}L^\sigma_3+I^\sigma_{123})L_1$$ $$=L^\sigma_1(L_2L_3L_1+I_{23}L_1+I_{31}L_2+I_{21}L_3+I_{231})$$ Incorporating what we have learnt already, $$(L^\sigma_1L_2L_3+I_{23}L^\sigma_1+I_{31}L_2+I_{21}L_3+I_{321}+I_{23},_1)L_1$$ $$=L^\sigma_1(L_2L_3L_1+I_{23}L_1+I_{31}L_2+I_{21}L_3+I_{231})$$ $$=L^\sigma_1L_2L_3L_1+L^\sigma_1I_{23}L_1+I_{31}L_1L_2+I_{21}L_1L_3+L^\sigma_1I_{231}$$ and we undertake the following manipulations $$\begin{aligned}
I_{21}[L_3,L_1]+I_{31}[L_2,L_1]+(I_{321}+I_{23},_1)L_1&=&[L^\sigma_1,I_{23}]L_1+L^\sigma_1I_{231}\nonumber\\
I_{21}I_{13}-2I_{21}I_{31}+I_{31}I_{12}&=&L^\sigma_1I_{231}-I_{231}L_1\label{con2}\end{aligned}$$
Summarising: the existence of a Laplace map of the form $L^\sigma_{123}L_1=L^\sigma_1L_{123}$ requires conditions on the form of the third order operator which can be expressed as the constraints on invariants arising from the three different expressions, (\[con1\]) and (\[con2\]), for $L_1^\sigma$ in terms of $L_1.$ These are succinctly written as the pair $$\begin{aligned}
I_{31}I_{231},_1-I_{31},_1I_{231}&=&I_{31}\left(I_{21}I_{13}-2I_{21}I_{31}+I_{31}I_{12}\right)\nonumber\\
I_{21}I_{231},_1-I_{21},_1I_{231}&=&I_{21}\left(I_{21}I_{13}-2I_{21}I_{31}+I_{31}I_{12}\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ or, if the choice $I_{21}=I_{31}$ is made $$\left(\frac{I_{231}}{I_{21}}\right),_1=I_{13}+I_{12}-2I_{21}.$$
These conditions amount to differential constraints on the coefficients $a_i,\,a_{ij}$ and $a_{ijk}$.
### Deformed first order intertwiner
It is natural to ask if we can escape the constraints by considering the deformed relation: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{123}L'_1&=&L'^\sigma_1L_{123}\label{def0}\\
L^\sigma_{12}L'_1&=&L'^\sigma_1L_{12}\label{def3}\\
L^\sigma_{13}L'_1&=&L'^\sigma_1L_{13}\label{def2}\\
L^\sigma_{23}L'_1+L^\sigma_{123}&=&L'^\sigma_1L_{23}+L_{123}\label{def1}\\
L^\sigma_{23}&=&L_{23}\label{def11}\end{aligned}$$
From (\[def3\]) and (\[def2\]) we will obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I^\sigma_{12}&=&I_{21}-\phi,_2\nonumber\\
\left(\frac{I^\sigma_{12}}{\phi}\right),_1&=&I^\sigma_{12}-I_{12}\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{13}&=&I_{31}-\phi,_3\nonumber\\
\left(\frac{I^\sigma_{13}}{\phi}\right),_1&=&I^\sigma_{13}-I_{13}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Apparently we do not thereby escape constraints since the integrability conditions on $\phi$ require $$\begin{aligned}
(I^\sigma_{12}-I_{21}),_3&=&(I^\sigma_{13}-I_{31}),_2\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ and, writing $$\frac{I^\sigma_{12}}{I^\sigma_{13}}=\frac{I^\sigma_{12}}{\phi}\frac{\phi}{I^\sigma_{13}},$$ we get $$\left(\frac{I^\sigma_{12}}{I^\sigma_{13}}\right),_1=\frac{I^\sigma_{12}I_{13}-I_{12}I^\sigma_{13}}{(I^\sigma_{13})^2}\phi$$ and hence $$\phi=\frac{I^\sigma_{12},_1I_{13}-I_{12}I^\sigma_{13},_1}{I^\sigma_{12}I_{13}-I_{12}I^\sigma_{13}}.$$
As before there is a limit in which $\phi$ but not $\frac{\phi,_1}{\phi}$ tend to zero and this corrresponds to the previous relations: $I^\sigma_{12}=I_{21}$ etc.
Again, study of this situation is postponed to another time.
### Second order intertwiner
A second possibility for implementing a type of Laplace transform is to consider a second order intertwiner, $$\label{second}
L^\sigma_{123}L_{12}=L^\sigma_{12}L_{123}$$
We proceed as before and indeed it turns out that this imposes fewer constraints on the invariants of $L_{123}.$
$\Theta_3$ yields only trivial identities. The tower of identities obtained by applying $\Theta_1$ and $\Theta_2$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{123}L_{12}&=&L^\sigma_{12}L_{123}\label{sec0}\\
L^\sigma_{23}L_{12}+L^\sigma_{123}L_2&=&L^\sigma_2L_{123}+L^\sigma_{12}L_{23}\label{sec1}\\
L^\sigma_{13}L_{12}+L^\sigma_{123}L_1&=&L^\sigma_1L_{123}+L^\sigma_{12}L_{13}\label{sec2}\\
L^\sigma_{23}L_2&=&L^\sigma_2L_{23}\label{sec11}\\
L^\sigma_{13}L_1&=&L^\sigma_1L_{13}\label{sec22}\\
L^\sigma_3L_{12}+L^\sigma_{23}L_1+L^\sigma_{13}L_2+L^\sigma_{123}&=&L_{123}+L^\sigma_2L_{13}+L^\sigma_1L_{23}+L^\sigma_{12}L_3\label{sec12}\end{aligned}$$
Again equations (\[sec11\]) and (\[sec22\]) are of the classical form for a Laplace transformation and they give us $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_3&=&L_3\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{23}&=&I_{32}\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{13}&=&I_{31}\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_2&=&I_{32}L_2I_{32}^{-1}\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_1&=&I_{31}L_1I_{31}^{-1}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In particular, no constraint arises at this level.
Equation (\[sec12\]) is dealt with using the invariant expansions $$L^\sigma_{123}=L^\sigma_1L^\sigma_2L_3+I_{32}L^\sigma_1+I_{31}L^\sigma_2+I^\sigma_{12}L_3+I^\sigma_{123}$$ $$L_{123}=L_3L_2L_1+I_{32}L_1+I_{31}L_2+I_{21}L_3+I_{321}$$ and $$L_{13}=L_3L_1+I_{31},\quad L_{23}=L_3L_2+I_{32},\quad L^\sigma=L^\sigma_1L^\sigma_2+I^\sigma_{12},$$ $$L^\sigma_{23}=L^\sigma_2L_3+I_{32},\quad L^\sigma_{13}=L^\sigma_1L_3+I_{31},\quad L_{12}=L_2L_1+I_{21}.$$
The result is an expression for $I^\sigma_{123}:$ $$I^\sigma_{123}=I_{321}+I_{32},_1-I_{21},_3+I_{31},_2.$$
We anticipate that equations (\[sec1\]) and (\[sec2\]) will give expressions for $I^\sigma_{12}$ and $I^\sigma_{21}$ and no constraints.
Write (\[sec1\]) as $$L^\sigma_{123}L_2-L^\sigma_{12}L_{23}=L_2^\sigma L_{123}-L^\sigma_{23}L_{12}.$$
Using the expansions $$L^\sigma_{123}=L^\sigma_{12}L^\sigma_3+I^\sigma_{13}L^\sigma_2+I^\sigma_{23}L^\sigma_1+I^\sigma_{123}$$ $$L_{123}=L_3L_{12}+I_{32}L_1+I_{31}L_2+I_{321}-I_{21},_3$$ the relation simplifies to $$(I^\sigma_{123}-I_{31},_2)L_2-L^\sigma_2(I_{321}-I_{21},_3)=L^\sigma_{12}I_{32}-I_{32}L_{12}+L^\sigma_2I_{32}L_1-I_{32}L^\sigma_1L_2.$$
Then $$\begin{aligned}
(I^\sigma_{123}-I_{31},_2)L_2-L^\sigma_2(I_{321}-I_{21},_3)&=&L^\sigma_{12}I_{32}-I_{32}L_{12}+I_{32}L_2L_1-I_{32}L^\sigma_1L_2\nonumber\\
&=&(L^\sigma_1L^\sigma_2+I^\sigma_{12})I_{32}-I_{32}I_{21}-I_{32}L^\sigma_1L_2\nonumber\\
&=&I_{32},_1L_2+(I^\sigma_{12}-I_{21})I_{32}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Define $$J_{321}=I_{321}-I_{21},_3=I^\sigma_{123}-I_{31},_2-I_{32},_1.$$
Then $$\label{J1}
L^\sigma_2J_{321}-J_{321}L_2=(I_{21}-I^\sigma_{12})I_{32}$$ and from equation (\[sec2\]), by transposition of $1$ and $2$, $$\label{J2}
L^\sigma_1J_{312}-J_{312}L_1=(I_{12}-I^\sigma_{21})I_{31}.$$
Note that, following from the properties of $I_{ijk}$ under transposition $$J_{321}=J_{312}.$$
Using the relations $L^\sigma_2I_{32}=I_{32}L_2$ and $L^\sigma_1I_{31}=I_{31}L_1$ we get expressions for $I^\sigma_{21}$ and $I^\sigma_{12}:$ $$\begin{aligned}
I^\sigma_{12}&=&I_{21}-\left(\frac{J_{321}}{I_{32}}\right),_2\nonumber\\
I^\sigma_{21}&=&I_{12}-\left(\frac{J_{312}}{I_{31}}\right),_1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Finally we must analyse the relation (\[sec0\]) itself: $$L^\sigma_{123}L_{12}=L^\sigma_{12}L_{123}.$$
At this point all the $I^\sigma$ invariants are defined in terms of the $I$ invariants as are the $L^\sigma_i$ so the most we can hope for here is a consistent set of relations but we might expect, instead, constraints to arise.
We use the same invariant expansions as in the previous calculations to arrive at, $$(I_{31}L^\sigma_2+I_{32}L^\sigma_1+I^\sigma_{123})L_{12}=L^\sigma_{12}(I_{32}L_1+I_{31}L_2+J_{321}).$$
We can use the $J_{321}$ relations (\[J1\]) and (\[J2\]) to move the $L^\sigma_1$ and $L^\sigma_2$ operators from left to right to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I^\sigma_{123}L_{12}&=&I_{32},_1L_2L_1-I_{32}L^\sigma_1+I^\sigma_{12}I_{32}L_1\nonumber\\
&&+I_{31},_2L_1L_2-I_{31}L^\sigma_2I_{12}+I^\sigma_{21}I_{31}L_2\nonumber\\
&&+J_{321}L_1L_2+I_{31}(I_{12}-I^\sigma_{21})L_2+I^\sigma_{12}J_{321}\nonumber\\
&&+L^\sigma_1(I_{21}-I^\sigma_{12})I_{32}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging we obtain the relations between invariants $$\begin{aligned}
\label{C}
J_{321}I_{12}&=&(I^\sigma_{12}I_{32})L_1-L^\sigma_1(I^\sigma_{12}I_{32})\nonumber\\
&&+(I_{31}I_{12})L_2-L^\sigma_2(I_{31}I_{12})\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Since all the objects with $\sigma$ superfix are already defined, this relation constitutes a constraint on the invariants. Again this amounts to a differential constraint on the coefficients $a_i,\,a_{ij}$ and $a_{ijk}$.
System form
-----------
In [@A] Laplace type maps are developed for third order systems of the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
L_1 & h_{12} & h_{13}\\
h_{21} & L_2 & h_{23}\\
h_{31} & h_{32} & L_3
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_1\\
\phi_2\\
\phi_3
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
0
\end{array}
\right)$$ where $L_i=\partial_i+h_{ii}.$ In this section we provide a slight generalization of those results.
The set of transformations under which invariants are defined are taken to be conjugations of the matrix differential operator by diagonal matrices of three arbitrary functions $$G=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
g_1 & 0 & 0\\
0 &g_2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & g_3
\end{array}
\right)$$ and the invariants are $$\begin{aligned}
(12)&=&h_{12}h_{21}\nonumber\\
(23)&=&h_{23}h_{32}\nonumber\\
(31)&=&h_{31}h_{13}\nonumber\\
(123)&=&h_{12}h_{23}h_{31}\nonumber\\
(132)&=&h_{13}h_{32}h_{21}\nonumber\\
{[}12]&=&h_{11},_2-h_{22},_1+\frac12(\log\frac{h_{12}}{h_{21}}),_{12}\nonumber\\
{[}13]&=&h_{11},_3-h_{33},_1+\frac12(\log\frac{h_{13}}{h_{31}}),_{13}\nonumber\\
{[}23]&=&h_{22},_3-h_{33},_2+\frac12(\log\frac{h_{23}}{h_{32}}),_{23}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
The $(ij)$ and $(ijk)$ are totally symmetric. The $[ij]$ are antisymmetric.
Note that this is not an independent set. In fact $$(12)(23)(31)=(123)(132),$$ and $$[12],_3+[23],_1+[31],_2=\frac12(\log\frac{(123)}{(132)}),_{123}.$$
A number of variant canonical forms are possible. For example, choosing $g,_1+h_{11}g=0$ and $g_1=g,_1,\,g_2=gh_{21},\,g_3=gh_{21}h_{32}$ we obtain $$\label{can}
G^{-1}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
L_1 & h_{12} & h_{13}\\
h_{21} & L_2 & h_{23}\\
h_{31} & h_{32} & L_3
\end{array}
\right)G
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial_1 & (12) & (132)\\
1 & \partial_2+I_2 & (23)\\
\frac{(13)}{(132)} & 1 & \partial_3+I_3
\end{array}
\right)$$ where $$I_2,_1=[21]+\frac12(\log (12)),_{12},$$ and $$I_3,_1=[31]+(\log (132))_{13}-\frac12(\log (13)),_{13}.$$
The [*deformed*]{} intertwining relation generalises that for the $2\times 2$ case. For example, $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
L^\sigma_1 & h^\sigma_{12} & h^\sigma_{13}\\
h^\sigma_{21} & L^\sigma_2 & h^\sigma_{23}\\
h^\sigma_{31} & h^\sigma_{32} & L^\sigma_3
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial_1+u_{11} & h_{12}-h^\sigma_{12} & h_{13}-h^\sigma_{13}\\
0 & \partial_1+u_{22} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \partial_1+u_{33}
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial_1+l_{11} & 0 & 0\\
h^\sigma_{21}-h_{21} & \partial_1+l_{22} &0\\
h^\sigma_{31}-h_{31} & 0 & \partial_1+l_{33}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
L_1& h_{12} & h_{13}\\
h_{21} & L_2 & h_{23}\\
h_{31} & h_{32} & L_3
\end{array}
\right)$$ from which follow $$\begin{aligned}
l_{22}&=&u_{22}\nonumber\\
l_{33}&=&u_{33}\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_2&=&L_2\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_3&=&L_3\nonumber\\
h^\sigma_{23}&=&h_{23}\nonumber\\
h^\sigma_{32}&=&h_{32}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$u_{22}=h_{11}-(\log h_{21}),_1+(12)^\sigma\alpha=h^\sigma_{11}+(\log h^\sigma_{12}),_1+(12)\alpha,$$ $$u_{33}=h_{11}-(\log h_{31}),_1+(13)^\sigma\beta=h^\sigma_{11}+(\log h^\sigma_{13}),_1+(13)\beta.$$
Here $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions of invariants satisfying, $$\frac{\alpha}{\beta}=\frac{(132)^\sigma(13)}{(132)(12)^\sigma}=\frac{(123)(13)^\sigma}{(123)^\sigma(12)}$$ in terms of which the Laplace map takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
(12)^\sigma-(12)&=&[12]-\frac12(\log(12)),_{12}+\left((12)^\sigma\alpha\right),_2\nonumber\\
(13)^\sigma-(13)&=&[13]-\frac12(\log (13)),_{13}+\left((13)^\sigma\beta\right),_3\nonumber\\
(23)^\sigma-(23)&=&0\nonumber\\
{[}12]^\sigma-[12]&=&-\frac12\left(\log((12)(12)^\sigma\alpha^2)\right),_{12}\nonumber\\
{[}13]^\sigma-[13]&=&-\frac12\left(\log((13)(13)^\sigma\beta^2)\right),_{13}\nonumber\\
{[}23]^\sigma-[23]&=&0\nonumber\\
(132)^\sigma-(132)&=&(23)\left(\log\frac{(12)}{(123)}\right),_1-\alpha(12)^\sigma+\beta(13)^\sigma\nonumber\\
(123)^\sigma-(123)&=&(23)\left(\log\frac{(13)}{(132)}\right),_1+\alpha(12)^\sigma-\beta(13)^\sigma.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The Laplace maps respect the differential identities satisfied by the antisymmetric invariants. $$\begin{aligned}
{[}12]^\sigma,_3+[23]^\sigma,_1+[31]^\sigma,_2&=&[12],_3+[23],_1+[31],_2+\frac12\left(\log\frac{(13)(13)^\sigma\beta^2}{(12)(12)^\sigma\alpha^2}\right),_{123}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac12\left(\log\frac{(123)(13)(13)^\sigma\beta^2}{(132)(12)(12)^\sigma\alpha^2}\right),_{123}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac12\left(\log\frac{(123)^\sigma}{(132)^\sigma}\right),_{123}.\end{aligned}$$
The other algebraic constraint on the symmetric invariants $$(123)^\sigma(132)^\sigma=(12)^\sigma(23)^\sigma(31)^\sigma$$ provides a second (complicated) condition, not identically satisfied, on $\alpha$ and $\beta,$ thus determining them.
Note that in [@A] the simplifying choice $u_{22}=u_{33}$ has been made which leads to the relation $\alpha=\beta.$ It was not appreciated at that time that such a choice leads to constraints on the invariants. As is seen above allowing $u_{22}\neq u_{33}$ leads to more complexity. This is currently being explored.
Scalarizability
---------------
Because the differential operator of the $3\times 3$ system is defined over a non-commutative ring one cannot, in general, reduce to a single scalar equation as might over a field. But it is clear that the vanishing of any of the $h_{ij}$ is a sufficient condition to do so and we say that in such a case the system is [*scalarizable*]{}.
For example, if $h_{23}=0$ then we can write down a scalar equation for $\phi_2$ of the form $$(\tilde L_3\tilde L_1\tilde L_2-\tilde L_3(12)-(13)\tilde L_2+(132))\tilde \phi_2=0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde L_1&=&L_1\nonumber\\
\tilde L_2&=&h^{-1}_{21}L_2h_{21}\nonumber\\
\tilde L_3&=&h_{13}L_3h^{-1}_{13}\nonumber\\
\tilde \phi_2&=&h_{21}^{-1}\phi_2\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
By comparing with the invariant expansion $$\tilde L_3\tilde L_1\tilde L_2+\tilde I_{32}\tilde L_1+\tilde I_{31}\tilde L_2+\tilde I_{12}L_3+\tilde I_{312}$$ the corresponding invariants $I_{ij}$ and $I_{123}$ are seen to be $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde I_{32}&=&0\nonumber\\
\tilde I_{23}&=&[23]+(\log(132)),_{23}\nonumber\\
\tilde I_{31}&=&-(13)\nonumber\\
\tilde I_{13}&=&-(13)+[13]+\frac12(\log(13)),_{13}\nonumber\\
\tilde I_{12}&=&-(12)\nonumber\\
\tilde I_{21}&=&-(12)+[21]+\frac12(\log(12)),_{12}\nonumber\\
\tilde I_{312}&=&(132)-(12),_3\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
using $(23)=0.$
Finally we would like to see that the system Laplace map corresponds with a scalar one. It suffices to check that the invariants transform in the same way. The restriction $(23)=0$ is consistent with (but not equivalent to) the choice $\alpha=\beta=0$ which follows from the assumption $u_{11}=h_{11}$ and $l_{11}=h^\sigma_{11},$ corresponding to the undeformed $3\times 3$ system. This in turn implies $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_1+u_{22}&=&h_{21}L_1h^{-1}_{21}\nonumber\\
&=&{(h^\sigma_{12})}^{-1}L^\sigma_1h^\sigma_{12}\nonumber\\
\partial_1+u_{33}&=&h_{31}L_1h^{-1}_{31}\nonumber\\
&=&{(h^\sigma_{13})}^{-1}L^\sigma_1h^\sigma_{13}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ and consequently $$(h^\sigma_{12}h_{21})L_1(h^\sigma_{12}h_{21})^{-1}=(h^\sigma_{13}h_{31})L_1(h^\sigma_{13}h_{31})^{-1},$$ or $$h^\sigma_{12}h_{21}=h^\sigma_{13}h_{31},$$ or, in invariant terms, $$\frac{(123)^\sigma}{(13)^\sigma}=\frac{(123)}{(12)}.$$
We impose the limit $\alpha,\beta\rightarrow 0$ and $\frac{\alpha}{\beta}=1$ on what follows.
Consider the $\tilde I^\sigma_{13}$ and $\tilde I^\sigma_{31}$ invariants arising from the first order scalar Laplace map. From the results on the first order intertwiners, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde I^\sigma_{13}&=&\tilde I_{31}=-(13)\nonumber\\
\tilde I^\sigma_{31}&=&2\tilde I_{31}-\tilde I_{13}+(\log\tilde I_{31}),_{13}\nonumber\\
-(13)^\sigma&=&-2(13)+(13)-[13]-\frac12(\log(13)),_{13}+(\log(13)),_{13}\nonumber\\
&=&-(13)-[13]+\frac12(\log(13)),_{13}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ which rearranges to $$(13)^\sigma-(13)=[13]-\frac12(\log(13)),_{13}$$ as expected.
For the antisymmetric invariant we have, $$\begin{aligned}
-(13)^\sigma+[13]^\sigma+\frac12(\log(13)^\sigma)_{13}&=&-(13)\nonumber\\
{[}13]^\sigma&=&(13)^\sigma-(13)-\frac12(\log (13)^\sigma)_{13}\nonumber\\
{[}13]^\sigma-[13]&=&-\frac12(\log (13)^\sigma(13))_{13}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The $I_{12}$ relation follows simply from: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde I^\sigma_{12}&=&\tilde I_{21}\nonumber\\
- (12)^\sigma&=&-(12)+[21]+\frac12(\log(12)),_{12}\nonumber\\
(12)^\sigma-(12)&=&[12]-\frac12(\log(12)),_{12}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as expected and so on.
The condition that $h_{23}=0$ implies $(23)=0$ and for the system Laplace map this gives $$(132)^\sigma=(132)$$ which we wsih to show is equivalent to $$I^\sigma_{123}=I_{321}+I_{23},_1,$$ the Laplace map result for the scalar operator. Rewriting the system relation using the permutation relations on three index objects, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde I^\sigma_{312}-\tilde I^\sigma_{12},_3&=&\tilde I_{312}-\tilde I_{12},_3\nonumber\\
\tilde I^\sigma_{132}-\tilde I^\sigma_{12},_3&=&\tilde I_{312}-\tilde I_{12},_3\nonumber\\
\tilde I^\sigma_{123}+\tilde I^\sigma_{32},_1-\tilde I^\sigma_{23},_1-\tilde I^\sigma_{12},_3&=&\tilde I_{321}+\tilde I_{12},_3-\tilde I_{21},_3-\tilde I_{12},_3\nonumber\\
\tilde I^\sigma_{123}+\tilde I_{32},_1-\tilde I_{23},_1-\tilde I_{21},_3&=&\tilde I_{321}-\tilde I_{21},_3\nonumber\\
\tilde I^\sigma_{123}&=&\tilde I_{321}+\tilde I_{23},_1+\tilde I_{32},_1\nonumber\\
&=&\tilde I_{321}+\tilde I_{23},_1\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as desired, since $\tilde I_{32}=0.$
### Conclusion
This paper has examined in detail a natural generalization of the classical Laplace map on invariants of second order, partial differential operators to third order operators of both scalar and system forms and compared them in the overlap where a system is scalarizable. The basic obervation is that such intertwining maps of scalar operators can only exist where prior conditions exist on the invariants. It is shown by example that these can be compatible with the scalarizability of a system for which more general (unconstrained) Laplace maps exist.
There is a further generalization of the notion of Laplace map which would allow us to avoid the constraints in the case of the second order intertwining relation. We call this a [*weak Laplace map*]{}: Consider the inhomogeneous partial differential equation $$L_{123}\phi=\psi$$ and suppose that the intertwining relation holds only up to an unspecified function, $K$: $$L^\sigma_{12}L_{123}-L^\sigma_{123}L_{12}=K.$$ Then the conditions (\[sec1\]) to (\[sec12\]) hold but not (\[sec0\]) and the relations between the $I^\sigma$ and the $I$ are as in the last section but without the constraint (\[C\]). This allows us to define the weak Laplace map: $$\begin{aligned}
L^\sigma_{12}L_{123}\phi&=&L^\sigma_{12}\psi\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_{123}L_{12}\phi&=&L^\sigma_{12}\psi-K\phi\nonumber\\
L^\sigma_{123}\phi^\sigma&=&\psi^\sigma\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where, $$\phi\mapsto \phi^\sigma =L_{12}\phi,\quad \psi\mapsto\psi^\sigma=L^\sigma_{12}\psi-K\phi.$$
There seems to be some scope here for further work.
Apart from the study of weak maps and the deformed intertwining relations, other natural questions include:
- What are the general constraints on the invariants of a $3\times 3$ (or higher order) system that make it scalarizable?
- What conditions need to be satisfied by the invariants of a scalar operator in order for it to be written in system form?
- Does the second order intertwining map also correspond to a Laplace map of a $3\times 3$ system?
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their thorough reading of the manuscript and their suggestions for clarification and improvement.
This paper was written during the last weeks and days of my close friend and colleague, Jon Nimmo. It is appropriate to record here my appreciation of Jon’s support, generous encouragement and humour over many years in Glasgow.
[99]{} Athorne, C., *A $\mathbb Z^2\times\mathbb R^3$ Toda System*, Physics Letters A, 206 (1995) 162–166. Athorne, C. and Yilmaz, H., *Invariants of hyperbolic partial differential operators*, J. Phys. A, 49 (2016) 135201 –135214. Beals, R. and Kartashova, E.A., *Constructively factoring linear partial differential operators in two variables*, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 145 (2005) 1511–1524. Darboux, G., *Leçons Sur La Théorie Générale Des Surfaces Et Les Applications Géométriques Du Calcul Infinitésimal*, Gauthier-Villars (1887-96). Doliwa, A., *Lattice geometry of the Hirota equation*, in SIDE III – Symmetries and Integrability of Difference Equations, D. Levi, & O. Ragnisco (eds.), CMR Proceedings and Lecture Notes, Vol.25, AMS, Providence, (2000) 93-100. Ferapontov, E. V., *Laplace transforms of hydrodynamic-type systems in Riemann invariants*, Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 110 (1997) 86–97; translation in Theoret. and Math. Phys. 110 (1997) 68–77. Ganzha, E.I. *Intertwining Laplace transformations of linear partial differential equations*, in Barkatou M., Cluzeau T., Regensburger G., Rosenkranz M. (eds) *Algebraic and Algorithmic Aspects of Differential and Integral Operators*, AADIOS 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8372. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2014) Hill, S. et al. *Darboux transformations for differential operators on the superline*, Russ. Math. Surveys, 70 (2015) 1173. Hobby, D. & Shemyakova, E., *Classification of multidimensional Darboux transformations: first order and continued type*, SIGMA 13 (2017) 010. Juráš, M. and Anderson, I.M., *Generalized Laplace invariants and the method of Darboux*, Duke Math. J. 89 (1997) 351–375. Kamran, N., *Selected topics in the geometrical study of differential equations*, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, 96, AMS, Providence, RI, 2002. Kamran, N. and Tenenblat, K., *Laplace transformations in higher dimensions*, Duke Math. J. 84 (1996) 237–266. Liu, Q.P. & Mañas, M., *Crum transformations and Wronskian type solutions for supersymmetric KdV equations*, Phys. Lett. B 396 (1997) 33–40. Li, C.X., & Nimmo, J.J.C., *Darboux transformations for a twisted derivation and quasideterminant solutions to the super KdV equation*, Proc. Roy. soc. A 466 (2010) 2471-2493. Li, S. et al., *Differential operators on the superline, Berezinians, and Darboux transformations*, Lett. Math. Phys. 107 (2017) 1689-1714. Niesporski, M., *A Laplace ladder of discrete Laplace equations*, Theor. and Math. Phys., 133 (2002) 1576-1584. Shemyakova, E., *Invertible Darboux transformations*, SIGMA 9 (2013) 002. Shemyakova, E., *Invertible Darboux transformations of type I*, Programming and Computer Software, 41 (2015) 119–125. Shemyakova, E., *Orbits of Darboux groupoids for hyperbolic operators of order three*, in Supersymmetric vector coherent states for systems with Zeeman coupling and spin-orbit interactions, Geometric Methods in Physics, XX XIII Workshop, BiaáowieĪa, Poland, June 29–July 5, 2014 (2015). Shemyakova, E. and Mansfield, E.L., *Moving frames for Laplace invariants*, ISSAC 2008, 295-302, ACM, New York, 2008. Shemyakova, E. and Winkler, F., *Obstacles to the factorization of linear partial differential operators into several factors*, Programming and Computer Software, vol.33, no.2, pp.67–73, 2007. Shemyakova, E. and Winkler, F., *A full system of invariants for third order linear partial differential operators in general form*, in Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing, ed. Ganzha, V. G. et al. (2007). Toda, M., *Theory of nonlinear lattices*, Springer (1989). Tsarëv, S.P., *Factorization of linear differential operators and systems*, in Algebraic Theory of Differential Equations, ed. MacCallum, M.A.H. & Mikhailov, A.V., CUP (2009). Tsarëv, S.P., *Generalized Laplace transformations and integration of hyperbolic systems of linear partial differential equations*, ISSAC’05, 325–331, ACM, New York, 2005. Weiss, J., *Bäcklund transformations, focal surfaces and the two-dimensional Toda lattice*, Physics Letters A 137 (1989) 365–368. Zhiber, A.V. and Sokolov, V.V., *Exactly integrable hyperbolic equations of Liouville type*, Uspekhi mat. nauk, 2001, 56, no.1, 63-106 \[in Russian\]; translation in Russian Math. Surveys, 2001, 56, no.1, 61–101.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an optical imaging study of 20 southern-sky nova remnants which has resulted in the discovery of four previously unknown nova shells – V842 Cen, RR Cha, DY Pup and HS Pup. The study has also revealed previously unobserved features in three other known shells – those of BT Mon, CP Pup and RR Pic. The images of BT Mon, V842 Cen, RR Cha, DY Pup and HS Pup have been processed using several deconvolution algorithms (Richardson-Lucy, maximum entropy and clean) in addition to straightforward point-source subtraction in an attempt to resolve the shells from the central stars. The use of four different methods enables us to make a qualitative judgement of the results. Notably, the shell of RR Pic displays tails extending outwards from clumps in the main ejecta similar to those previously detected in DQ Her.'
author:
- |
C.D. Gill & T.J. O’Brien\
Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF\
e-mail: [cdg]{} & [tob]{} [@astro.livjm.ac.uk]{}
title: 'Deep optical imaging of nova remnants II. A southern-sky sample'
---
novae, cataclysmic variables – circumstellar matter – techniques: image processing
Introduction
==============
In paper I (Slavin, O’Brien & Dunlop 1995) we presented the results of a deep optical imaging survey of the nebular remnants of a sample of northern-sky classical novae. This paper reports on the extension of this survey into the southern-sky using observations made with the Anglo-Australian Telescope in 1995.
Classical nova eruptions result in the ejection of $\sim10^{-4}\,M_{\odot}$ of material at velocities of up to several thousand kilometres per second (Bode & Evans 1989). Every nova should be surrounded by an expanding cloud of ejecta and therefore it is perhaps surprising that the literature contains few images of the nova shells themselves. We therefore embarked on an imaging survey of nova remnants taking advantage of the advances in detector technology and image processing techniques that allow us to detect fainter and smaller shells. Since this survey was undertaken we have also been awarded time on the Hubble Space Telescope to image a selected subset of the novae discussed here and in paper I. These data will be presented elsewhere along with the initial results from our kinematical study of the shells.
In the next section we describe the observations and the image processing techniques employed to investigate any extended structure. In section 3 we go on to discuss the observations for each nova for which we detect extended material. Basic data and background information for each of the novae are obtained from Duerbeck (1987) and Bode & Evans (1989). We conclude with a section on estimating distances via expansion parallax and a brief discussion of the implications of these results.
Observations and image processing
==================================
The observations were carried out at the Anglo-Australian Observatory on the 3.9-m Anglo-Australian Telescope on 1995 February 23–25. We used TAURUS-2, the Fabry-Perot spectrometer, in direct imaging mode with a Tektronix CCD detector at f/15 providing a pixel scale of 0.32 arcsec. All images presented in this paper were taken with an H$\alpha$/\[N[II]{}\] filter of central wavelength 6555$\rm \AA$ and full width at half maximum 54$\rm\AA$. Table \[novaetab\] summarizes the observations. Surface brightness estimates of the shells were not attempted as the observing conditions were non-photometric. Also nova shells are known to emit in H$\alpha$ and \[N II\], which are both transmitted by the filter used, making measurement of the separate line fluxes impossible. In any case, our primary aim, to detect nova shells and to investigate their morphologies, does not require photometry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
**[Nova]{}& **[Integration]{}&**[$t_3$ time]{} &**[Seeing]{} &**[Extended?]{} &**Shell Size\
& **[time / s]{} &**[/ days]{} & **[ FWHM / arcsec]{} &**[(Yes/No)]{} &**/ arcsec\
V365 Car &900 &530 &1.7 &N\
MT Cen &1800 &– &1.0 &N\
V359 Cen &2$\times$900 &– &1.6 &N\
V842 Cen &4$\times$400+200 &48 &0.7 &Y &$<1.5$\
RR Cha &1800 &60 &0.8 &Y &3$\times$2\
AR Cir &1800 &415 &0.6 &N\
AP Cru &2$\times$900 &– &2.0 &N\
BT Mon &2$\times$900 &36 / $190^1$ &1.8 &Y &11$\times$9\
GI Mon &2$\times$900 &23 &1.0 &N\
GQ Mus &2$\times$900 &45 &1.8 &N\
IL Nor &1800 &108 &0.6 &N\
V841 Oph &2$\times$900 &130 &0.7 &N\
V972 Oph &1800 &176 &2.0 &N\
RR Pic &1800 &150 &1.1 &Y &30$\times$21\
CP Pup &1800 &8 &1.2 &Y &19.5\
DY Pup &1800 &160 &0.8 &Y &7$\times$5\
HS Pup &1800 &65 &0.8 &Y &$<2.5$\
HZ Pup &2$\times$900 &70 &1.7 &N\
XX Tau &2$\times$900 &42 &1.6 &N\
CQ Vel &1800 &50 &1.1 &N\
\
**********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
We investigated each image for any initial evidence of extended material using two methods. We compared the nova to two stars taken from the same frame using contour maps of images of each object scaled to the same peak brightness. Figure \[contours\] shows the results for HS Pup, an object for which we claim to have detected extended emission, and GI Mon, for which there was no evidence of extension. We also present, in Figure \[profiles\], azimuthally averaged brightness profiles for each of the novae described in section 4 for which we believe we have detected extended emission. In each case the nova light profile is compared with several stars taken from the same frame. The only difficulty with these methods is when the star and the nova are of significantly different peak brightness, in which case one or the other will fade into the sky whilst the other is still detectable. In order to avoid confusion due to this effect we have presented our results for each method only up to a radius where the star or nova brightness is more than 1 sigma above the mean sky level.
If the methods described above led us to believe that extended emission might be present then several techniques were used to try to determine the morphology of this material in more detail.
The most basic of these was straight-forward star subtraction. We selected a star from the same frame as each nova (a brighter star was used to ensure adequate signal to noise in the wings of the point-spread function), this was shifted to the same centroid as the nova, scaled to the same peak intensity and subtracted from the nova image.
We also attempted to deconvolve the nova images using maximum entropy ([mem]{}) and Richardson-Lucy ([lucy]{}) routines available in the UK Starlink Software Collection. The final processing technique used was our own [clean]{} routine (for further details see Slavin, O’Brien & Dunlop 1994). The use of a variety of processing techniques enables us to judge, at least qualitatively, whether structure in the extended material is real or simply an artefact of a particular algorithm. As can be seen in the next section, the results from these techniques proved to be in broad agreement.
Images of the nova shells
=========================
V842 Centauri
--------------
V842 Cen (Nova Cen 1986) was discovered on 1986 November 22. Maximum light was missed but the $t_3$ time (the time taken to decline three magnitudes from peak brightness) was estimated to be 48 days by Sekiguchi et al. (1989) and it is therefore classified as a moderately fast nova.
To prevent saturation of the very bright central star, V842 Cen was observed for 4 separate integrations of 400s and 1 integration of 200s. These were then co-added to form the final image shown in Figure \[v842images\](a). By comparison with a star from the same frame of slightly higher peak brightness it is clear that V842 Cen is extended beyond a normal PSF, e.g. Fig. \[profiles\](b).
The results from the four image processing techniques are displayed in Figure \[v842images\](b-e). The star-subtracted image (Fig. \[v842images\]b) shows a bright ring with radius of approximately 0.8 arcsec. The peak brightness of this ring is about 38% of the peak brightness of V842 Cen’s central star and when a field star and the nova are both scaled to the same peak brightness we find that the nova has a total luminosity of twice that of the star. This is clear evidence for bright, somewhat extended, emission-line material.
The [lucy]{} deconvolution is shown in Fig. \[v842images\](c) whilst the result of the [mem]{} deconvolution is displayed in Fig. \[v842images\](d). The [lucy]{} deconvolution produces a bright small ring comparable with the pixel scale whereas the [mem]{} deconvolution fails to resolve the ejecta from the central source, producing a wide smooth single PSF. The [clean]{} technique, Fig. \[v842images\](e), does deconvolve the nova into a central point source and a ring. This latter technique employs 2$\times$ super-pixellation (linearly interpolating the image onto a grid with half the original pixel scale) prior to deconvolution and the results are smoothed with a 0.64 arcsec FWHM Gaussian. The [clean]{} procedure is bound to result in a central point source as this simply represents the position of peak brightness in the original image. We believe that the [mem]{} method failed to resolve the shell because the shell is so small in comparison to the seeing and the pixel scale. However if this method is used on the super-pixellated data then it results in a ring but no central star (Fig. \[v842images\]f) comparable to the result from the [lucy]{} deconvolution. The non-detection of a central source is presumably because the shell is so bright and a ring of emission is the simplest model consistent with the data. Clearly these results have to be treated with some caution but as the shell is so bright, it is a good candidate for observations with the Hubble Space Telescope or from the ground in years to come as it increases in size and becomes easier to resolve from the central star.
RR Chamaeleontis
------------------
Maximum light was also missed for RR Cha. It occurred between April 8 and July 13 in 1953. However, the $t_3$ time has been estimated to be 60 days.
RR Cha was imaged for one integration of 1800s, Fig \[rrchaimages\](a). This was possible due to the relative faintness of the central star. The star subtracted frame is shown in Fig. \[rrchaimages\](b). The results have been smoothed using a 1.28 arcsec Gaussian to allow faint residual emission to be seen clearly above the noise. The extended material takes the form of an elliptical ring with a major axis of 3 arcsec and minor axis 2 arcsec. The brightest parts of the ring are on the major axis.
The result of the [lucy]{} deconvolution of RR Cha is shown in Fig. \[rrchaimages\](c). This looks very similar to the star-subtracted image. The [mem]{} deconvolution is shown in Fig. \[rrchaimages\](d). In this case the extended material takes the form of blobs rather than a complete ring but these are located at the same positions as the brightest parts of the ring seen in (b) and (c). A similar result is found from the [clean]{} routine, Fig. \[rrchaimages\](e).
BT Monocerotis
----------------
BT Mon reached maximum in September 1939. The $t_3$ time is disputed in the literature due to the exact date of maximum light being missed. Payne-Gaposchkin (1957) quotes a $t_3$ of 36 days calculated from spectral data whereas Schaefer & Patterson (1983) quote a $t_3$ of 190 days from the light curve after maximum. This relies on the nova having a plateau of 8.5 magnitudes at maximum whereas Payne-Gaposchkin argues that the spectra imply that BT Mon could have been as bright as mag.5.0. To complicate matters Duerbeck (1987) describes BT Mon as a ‘probably fast nova’ quoting from Duerbeck (1981) a $t_3$ of 42 days.
BT Mon has been found to be an eclipsing system with a period of $8^h\,1^m$ and therefore we are looking at the system approximately edge-on. The shell has been detected around this nova in spectroscopic observations by Marsh et al. (1983). They determine a distance of 1800 pc to BT Mon assuming the shell, with a diameter of 7 arcsec, was expanding at 1500 km s$^{-1}$. The slit position used was running east–west over the central star. No direct images of the nebula have been reported that show any clear morphological structure.
Fig. \[btmonimages\](a) shows the image of BT Mon resulting from co-adding two 900s exposures. If one takes into account that the field star to the north is about 30% brighter than BT Mon itself then it is possible to see that the wings of the BT Mon point spread function do extend out further than those of this nearby star, indicating the presence of some nebular material.
The results of star subtraction are displayed in Fig. \[btmonimages\](b). Both stars have been subtracted and the result has then been smoothed using a 0.64 arcsec FWHM Gaussian (2 pixels). The [lucy]{} result is shown in Fig. \[btmonimages\](c), the [mem]{} result in (d) and the [clean]{}ed image in (e). All processes show an incomplete clumpy, slightly elliptical ring with approximate dimensions of 11$\times$9 arcsec and a major axis extending in the north-west–south-east direction. The brightest material running east–west discovered by Marsh et al.(1983) in 1981 was found to have a diameter of 7 arcsec. As BT Mon underwent eruption in 1939 then if we assume this material is moving at a constant velocity then it should have a diameter of 9.3 arcsec in 1995, when these observations were taken. The values measured from our deconvolved images are about 10 arcsec which is in broad agreement with the predicted value.
RR Pictoris
-------------
RR Pic is a well-studied old nova. It reached maximum in 1925 with an apparent visual magnitude of 1.0. It had a $t_3$ of 150 days which characterises it as a slow nova. The period of the central system has been measured at $3^h\,28^m\,50^s$
The extended shell has been known for a long time. The first material to be detected was by van den Bos and Finsen in the early 1930’s (see Williams & Gallagher (1979) and references therein) who observed bright knots on opposite sides of the central system which they observed to be moving away from the centre over 3 years with position angles (PAs) of 70$^\circ$ and 230$^\circ$ and a separation of 2 arcsec in 1931. Apparently the next observations of the shell were made by Williams & Gallagher (1979) who again detected these knots. By this time they had a total separation of 23 arcsec implying a constant rate of expansion since 1931. The latest published image of RR Pic found in the literature was in Evans et al. (1992) (hereafter E92). The image therein resembles our own, shown in Fig. \[rrpicimages\](b), apart from the fact that our image appears to have much better spatial resolution.
The deconvolution techniques could not be safely used on the image of RR Pic as there were no unsaturated stars in the frame brighter than the nova central system itself. If a fainter star were used to characterise the PSF then its wings would disappear into the noise before those of the central system of RR Pic leading to spurious detection of extended material. However, the shell is so large and clearly detected in our images that deconvolution is not necessary.
The image of RR Pic is shown at two levels in Fig. \[rrpicimages\]. Fig. \[rrpicimages\](a) has been displayed with scaling chosen so that the brighter equatorial ring can be seen. This feature has a major axis of 21 arcsec at a position angle of approximately 150$^\circ$. Fig. \[rrpicimages\](b) has been displayed so that the fainter material and tails running out to the north-east and south-west can be seen. O’Brien & Slavin (1996) investigated the tails using the same image processing technique employed by Slavin, O’Brien & Dunlop (1995). An image taken through a \[N[II]{}\]6594$\rm \AA$ filter shows only the southwest half of the equatorial ring indicating that this side of the shell is tilted away from the observer (whether the emission is intrinsically H$\alpha$ or \[N[II]{}\]).
Assuming a constant rate of expansion for the knots shown in Williams & Gallagher (1979) then we expect them to have a total separation in 1995, when these images were taken, of 30 arcsec. The separation of the knots on our image is indeed 30 arcsec.
CP Puppis
----------
CP Pup reached maximum light on 1942 November 9 and faded very quickly with a $t_3$ time of 8 days classifying it as a very fast nova. The shell was first resolved by Zwicky (see Bowen 1956) and the latest image found in a search through the literature was in Williams (1982). He shows an H$\alpha$+\[N[II]{}\]6584Å image taken at the CTIO 4m telescope in 1980 with an exposure of 4500 seconds onto a baked 098-04 plate which only just detects the clumpy shell of diameter 14 arcsec.
There has been no attempt to deconvolve the image of CP Pup, shown in Fig. \[cppupimage\], for the same reasons as RR Pic. In Williams (1982) the peak to peak diameter of the shell in the NW to SE and NE to SW directions is approximately 10 arcsec. If we assume constant expansion since that image was taken in 1980 then the shell size in our observation should be about 14 arcsec. The measured peak to peak diameters in these directions are 15 and 14.5 arcsec respectively which is in broad agreement with constant expansion.
DY Puppis
-----------
DY Pup reached maximum in November 1902 and declined slowly with a $t_3$ of 160 days. Little other work has been done on this nova with no spectroscopic information available.
The raw image of DY Pup and its surroundings resulting from a single 1800s integration is shown in Fig. \[dypupimages\](a). It is possible to make out some very faint extended material although the object just to the north–east of DY Pup appears to be a field star.
The star subtracted image is shown in Fig. \[dypupimages\](b). In this case, both the central star and the nearby field star have been subtracted and the residual smoothed using a 2 arcsec FWHM Gaussian. The result is a ring of material with enhancements to the north-east, north-west, south-east and south-west. It appears to be slightly elongated in the north-west–south-east direction. The [lucy]{} deconvolved image is shown in Fig. \[dypupimages\](c). The two stars are picked out clearly leaving an extended ring around DY Pup bearing a close resemblance to the results of star subtraction. The [mem]{} result for DY Pup, Fig. \[dypupimages\](d), reveals the same morphology as does the [clean]{} result, shown in Fig. \[dypupimages\](e).
HS Puppis
-----------
HS Pup underwent outburst in late December 1963. It reached maximum light on the 23rd at an apparent photographic magnitude of 8.0. It decreased in brightness at a moderately fast rate with a $t_3$ of 65 days. There is little data on the nova since then other than its light curve.
The original image resulting from a single 1800s exposure is shown in Fig. \[hspupimages\](a). There is no obvious extended material but, like V842 Cen, when compared with a star scaled to the same peak value, its brightness profile extends out a lot further from the centre of the star (Fig. \[profiles\]e).
The star subtracted image is displayed in Fig. \[hspupimages\](b). The [lucy]{} deconvolution is shown in Fig. \[hspupimages\](c). It has resolved the object into a central star and a surrounding halo of radius approximately 1 arcsec. The [mem]{} deconvolution, Fig. \[hspupimages\](d), also resolves the object into a central star surrounded by a halo of extended material which more closely resembles a detached ring in this case of approximately 1.2 arcsec radius. Fig. \[hspupimages\](e) shows the result of the [clean]{} algorithm. The results are similar to (b) and (d) although the ring does appear clumpier. This is almost certainly a result of the discrete nature of the [clean]{} process and should not be regarded as a definite property of this remnant.
Distance Estimates
==================
Given that we have obtained estimates of the angular extent of several nova shells it is possible, at least in principle, to make distance estimates based on the method of expansion parallax using measurements of the ejection velocity made during outburst. If velocities ($v$) are given in km s$^{-1}$ , angular sizes ($\theta$) in arcsec and times since ejection ($t$) in years then the distance ($d$) in parsecs is given by $d\,=\,0.211\,vt/\theta$. In all possible cases the ejection velocity is estimated from the separation of symmetric spectral features. This means that systemic velocities are not important although in any case these will be small compared with the ejection velocities.
The distance to V842 Cen has been calculated by Sekiguchi et al. (1989) using the equivalent widths of interstellar Na I D lines in their spectra. They derived a distance of $d=0.9 \pm 0.07$ kpc. The measured diameter of the shell in our deconvolved images is about 1.6 arcsec. The time since eruption when these images were taken was 9 years. Sekiguchi et al. (1989) obtained spectra of the Balmer lines for H$\alpha$ to H$\eta$ and saw a two peaked structure in all of the lines. The average split between the peaks was 1070 km s$^{-1}$. Assuming that these peaks were produced by the expanding shell we derive an expansion parallax distance of $d=1.3 \pm 0.5$ kpc. The large errors are due to the large uncertainty in the diameter of the shell and the expansion velocity.
Marsh et al. (1983) obtained a distance estimate to BT Mon of $d=1.8 \pm 0.3$ kpc from their long slit spectra. The expansion velocity they measure for the shell is 1800 km s$^{-1}$. Taking the diameter of the shell to be 10 arcsec and the time since ejection to be 56 years we also derive a distance to BT Mon of $d=1.8 \pm 0.3$ kpc. These estimates are limited by the poor velocity resolution of Marsh and higher resolution spectra combined with our imaging data would enable a better estimate to be made.
Payne-Gaposchkin (1957) adopts a value of 1600 km s$^{-1}$ for the velocity of the ejecta of CP Pup. If we take this value along with a shell diameter in 1995 of 19.5 arcsec then the derived distance is $d=1.8 \pm 0.4$ kpc. The uncertainty arises from assuming the velocity of the shell is known to an accuracy of 400 km $s^{-1}$.
McLaughlin (1960) derives a distance to RR Pic of 480 pc from the angular expansion of the knots of the ejecta (taken from Williams and Gallagher 1979). Payne-Gaposchkin (1957) presents results for the time evolution of a variety of different lines. There are a consistent set of velocities through the decline at $\pm 400$ km $s^{-1}$. Assuming the equatorial ring is in fact circular then we derive an inclination angle of 70$\pm 5^\circ$. Correcting the observed line of sight ejection velocity for this angle we get an intrinsic velocity of 850 km $s^{-1}$. The observed major axis of the ring was 21 arcsec so we then derive a distance to RR Pic of $600 \pm 60$ pc. This is slightly larger than that of McLaughlin as it also takes into account the inclination angle of the aspherical shell.
We could find no published information on expansion velocities for RR Cha, DY Pup and HS Pup and so no distance determinations were possible.
The distances derived in this section are uncertain for two obvious reasons – the uncertainties in our estimates of shell diameters and the measurements of ejection velocities obtained from the literature. However, the discussion of RR Pic also raises the important point that distance estimates based on expansion parallax in the manner we describe here generally assume spherically symmetric ejection i.e. the ejection velocity is obtained from doppler shifts along the line of sight whilst shell diameters are obtained from expansion in the plane of the sky. It is clear from these images and those presented in Slavin et al. (1995) that many nova shells are far from spherical. Thus more accurate measures of distance will require some knowledge of the geometry of the shell. This can only be derived by combining spatially-resolved spectroscopy and imaging. In papers to follow we present the results of such spectroscopy/imaging for several of the more extended shells in our northern-sky sample.
Discussion
==========
Of the 17 novae without previously detected shells which were imaged 4 new shells were detected. The new material discovered was not resolved from the central systems in any of these cases although scaled contour maps (see Fig. \[contours\]) and brightness profiles (see Fig. \[profiles\]) clearly proved that they were extended. To investigate the morphology of these shells star subtraction, Richardson-Lucy, [mem]{} and [clean]{} deconvolutions were used. Input PSFs to the routines were stars from the same frames which had brighter peak intensities than those of the central systems of the novae to allow proper sampling of the wings of the PSFs. The results of these different methods were in general agreement allowing some confidence in the predicted shell structures. Notably, extended tails similar to those previously detected in DQ Her (Slavin et al. 1995) have been discovered in the shell of RR Pic (see also O’Brien & Slavin 1996).
Further analysis of, for example, the bipolarity of these shells is not advisable due to the limitations of ground-based imaging of such small angular-scale structures. However Hubble Space Telescope observations of several of these objects are scheduled and will hopefully improve on these data although it should be noted that the observations in this paper are relatively long exposures using a 4m-class telescope. High-resolution spectroscopy of these objects should also be obtained which, when combined with these images will enable distance estimates via expansion parallax as well as further insight into the detailed structure of the more extended objects.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Keith Taylor and Joss Bland-Hawthorn for support at the Anglo-Australian Observatory, Brent Tully for the loan of filters and Andy Slavin for discussions regarding the northern-sky survey. CDG acknowledges support from a PPARC studentship.
Bode M. F., Evans A., 1989, Classical Novae, Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester
Bowen I.S., 1956, AJ, 61, 336
Duerbeck H.W., 1981, PASP, 93, 165
Duerbeck H.W., 1987, A Reference Catalogue and Atlas of Galactic Novae, D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Evans A., Bode M.F., Duerbeck H.W., Seitter W.C., 1992, MNRAS, 258, 7 (
Marsh T.R., Oke J.B., Wade R.A., 1983, MNRAS, 205, 33P
McLaughlin, D.B., 1960, in [*Stellar Atmospheres*]{}, p585, ed. J.L. Greenstein, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
O’Brien T.J., Slavin A.J., 1996, in [*Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects*]{}, Proc. IAU Coll. 158, p309, ed. A. Evans & J.H. Wood, Kluwer, Dordrecht
Payne-Gaposchkin C., 1957, The Galactic Novae, Dover Publications Inc., New York
Schaefer B.E., Patterson J., 1983, 268, 710
Sekiguchi K., Feast M.W., Fairall A.P., Winkler H., 1989, MNRAS, 241, 311
Slavin A.J., O’Brien T.J., Dunlop J.S., 1994, 266, L55
Slavin A.J., O’Brien T.J., Dunlop J.S., 1995, 276, 353
White J.C. II, Honeycutt R.K., Horne K., 1993, ApJ, 412, 278
Williams R.E., Gallagher J.S., 1979, ApJ, 228, 482
Williams R.E., 1982, ApJ, 261, 170
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Conventional algorithms for finding low-rank canonical polyadic (CP) tensor decompositions are unwieldy for large sparse tensors. The CP decomposition can be computed by solving a sequence of overdetermined least problems with special Khatri-Rao structure. In this work, we present an application of randomized numerical linear algebra to fitting the CP decomposition of sparse tensors, solving a significantly smaller sampled least squares problem at each iteration with probabilistic guarantees on the approximation errors. Prior work has shown that sketching is effective in the dense case, but the prior approach cannot be applied to the sparse case because a fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform (e.g., using a fast Fourier transform) must be applied in each mode, causing the sparse tensor to become dense. Instead, we perform sketching through leverage score sampling, crucially relying on the fact that the structure of the Khatri-Rao product allows sampling from overestimates of the leverage scores without forming the full product or the corresponding probabilities. Naïve application of leverage score sampling is ineffective because we often have cases where a few scores are quite large, leading to repeatedly sampling the few entries with large scores. We improve the speed by combining repeated rows. Additionally, we propose a novel hybrid of deterministic and random leverage-score sampling which consistently yields improved fits. Numerical results on real-world large-scale tensors show the method is significantly faster than competing methods without sacrificing accuracy.'
author:
- 'Brett W. Larsen [^1]'
- 'Tamara G. Kolda [^2]'
title: 'Practical Leverage-Based Sampling for Low-Rank Tensor Decomposition [^3]'
---
CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP), tensor decomposition, matrix sketching, leverage score sampling, randNLA
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Low-rank tensor decomposition based on CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) [@CaCh70; @Ha70], is a popular unsupervised learning method akin to low-rank matrix decomposition. A low-rank tensor factorization identifies *factor matrices* that provide the best low-rank multilinear representation of a higher-order tensor $\X$. Tensor decomposition is ubiquitous in data analysis with applications to social networks [@nakatsuji2017semantic; @papalexakis2015location], ride sharing [@yan2018visual], cyber security [@maruhashi2011], criminology [@mu2011empirical], text clustering [@drakopoulos2017tensor], online behaviors [@sapienza2018non], etc. We refer the reader to several surveys for more information [@AcYe09; @KoBa09; @SiDeFuHu16].
In this work, we consider the problem of computing the CP tensor decomposition for sparse tensors using an alternating least squares (ALS) approach. Bader and Kolda [@BaKo07] show that the cost per least squares solve for a sparse tensor is proportional to the number of nonzeros. However, in many cases, even that can be too expensive because some tensors have billions of nonzeros. Cheng et al. [@ChPePeLi16] showed that it is possible to use matrix sketching in the spares case. We propose a variant of the same idea but targeting a different step in the least squares solve (explained in detail below). In addition, we present a detailed, practical algorithm along with a new hybrid methodology for combines deterministic and randomly-sampled rows based on leverage scores.
CP least squares problem
------------------------
Suppose that $\X$ is a $(d{+}1)$-way tensor of size $n_1 \times n_2 \times \cdots \times n_{d{+}1}$. At each iteration of , we solve a sequence of $(d{+}1)$ least squares problems. Without loss of generality, we consider the least squares problem for computing the $(d{+}1)$st factor matrix: $$\label{eq:lsq_krp}
\begin{gathered}
\min_{\B} \| \Z \B' - \Xmat' \|_F^2
\qtext{subject to}
\B \in \Real^{n \times r}
\qtext{with}
\\
\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r},
\quad
\Ak \in \Real^{n_k \times r}
\text{ for } k \in [d],
\quad
N = \prod_{k=1}^d n_k, \\
\Xmat \in \Real^{n \times N},
\quad
\operatorname{nnz}(\Xmat) \ll N,
\qtext{and}
r,n \ll N.
\end{gathered}$$ The symbol $\odot$ denotes the Khatri-Rao product (KRP). The matrix $\Xmat$ is the mode-$(d{+}1)$ unfolding of the input tensor. The matrix $\B$ is the $(d{+}1)$st factor matrix and $n=n_{d{+}1}$. The matrices $\set{\Ak{1},\dots,\Ak{d}}$ are the first $d$ factor matrices. See \[sec:backgr-least-squar\] for further details.
Because $r \ll N$, the least squares problem \[eq:lsq\_krp\] is tall and skinny, making it a candidate for sketching. Ignoring the structure of both $\Z$ and $\Xmat$, solving \[eq:lsq\_krp\] costs $O(N r^2 n)$. The KRP structure of $\Z$ reduces the cost to $O(N r n)$ [@KoBa09], and the cost is reduced further to $O(\operatorname{nnz}(\X)\,r)$ when $\X$ is sparse [@BaKo07].
Instead of solving the least squares problem \[eq:lsq\_krp\] directly, we consider a *sketched* version of the form $$\label{eq:sketched_lsq}
\min_{\B} \| \Om \Z \B' - \Om \Xmat' \|_F^2
\qtext{where} \Om \in \Real^{s \times N},$$ and $\Om$ has only one nonzero per row, which means that it selects a subset of rows in the least squares problem. The cost of solving the subsampled least squares problem is $O(s r^2 n)$. The leverage scores for the rows of $\Z$ are defined as $\ell_i(\Z) = \| \Mx{Q}(i,:) \|_2^2$ where $\Mx{Q}$ is an orthogonal basis for the column space of $\Z$. If we samples rows proportional to their leverage scores, then $s=O(r^{d} \log n/\epsilon^2)$ rows are required for an $\epsilon$-accurate solution with high probability; see \[cor:beta\].[^4] Moreover, we compute $\Z~ \equiv \Om\Z$ and $\Xmat'~ \equiv \Om\Xmat'$ without every forming $\Om$, $\Z$, or $\Xmat$ explicitly. This means the complexity of the least squares problem is $O(n r^{d+2} \log r / \epsilon^2)$.
Related Work
------------
The most similar work to ours is Cheng et al. [@ChPePeLi16]. As mentioned above, the KRP structure of $\Z$ can be exploited for a more efficient solution to \[eq:lsq\_krp\]. Specifically, $\B$ is the solution to $$\| \B \Mx{V} - \Z' \Xmat \|_F^2
\qtext{where}
\Mx{V} = (\Ak{1}'\Ak{1}) \circledast \cdots \circledast (\Ak{d}'\Ak{d}) \in \Real^{r \times r}.$$ Here, $\circledast$ represents the Hadamard product. The computation of $\Z'\Xmat$ is known as the matricized tensor times Khatri-Rao product (MTTKRP) and is a key kernel in CP tensor decomposition. It costs $O(N n r)$ for a dense tensor and $O(\operatorname{nnz}(\X)\,r)$ for a sparse tensor. Cheng et al. [@ChPePeLi16] use matrix sketching to approximate the MTTKRP to within $\epsilon$ accuracy with high probability by sampling $s=O(r^{d}\log n/\epsilon^2)$ rows, the same as ours. Their complexity per least squares solve is $O(n r^{d+1} \log n/\epsilon^2)$, so the difference in overall complexity per solve is a factor of $r$. In practice, however, the solution time for the least squares system is negligible compared to the time to extract the sampled tensor fibers as shown in \[sec:amazon\].
A Kronecker fast Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform (KFJLT) sketching approach was proposed in [@BaBaKo18] and proved to be a Johnson-Lindenstrauss transform in [@arXiv-JiKoWa19] (see also [@MaBe20; @IwNeReZa19]). The KFJLT reduces the per-iteration cost to $O(s n r)$ where $s \ll N$ is the number of samples. Unfortunately, the KFJLT approach is not applicable in the sparse case because it requires multiplying $\X$ by an FFT in each mode as a preprocessing step, destroying sparsity. A variety of randomized algorithms have been applied to tensor decompositions in previous work. For the CP Decomposition, Wang, Tung, Smola, and Anandkumar [@wang2015fast] proposed algorithms based on CountSketch and Yang, Zamzam, and Sidiropoulos [@yang2018parasketch] compressed/sketched the tensor into multiple small tensors which they decompose in parallel and combine. Song, Woodruff, and Zhong [@SoWoZh19] analyze a CUR-like method for tensor decomposition and show that it is also $(1+\epsilon)$ optimal; other notable works on the CUR decomposition include [@mahoney2008tensor; @caiafa2010generalizing; @friedland2011fast]. Malik and Becker [@MaBe19] use CountSketch to sketch the full tensor and then compute the decomposition of the sketch; this expands on the previous extension of CountSketch to tensors in [@pagh2013compressed; @pham2013fast; @avron2014subspace; @diao2018sketching] called TensorSketch. Lastly, applications to the Tucker decomposition include Malik and Becker [@malik2018low], Sun et al. [@sun2019low], and Ahmadi-Asl et al. [@ahmadi2020randomized]
Our contributions
-----------------
Randomized numerical linear algebra has the potential to significant accelerate the solution to the least squares subproblems in . In the sparse case, we would ideally sample rows in the least squares problem according to leverage scores. We cannot calculate the leverage scores directly, but we can instead upper bound them using the structure of the Khatri-Rao product and efficiently sample proportional to these bounds. Our contributions are as follows:
- We provide a practical method for efficient Khatri-Rao product matrix sketching using leverage-score sampling in the context of ; see \[sec:full-algorithm\].
- We show that our proposed method needs only $s=O(r^{d}\log n / \epsilon^2)$ for an $\epsilon$-accurate solution; see \[cor:krp-beta\].
- For concentrated sampling probabilities that result in many repeated samples, we propose two novel methods to reduce the expense in \[sec:tools-sketching-with\]: (1) combining repeated rows, and (2) including high-probability rows deterministically. These methods can be used in any sketching scenario, not just for Khatri-Rao products.
- We provide an efficient method for determining high-probability rows in a Khatri-Rao product; see \[sec:impl-determ-row\].
- We provide detailed numerical experiments in MATLAB showing the advantages of our proposed approach in \[sec:numerical-results\]. For instance, compared to , we achieve a speed-up of 13$\times$ on the large Reddit tensor which has 4.7 billion nonzeros, reducing the compute time from about 5 days to less than half a day.
Background on Least Squares Problems in and KRPs {#sec:backgr-least-squar}
================================================
represents the prototypical least squares problem in . We have assumed that we are solving the $(d{+}1)$st subproblem for notational convenience, but all $(d{+}1)$ subproblems have precisely the same format. For instance, if we were solving the least squares subproblem for first factor matrix ($\Ak{1}$), then \[eq:lsq\_krp\] would change only in that $n=n_1$, $\Xmat$ is the mode-1 unfolding of $\X$, and $\Z = \Ak{d+1} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{2} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ with $N = \prod_{k=2}^{d+1} n_k$. Henceforth, without loss of generality, we continue to assume that we are solving the $(d{+}1)$st subproblem a in \[eq:lsq\_krp\].
The KRP plays a key role in our discussion, so we provide a precise definition. Recall that the KRP of interest is $$\label{eq:krp}
\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r},
\quad
\Ak \in \Real^{n_k \times r}
\text{ for } k \in [d],
\quad
N = \prod_{k=1}^d n_k.$$ There is a bijective mapping between row $i$ of $\Z$ and a $d$-tuple of rows $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$ in the factor matrices where $$\label{eq:Zrow}
\Z(i,:) = \Ak{1}(i_1,:) \circledast \cdots \circledast \Ak{d}(i_d,:).$$ Specifically, we refer to $(i_1,\dots,i_d) \in [n_1] \otimes \cdots \otimes [n_d]$ as the *multi-index* and $i \in [N]$ as the *linear index* where the bijective mapping is $$\label{eq:bijection}
i = i_1 + \sum_{k=2}^d \left(\prod_{\ell=1}^{k-1} n_k\right) (i_k-1).$$
Background on Sketching for Least Squares Problems {#sec:backgr-sketch-least}
==================================================
For detailed information on leverage score sampling in matrix sketching, we refer the reader to the surveys [@Ma11; @Wo14]. Here we provide key concepts that are needed in this work.
Our goal is to find a sampling matrix $\Om$ so that $\Om \Xmat$ can be computed efficiently when $\Xmat$ is sparse. To accomplish this, we limit our attention to choices for $\Om$ where each row has a single nonzero. To relate more directly to existing theory, we consider a variation of \[eq:lsq\_krp\] with $n=1$: $$\label{eq:lsq_krp_single}
\begin{gathered}
\min_{\bvec} \| \Z \bvec - \xvec \|_2^2
\qtext{subject to}
\bvec \in \Real^{r}
\qtext{with}
\\
\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r},
\quad
\Ak \in \Real^{n_k \times r}
\text{ for } k \in [d],
\quad
N = \prod_{k=1}^d n_k, \\
\xvec \in \Real^{N},
\quad
r \ll N.
\end{gathered}$$ Solving this least squares problem directly costs $O(N r^2)$ for the least squares solve plus $O(N r)$ to form $\Z$. Our goal is to eliminate dependence on $N$. In this section, we review the theory which explains how to reduce the cost to $O(s r^2)$ where $s$ depends in part on how we do the leverage score sampling. This removes the first dependence on $N$. (In \[sec:effic-matr-sketch\], we explain how to avoid forming explicitly forming the KRP or calculating the leverage scores, removing the second dependence on $N$.)
Weighted Sampling {#sec:weighted-sampling}
-----------------
Assuming we choose rows according to some probability distribution, we show how to weight the rows so that the subsampled norm is unbiased.
We say $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ is a *probability distribution* if $\sum_{i=1}^N p_i = 1$.
For a random variable $\xi \in [N]$, we say $\xi \sim \Multi(\Vp)$ if $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ is a probability distribution and $\Prob(\xi = i) = p_i$.
We can define a matrix that randomly samples rows from a matrix (or elements from a vector) with weights as follows.
\[def:randsample\] We say $\Om \in \Real^{s \times N} \sim \RandSample(s,\Vp)$ if $s \in \Natural$, $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ is a probability distribution, and the entries on $\Om$ are defined as follows. Let $\xi_j \sim \Multi(\Vp)$ for $j=1,\dots,s$; then $$\omega(j,i) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{s p_i}} & \text{if } \xi_j = i, \\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\qtext{for all}
(j,i) \in [s] \times [N].$$
It is straightforward to show that such a sampling matrix is unbiased, so we leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.
\[lem:expectation\] Let $\V{x} \in \Real^N$. Let $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ be probability distribution such that $p_i > 0$ if $x_i \neq 0$ and let $\Om \sim \RandSample(s,\Vp)$. Then $\Exp{ \| \Om \V{x} \|_2} = \|\V{x}\|_2$.
The challenge of sketching then is to design a sampling matrix $\Om$ that can be efficiently computed yet bounds the distortion of the sketched solution with as few samples as possible. There is a vast literature on different methods for constructing sketches, but here we will focus on constructing sketches via row sampling in which a sketch provides a procedure for how to select and weight $s$ rows of the original matrix. Doing this effectively often requires an understanding of the structure of the data, so, to that end, we define the leverage scores of a matrix in the next subsection.
Leverage Scores and Sampling Probabilities {#sec:leverage-scores}
------------------------------------------
The distribution selected for $\Vp$ determines the quality of the estimate in a way that depends on the leverage scores of $\Z$.
\[def:leverages\_scores\] Let $\Mx{Z} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ with $N > r$, and let $\Mx{Q} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ be any orthogonal basis for the column space of $\Z$. The *leverage scores* of the rows of $\Z$ are given by $$\ell_i = \|\Mx{Q}(i,:)\|_2^2 \qtext{for all} i \in \set{1,\dots,N}.$$ The *coherence* is the maximum leverage score, denoted $\mu(\Z) = \max_{i \in [N]} \ell_i(\Z)$.
The leverage scores indicate the relative importance of rows in the matrix $\Z$. It is known that $\ell_i(\Z) \leq 1$ for all $i \in [N]$, $\sum_{i\in[N]} \ell_i(\Z) = r$, and $\mu(\Z) \in [r/N,1]$ [@Wo14]. The matrix $\Z$ is called incoherent if $\mu(\Z) \approx r/N$.
Random sampling of rows in a least squares problem can provide an $\epsilon$-accurate solution with high probability where the number of samples required is $s = O(r \log r / \epsilon^2 \beta)$ and $\beta$ connects the sampling probabilities and the leverage scores as elucidated in the following result.
\[thm:sketching\] Let $\Z \in \Real^{N \times r}$, $\xvec \in \Real^N$, and $\bvec* \equiv \arg \min_{\bvec \in \Real^r} \| \Z \bvec - \xvec\|_2^2$. Let $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ be any probability distribution and define $$\beta = \min_{i \in [N]} \frac{p_i r}{\ell_i(\Z)} \in [0,1] \qtext{for all} i \in [N].$$ For any $\epsilon, \delta \in (0,1)$, set $s=O(r \log (r/\delta)/(\beta \epsilon^2))$ and let $\Om = \RandSample(s,\Vp)$. Then $\bvec~* \equiv \arg \min_{\bvec \in \Real^r} \| \Om \Z \bvec - \Om \xvec\|_2^2$ satisfies $$ \| \Z \bvec~* - \xvec \|_2^2
\leq (1+O(\epsilon)) \| \Z \bvec* - \xvec \|_2^2
$$ with probability at least $1-1/\delta$.
We include the proof in \[sec:proof-thm:sketching\] (although this result is known, the proof arguably requires some investment to assemble) as well as further details on bounding the error in $\bvec*$.
The term $\beta$ is sometimes referred to as the *misestimation* factor and connects the sampling probabilities with the leverage scores. The user should ideally specify $\Vp$ so that $\beta$ is maximal, i.e., $p_i = \ell_i(\Z)/r$ for all $i \in [N]$ would yield $\beta=1$. But computing the true leverage bounds is too expensive. Instead, we will estimate them and get a bound of $\beta \leq 1/r^{d}$ as explained in \[sec:leverage-score-upper\].
Before we continue, we present the result for the full matrix least squares problem \[eq:lsq\_krp\] by using a union bound. Note that we assume $r<n$, so $\log n$ dominates $\log r$.
\[cor:beta\] Let $\Z \in \Real^{N \times r}$, $\Xmat' \in \Real^{n \times N}$, $r<n$, and $\B* \equiv \arg \min_{\B \in \Real^{r \times n}} \| \Z \B' - \Xmat'\|^2$. Let $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ be any probability distribution and define $$\beta = \min_{i \in [N]} \frac{p_i r}{\ell_i(\Z)} \in [0,1] \qtext{for all} i \in [N].$$ For any $\epsilon, \delta \in (0,1)$, set $s=O(r \log (n/\delta)/(\beta \epsilon^2))$ and let $\Om = \RandSample(s,\Vp)$. Then $\B~* \equiv \arg \min_{\B \in \Real^{r \times n}} \| \Om \Z \B' - \Om \Xmat\|_F^2$ satisfies $$ \| \Z \B'~* - \Xmat' \|_F^2
\leq (1+O(\epsilon)) \| \Z \B'* - \Xmat' \|_F^2
$$ with probability at least $1-1/\delta$.
Apply \[thm:sketching\] simultaneously to all $n$ columns of $\B'$ and $\Xmat'$ with every the same except $\delta' \in (0,1)$. The probability that a single column is not at least $\epsilon$ accurate is $1/\delta'$, so the probability that any of the $n$ columns is not at least $\epsilon$ accurate is $n/\delta'$ by a union bound. Choosing $\delta' = \delta/n$ yields the desired probability of $\epsilon$-accuracy of $1-1/\delta$ subject to $s = O(r\log(r/\delta')/(\beta \epsilon'^2) =
O(r \log (r n/\delta)/(\beta \epsilon^2)$. Since we assume $r<n$, we simplify to $s = O(r \log (n/\delta)/(\beta \epsilon^2))$.
Tools for Sketching with Concentrated Sampling Probabilities {#sec:tools-sketching-with}
============================================================
In this section, we discuss two novel approaches to improve the computational cost of sketching for matrices with concentrated sampling probabilities, i.e., a small subset of the rows accounts for a significant portion of the probability mass. In these cases, a small subset of rows are repeatedly re-sampled, which leads to a larger number of required samples ($s$) and is inefficient.
In \[sec:comb-repe-rows\], we show that one simple speedup is to combine (and appropriately reweight) repeated rows, reducing the size of the sampled least squares problem without changing the solution. If $s$ is the original number of rows, and $\bar s$ is the number after combining repeats, the computational complexity is reduced from $O(s r^2)$ to $O(\bar s r^2)$.
In \[sec:comb-determ-rand\], we propose a novel hybrid sampling method in which we deterministically include a relatively small number of high-probability rows and then sample randomly from the remaining rows. The required number of samples for the remaining rows is reduced by the proportion of probability captured in the deterministic rows.
One important note about the tools presented in this section is that they can be implemented in an efficient solver for arbitrary sampling probability distributions, i.e., they do not require a priori knowledge that the probabilities are concentrated. If the probabilities are close to uniform, then the solver will essentially be unchanged. This is crucial in the case of solving a series of least squares problems which may each have different characteristics. In our case for the CP tensor factorization, the factor matrices are initialized randomly (with near-uniform sampling probabilities) and often have much more structured factored matrices (with concentrated sampling probabilities) as the method converges.
We show the numerical improvements yielded by these methods for concentrated probabilities in \[sec:uber,sec:amazon\].
Combine Repeated Rows {#sec:comb-repe-rows}
---------------------
If the random sampling of a matrix selects the same rows repeatedly, it is possible to combine repeated entries. The results in a smaller matrix that yields an equivalent sampled system. Consider the definition of $\Om$ in \[def:randsample\]. Let $\bar s$ be the number of unique values in the set $\Xi \equiv \set{\xi_1, \dots, \xi_s}$, let $\bar\xi_j$ denote the $k$th unique value for $k \in [\bar s]$, and let $c_j$ be the number of times that $\bar\xi_j$ appeared in $\Xi$. Define $\Om! \in \Real^{\bar s \times N}$ as follows: $$\label{eq:combo}
\bar \omega(j,i) =
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{ \frac{c_j}{s p_i} } & \text{if } \bar \xi_j = i \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\qtext{for all}
(j,i) \in [\bar s] \times [N].$$ It can be shown that $\| \Om! \V{x} \|_2 = \| \Om \V{x} \|_2$ for all $x \in \Real^N$. We use combining rows by default in our experiments.
Hybrid Deterministic and Random Sampling {#sec:comb-determ-rand}
----------------------------------------
One potential alternative to probability sampling is to sort by descending probability and deterministically construct a matrix sketch using the top $s$ rows. For instance Papailiopoulos, Kyrillidis, and Boutsidis [@papailiopoulos14] theoretically analyzed the quality of such approximations and show they perform comparably to a randomized approach if the leverage scores fall off according to a moderately steep power law. In this section we propose a more flexible alternative in which a subset of the highest probability rows are included deterministically and the remaining rows are chosen randomly proportionally to their original probabilities. We combine deterministic and random sampling for KRP matrices by constructing a sampling matrix of the following form: $$\label{eq:Om-hybrid}
\Om =
\begin{bmatrix}
\Om_{\det} \\
\Om_{\rnd}
\end{bmatrix}
\in \Real^{s \times N}.$$ Note that this matrix is never actually formed explicitly, as detailed in \[sec:altern-rand-least\].
Let $\DetSet \subset [N]$ be the set of indices that are included deterministically, with $\sdet = |\DetSet|$ assumed to be $O(1)$. We presume that $\DetSet$ contains the highest-probability indices which would be more likely to be repeated randomly but our analysis regarding the reweighting of the remainder does not depend on this. In particular, it would be particular if only a subset of the highest probability rows were included. Let $k_j$ denote the $j$th member of $\DetSet$, $j \in [\sdet]$. Then we have the corresponding deterministic row sampling matrix $$\label{eq:Om-det}
\omega_{\det} (j,i) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } i = k_j \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\qtext{for all}
(j,i) \in [s_{\det}] \times [N].$$
We randomly sample the remaining rows from $[N] \setminus \DetSet$. Define $\pdet = \sum_{i \in \DetSet} p_i$. The probability of selecting item $i \in [N] \setminus \DetSet$ is rescaled to $p_i / (1-\pdet)$. (We do not compute these explicitly, as detailed in \[sec:impl-determ-row\] Then we have $$\label{eq:Om-rnd}
\omega_{\rnd}(j,i) =
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{ \frac{ 1-\pdet}{s p_i} } & \text{if } \xi_j = i \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Combining Rows for the Hybrid Deterministic and Random Sampling {#sec:comb-rows-hybr}
---------------------------------------------------------------
We can also combine repeated rows in $\Om_{\rnd}$. Let $\bar s_{\rnd}$ be the number of unique randomly sampled row indices. As discussed in \[sec:comb-repe-rows\], let $\bar \xi_j$ be the $j$th unique row index. Then we can define $\Om!_{\rnd} \in \Real^{\bar s_{\rnd} \times N}$ as follows: $$ \bar \omega(j,i) =
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{ \frac{c_j}{s} \frac{1-\pdet}{p_i}} & \text{if } \bar \xi_j = i \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\qtext{for all}
(j,i) \in [\bar s_{\rnd}] \times [N].$$
Efficient Leverage Score Sampling for KRP Matrices {#sec:effic-matr-sketch}
==================================================
Our aim is to use sketching for least squares where the matrix is a KRP matrix of the form $\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ as defined in \[eq:krp\]. We cannot afford to explicitly form $\Z$ or explicitly compute its leverage scores since either would be at least $O(N r)$. In \[sec:leverage-score-upper\], we review how to upper bound the leverage scores and use that to show how to compute sampling probabilities so that $\beta$ in \[cor:beta\] is upper bounded by $\beta \leq 1/r^{d-1}$. Our main result in \[cor:krp-beta\] shows that the number of samples needed for sampling KRP matrices in \[eq:lsq\_krp\_single\] is $s=O(r^d \log n \epsilon^{-2})$. In \[sec:implicit-random-row\], we describe how to sample rows according to the probabilities established in the previous section without forming the probabilities or $\Z$ explicitly. In \[sec:impl-determ-row\], we describe how to do the deterministic inclusion proposed in \[sec:comb-determ-rand\] without explicitly computing all the probabilities.
Sampling Probabilities for KRP Matrices and Main Theorem {#sec:leverage-score-upper}
--------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to obtain an upper bound on the leverage scores for $\Z$ by using the leverage scores for the factor matrices, as follows.
\[lem:lev\_bound\] Let $\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ be a KRP as in \[eq:krp\]. Letting $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$ be the multi-index corresponding to $i$ as defined in \[eq:bijection\], the leverage scores can be bounded as $$\levZ \leq \levZ* \equiv \prod_{k=1}^d \levAk.$$
Using this lemma, we directly derive the following result for sketching the tensor least squares problem \[eq:lsq\_krp\] for the case of $n=1$.
\[thm:krp-sketching\] Let $\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ be a KRP as in \[eq:krp\], $\xvec \in \Real^N$, and $\bvec* \equiv \arg \min_{\bvec \in \Real^r} \| \Z \bvec - \xvec\|_2^2$. Let $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ be defined as $$\label{eq:pdef}
p_i = \frac{\levZ*}{r^d}
\qtext{where}
\levZ* \equiv \prod_{k=1}^d \levAk
\qtext{for all} i \in [N].$$ For any $\epsilon, \delta \in (0,1)$, set $s=O(r^{d} \log (r/\delta)/\epsilon^2)$ and let $\Om = \RandSample(s,\Vp)$. Then $\bvec~* \equiv \arg \min_{\bvec \in \Real^r} \| \Om \Z \bvec - \Om \xvec\|_2^2$ satisfies $$\| \Z \bvec~* - \xvec \|_2^2
\leq (1+O(\epsilon)) \| \Z \bvec* - \xvec \|_2^2$$ with probability at least $1-1/\delta$.
Apply \[thm:sketching\], \[lem:lev\_bound\], and \[eq:pdef\] to get $$\beta
= \min_{i \in [N]} \frac{p_i r}{\ell_i(\Z)}
= \min_{i \in [N]} \frac{(\levZ*/r^{d}) \, r}{\levZ} \leq \frac{1}{r^{d-1}}.$$ Plugging this bound into the bound for $s$ yields the desired result.
Our main result for sketching the tensor least squares problem \[eq:lsq\_krp\] follows. For $n>r$, $s=O(r^d \log n / \epsilon^2)$ samples yields an $(1{+}O(\epsilon))$-accurate residual with high probability. This can be derived from \[thm:krp-sketching\] using the same union bound method that allowed \[cor:beta\] to be derived from \[thm:sketching\].
\[cor:krp-beta\] Let $\Z = \Ak{d} \odot \cdots \odot \Ak{1} \in \Real^{N \times r}$ be a KRP as in \[eq:krp\], $\Xmat' \in \Real^{n \times N}$, $r<n$, and $\B* \equiv \arg \min_{\B \in \Real^{r \times n}} \| \Z \B' - \Xmat'\|^2$. Let $\Vp \in [0,1]^N$ be defined as $$p_i = \frac{\levZ*}{r^d}
\qtext{where}
\levZ* \equiv \prod_{k=1}^d \levAk
\qtext{for all} i \in [N].$$ For any $\epsilon, \delta \in (0,1)$, set $s=O(r^{d} \log (n/\delta)/ \epsilon^2)$ and let $\Om = \RandSample(s,\Vp)$. Then $\B~* \equiv \arg \min_{\B \in \Real^{r \times n}} \| \Om \Z \B' - \Om \Xmat\|_F^2$ satisfies $$\| \Z \B'~* - \Xmat' \|_F^2
\leq (1+O(\epsilon)) \| \Z \B'* - \Xmat' \|_F^2$$ with probability at least $1-1/\delta$.
Hence, our sampling probability for row $i$ in $\Z$ is given by $$\label{eq:pi}
p_i = \frac{1}{r^d} \prod_{k=1}^d \levAk \qtext{for all} i \in [N].$$
Implicit Random Row Sampling for KRP Matrices {#sec:implicit-random-row}
---------------------------------------------
Calculating the leverage scores for factor matrix $\Ak$ is inexpensive, costing $O(r^2n_k)$; however, computing the sampling probabilities in \[eq:pi\] requires the Kronecker product of the leverages scores at a cost of $O(N)$. To avoid this $O(N)$ expense, we sample from the distribution implicitly by sampling each mode independently, which is equivalent per the following result.
\[lemma:KRP\_sample\] Let $\Ak \in \Real^{n_k \times r}$ for $r \in [d]$, and let $\V{\ell}(\Ak)$ be the vector of leverage scores for $\Ak$. Let $$i_k \sim \Multi(\V{\ell}(\Ak) / r)
\qtext{for} k \in [d].$$ The probability of selecting the multi-index $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$ is equal to $$p_i = \frac{\levZ*}{r^d}
\qtext{where}
\levZ* \equiv \prod_{k=1}^d \levAk$$ and $i \in [N]$ is the linear index corresponding to $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$ with $N \equiv \prod_{k=1}^d n_k$.
Row $i$ of $\Z$ can be assembled in $O(rd)$ work by taking the Hadamard product of the rows of the factor matrices specified by the multi-index.
Implicit Computation of High-Probability Rows for Deterministic Inclusion {#sec:impl-determ-row}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in \[sec:comb-determ-rand\], it can be useful to deterministically include all rows whose sampling probability is above a specified threshold, $\tau$. However, it would be prohibitively expensive to find those above the threshold by explicitly computing all $N$ probabilities. Instead, we perform a coarse-grained elimination of most candidate rows and then only compute the probabilities on a small subset of all rows.
For each factor matrix, define the normalized leverage scores $\pk = \ell(\Ak)/r$ where the $i_k$th entry is denoted as $\pke$. Recall that the probability of sampling row $\Z(i,:)$ is given by $$p_i = \frac{\prod_{k=1}^d \levAk}{r^d} = \prod_{k=1}^d \pke
\qtext{for all} i \in [N],$$ where $i$ is the linear index associated with subindices $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$. The key insight is that only a subset of rows in each $\Ak$ could possibly contribute to a row of $\Z$ with a sampling probability greater than $\tau$.
Our goal is to identify the set $\DetSet = \set{i \in [N] | p_i > \tau}$. Define $$\alpha_k = \max_{i_k \in [n_k]} \pke, \quad
\alpha_* = \prod_{k=1}^d \alpha_k = \max_{i \in [N]} p_i ,
\qtext{and}
\DetSetk = \set{i_k \in [n_k] | \pke > \tau \alpha_k / \alpha_*}.$$ It is easy to show that if $i_k \not\in \DetSetk$, then $p_i \leq \tau$ for any linear index $i$ with row $i_k$ in its constituent subindices. Hence, we can conclude $$\DetSet \subseteq \DetSetk{1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \DetSetk{d}.$$ This means we need only check a small number of combinations. If $\bar n_k = | \DetSetk |$, then we need only check $\prod_{k=1}^d \bar n_k \ll N$ possibilities. It is easy to see that $\bar n_k < 1/\tau$, so we can limit the number of possibilities to consider by the choice of $\tau$. We have found that $\tau = 1/s$ is effective in practice, and this is the choice we use in all experiments.
Once we have obtained the deterministic indices, we need to sample the remaining rows randomly as described in \[sec:comb-determ-rand\] for the hybrid sample. Because we will not have explicit access to the probabilities for every sample to rescale, we use *rejection sampling*. Suppose $\xi_j$ be the $j$th random sample, sampled according to the original sampling probabilities in $\Vp$. We reject the random sample $\xi_j$ if $\xi_j \in \DetSet$ and resample until $\xi_j \not \in \DetSet$. This yields that the probability of selection $\xi_j = p_i / (1-\pdet)$, as desired. We continue to sample in this manner until we have $s_{\rnd} = s - s_{\det}$ successful random samples.
Alternating Randomized Least Squares with Leverage Score Sampling {#sec:altern-rand-least}
=================================================================
In this section, we explain how all the parts come together. The sampling procedure to find the indices and weights (i.e., $\Om$) to construct the reduced system is detailed in \[sec:sampl-krp-algor\]. Note that we avoid forming $\Om$ explicitly. Instead, we form $\Z~ \equiv \Om\Z$ and $\Xmat'~ \equiv \Om\Xmat'$ directly. The full CP algorithm that cycles through all modes of the tensors and uses randomized sampling with the leverage scores is given in \[sec:full-algorithm\]. The computations are extremely efficient, and memory movement to extract the right-hand-side from the large tensor $\X$ actually dominates cost in practice. We explain our method for reducing those costs in \[sec:effic-sampl-from\]. Finally, the fit calculation is generally too expensive to compute exactly for tensors with billions of nonzeros, so we estimate the fit as described in \[sec:estimating-fit\].
Finding Indices and Weights {#sec:sampl-krp-algor}
---------------------------
The first and most important step is identifying the rows and associated weights for the reduced subproblem. outlines the procedure for finding these. The inputs are the normalized leverage scores for each factor matrix ($\pk = \ell(\Ak)/r$ for $k=1,\dots,d$), the number of samples ($s$), and the deterministic threshold ($\tau$). A few notes are in order.
\[stp:didx\] $(\idxdet, \sdet, \pdet) \gets \DIDX(\pk{1},\dots,\pk{d},\tau)$ Find $\set{i \in [N] | p_i > \tau}$ $\srnd \gets s - \sdet$ \[stp:sidx\] $(\idxrnd, \wgtrnd) \gets \SIDX(\pk{1},\dots,\pk{d},\srnd,\tau,\pdet)$ Reject $p_i > \tau$ \[stp:cidx\] $(\idxrnd, \wgtrnd, \srnd*) \gets \CIDX(\idxrnd, \wgtrnd)$ $\idx \gets \textsc{cat}(\idxdet, \idxrnd)$ $\wgt \gets \textsc{cat}(\mathbf{1}_{\sdet}, \wgtrnd)$ Weights for deterministic indices is 1 $s \gets \sdet + \srnd*$
- Function $\DIDX$, called in \[stp:didx\], computes $$\idxdet = \Set{i \in [N] | p_i = \prod_{k=1}^d \pke > \tau},
\quad
\sdet = | \idxdet |,
\qtext{and}
\pdet = \sum_{i \in \idxdet} p_i.$$ without explicitly computing all the probabilities, as described in \[sec:impl-determ-row\]. We assume that $\sdet < s$. If not, we take the $s$ highest probabilities that are found. Setting $\tau = 1$ means that no samples are included deterministically.
- Function $\SIDX$, called in \[stp:sidx\], is detailed in \[alg:skrpidx\]. It randomly samples indices $i \sim \Multi(\Vp)$ where $p_i = \prod_{k=1}^d \pke$ for all $i\in[N]$. Any sample with $p_i > \tau$ is rejected, and the weights are correspondingly adjusted by multiplying them by $\sqrt{1-\pdet}$. The same index may be sampled multiple times. Our actual implementation samples and rejects indices in bulk, oversampling to ensure that we still have at least $\srnd$ indices after the rejection is complete.
- Function $\CIDX$ combines multiple indices as described in \[sec:comb-repe-rows\]. If row $i$ appeared $c_i$ times in $\idxrnd$, then its weight is scaled by $\sqrt{c_i}$. The count $\srnd*$ is the number of *unique* indices in that was produced by $\SIDX$.
$p_i \gets \prod_{k=1}^d \pke$
Full Algorithm {#sec:full-algorithm}
--------------
The CP tensor decomposition of rank $r$ for an order-$(d+1)$ tensor is defined by $(d+1)$ factor matrices $\Ak{1},\dots,\Ak{d+1}$ that minimizes the sum of the squares error between the data tensor $\X$ and CP model $\M$ We use the shorthand $\M = \KT$ where $ m(i_1,\dots,i_{d+1}) = \sum_{j=1}^r \prod_{k=1}^d a_{k}(i_k,j)$. It is usual to normalize the columns of the factor matrices to norm one and absorb the norms into a weight vector $\lvec \in \Real^r$, in which case we write $\M = \KT*$ and $m(i_1,\dots,i_{d+1}) = \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j \prod_{k=1}^d a_{k}(i_k,j)$. The standard algorithm solves for each factor matrix in turn (inner iterations), keeping the others fixed. Each least squares problem is of the form shown in \[eq:lsq\_krp\]. Although \[eq:lsq\_krp\] is specific to solving for $\Ak{d+1}$, this is really just a notational convenience. Each outer iteration, we compute the proportion of the data described by the model, i.e., $$\text{fit} = 1 - \frac{ \| \X - \M \|}{\| \X \|}.$$ The method halts when the fit ceases to improve by at least $10^{-4}$. We refer the reader to [@KoBa09] for further details and references on .
Our randomized variant is presented in \[alg:cp-arls-lev\]. The inputs are the order-$(d+1)$ tensor $\X$, the desired rank $r \in \mathbb{N}$, the number of samples for each least squares problem $s \in \mathbb{N}$, the deterministic cutoff $\tau \in [0,1]$ (which defaults to $1/s$), the number of outer iterations per epoch $\eta \in \mathbb{N}$ (which defaults to 5), the number of failed epochs allowed before convergence $\pi$ (which defaults to 3), and the initial guesses for the factor matrices.
We group the iterations into epochs of $\eta$ outer iterations since the randomized method does not necessarily improve with every step due to the randomness. Further, we may not want to quit until the fit fails to improve for $\pi$ epochs. In many cases, computing the fit exactly would be to expensive, so we use the approximate fit as documented in \[sec:estimating-fit\].
We presented the canonical least squares problem in \[eq:lsq\_krp\] in terms of the specific least squares problem for mode $d+1$, but the method requires that we solve such a problem for every mode. This is an important implementation detail but does not otherwise require any change in thinking. At inner iteration $k$, for instance, we can call the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SkrpLev</span> methods with $d$ leverage scores vectors — the only difference is that we leave out the $k$th vector of leverage scores rather than the $(d+1)$st. We let $\bar s$ denote the actual number of sampled rows required by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SkrpLev</span>, which may be less than $s$ due to combining repeated rows. The function <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">KrpSamp</span> builds the sampled KRP matrix given the factor matrices, indices of the rows to be combined, and corresponding weights. The work to construct $\Z~$ is $O(\bar s d r)$. The function <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TnsrSamp</span> extracts the appropriate rows of the unfolded matrix as described in \[sec:effic-sampl-from\]. The solution of the least squares problem costs $O(\bar s r^2)$.
$\pk \gets \ell(\Ak)/r$ $(\idx,\wgt,\bar s) \gets \textsc{SkrpLev}(\pk{1},\dots,\pk{k-1},\pk{k+1},\dots,\pk{d+1}, s, \tau)$ $\Z~ \gets \textsc{KrpSamp}(\Ak{1},\dots,\Ak{k-1},\Ak{k+1},\dots,\Ak{d+1},\idx,\wgt)$ $\Z~ \in \Real^{\bar s \times r}$ $\Xmat~ \gets \textsc{TnsrSamp}(\X,k,\idx,\wgt)$ $\Xmat~ \in \Real^{\bar s \times n_k}$ $\Ak \gets \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\B \in \Real^{n_k \times r}} \| \Z~ \B' - \Xmat'~ \|$ $\lambda_k \gets \text{ column norms of } \Ak$ $\Ak \gets \Ak / \lambda_k$ $\pk \gets \ell(\Ak)/r$ Compute `fit` (exact or approximate)
We use the same $s$ for every mode of the tensor, and making $s$ mode dependent is a topic for future work.
Efficient Sampling from Sparse Tensor {#sec:effic-sampl-from}
-------------------------------------
A final consideration for efficiency is quickly compiling the right hand side, $\Xmat~$. Recall that $\Xmat$ is the is the $(d+1)$-mode unfolding of the $(d+1)$-way tensor $\X$. The tensor $\X$ is sparse, so we store only the nonzeros. We use coordinate format which stores the coordinates $(i_1, \dots, i_{d+1})$ and value $x_{i_1\dots,i_{d+1}}$ for each nonzero [@BaKo07], for a total storage of $(d+2) \operatorname{nnz}(\X)$ for a $(d+1)$-way tensor $\X$.
The mode-$(d+1)$ unfolding of $\X$ produces a matrix of size $n \times N$ where $N = \prod_{k=1}^d n_k$ and $n = n_{d+1}$. We need to select and reweight the $s$ columns of $\Xmat$ (rows of $\Xmat'$) that correspond to the selected rows of $\Z$, per \[alg:skrplev\]. In this way, we can quickly build the sparse matrix $\Xmat~$ as follows: $$\Xmat~(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
\wgt(j) \, x(i_1,\dots,i_d,i_{d+1}) & \text{if } \idx(j) = (i_1,\dots,i_d) \text{ and } i = i_{d+1} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ We typically store the entries of $\idx$ as linear indices, so, for efficiency, we recommend to precompute and store the linearized indices corresponding to $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$. Further, we will operate on all $(d+1)$ modes, so these should be precomputed for every mode. This requires $(d+1) \operatorname{nnz}(\X)$ additional storage.
Estimating the fit {#sec:estimating-fit}
------------------
The primary use of the tensor fit during CP runs is as a stopping condition. Unfortunately, for large, sparse tensors calculating the full fit can take many times longer than an epoch of , and thus it is more efficient to estimate the fit of a tensor by randomly sampling a set number of elements from the tensor and calculating the fit only on these elements as in [@BaBaKo18]. To ensure the estimate is unbiased the fit on each element is re-weighted by its probability of being chosen before all the elements are added together. In our case, the objective of using an estimated fit is to determine convergence based on when the estimate stops changing; thus, to enable better comparisons between outer iterations, we sample the elements of the tensor only once at the beginning of the algorithm and then use these same elements for all subsequent estimates.
For sparse tensors we have the additional difficulty that if we sample uniformly at random from all elements of the tensor, we will return predominantly zero entries by the definition of sparsity. To avoid this, we use a technique called stratified sampling to sample proportionately from the zeros and non-zeros of the tensor. Let $s_{\text{fit}}$ be the user-specified number of samples to use in order to estimate the fit and $\alpha \in [0,1]$ be the fraction of the samples we want to be non-zero elements of the tensor (by default we use $\alpha = 0.5$). We will sample $\alpha s_{\text{fit}}$ elements uniformly at random from the non-zero elements of the tensor and $(1-\alpha) s_{\text{fit}}$ elements uniformly at random from the zero elements of the tensor.
The result of this sampling procedure is a set $\{i^{(1)}, \ldots, i^{(s_{\text{fit}})}\}$ of $s_{\text{fit}}$ linear indices, where each $i^{(j)}$ has a corresponding multi-index $(i^{(j)}_1, \ldots, i^{(j)}_{d+1})$. Given $\operatorname{nnz}(\X)$, the probability $p_i$ of a given index $i$ being included is easy to calculate: $p_i$ equals $\alpha \cdot 1/\operatorname{nnz}(\X)$ if $i$ is a non-zero and $(1 - \alpha) \cdot 1/\left ( n^{d+1} - \operatorname{nnz}(\X) \right )$ if $i$ is a zero element. Our estimated fit is then given by:
$$\widehat{F} = \sum_{j=1}^{s_{\text{fit}}} \frac{1}{p_{i^{(j)}}} (m_{i^{(j)}} - x_{i^{(j)}})^2$$
where $m_{i^{(j)}}$ is the corresponding element of the model tensor formed by the factor matrices. It is easy to show that ${\mathbb{E}}[\widehat{F}] = \text{fit}$.
In our experiments, we calculate the true fit for the Uber tensor after each epoch and the estimated fit of the Amazon, Reddit, and Enron tensors. The true fit is also used for all runs of as the relevant expensive calculations are already performed during the least squares solve. We also note that in practice the zero elements of the tensor are selected via rejection sampling as described in [@arXiv-KoHo19].
Numerical Results {#sec:numerical-results}
=================
All experiments were run using MATLAB (Version 2018a). The runs used a Dual Socket Intel E5-2683v3 2.00 GHz CPU with 256 GB memory for smaller tensors (Uber and Enron) and a Dual Socket AMD Epyc 7601 2.20 GHz CPU with 1 TB memory was used for the larger tensors (Amazon and Reddit). Our method is alternating randomized least squares with leverage scores for CP (), implemented as `cp_arls_lev` in the Tensor Toolbox for MATLAB [@TTB_Software]. We use two variants of which use different procedures to determine which rows to include in the random sample:
1. Random — Rows of $\Z$ included randomly with probability proportional to the product of the leverage scores of the leverage scores of the corresponding rows of the factor matrices, as described in \[sec:implicit-random-row\], and
2. Hybrid — Row $i$ of $\Z$ is included deterministically if $p_i > \tau$. In all experiments, we set $\tau = 1/s$ where $s$ is the total number of samples. The remaining rows are included randomly according to leverage score, as described in \[sec:comb-determ-rand\].
By default, uses $s = 2^{17}$ samples and a threshold $\tau = 1/s$. Each epoch is set to consist of $\eta = 5$ outer iterations, and the algorithm terminates after $\pi = 3$ epochs for which the fit change is below the tolerance of $10^{-4}$. Factor matrices are initialized by drawing each entry randomly from a standard Gaussian. For consistency, for each tensor, the same ten initializations are used across all runs of . When we estimate the fit using sampling, we compute the estimate using the same set of sampled indices across all runs for consistency. We compare with the standard alternating least squares (), implemented as `cp_als`, and using its own random initializations. We use the default settings for , and the method stops when the change in the fit is below $10^{-4}$.
Uber Tensor {#sec:uber}
-----------
The Uber tensor is a 4-way tensor of size 183 $\times$ 24 $\times$ 1,140 $\times$ 1,717 with 3,309,490 non-zeros (0.038%). Entry $(i,j,k,l)$ is the number of pickups on day $i$, hour $j$, at latitude $k$ and longitude $l$, in New York city during the period April–August 2014. The data is available from FROSTT [@frosttdataset]. This tensor is small enough that we can perform some investigations that would be too expensive for the larger tensors we consider later.
We first consider an single least squares problem to investigate the impact of matrix sketching. We fix modes 2–4 to be the factor matrices corresponding to a solution produced by with a fit of 0.1551, and we solve for the factor matrix for mode 1. So, this corresponds to a least squares problem of the form \[eq:lsq\_krp\] with $N =$ 46,977,120 rows, $r=10$ columns, and $n=183$ right-hand sides. shows how the relative difference between the sampled solution and the exact solution as the number of samples increases from $2^7$ to $2^{19}$. To be specific, using the notation of \[cor:krp-beta\], the y-axis corresponds to $$\frac{ \left| \| \Z \B'~* - \Xmat' \|_F^2 - \| \Z \B'* - \Xmat' \|_F^2 \right| } {\max \set{1, \| \Z \B'* - \Xmat' \|_F^2}}.$$ For each number of samples, we solve the least squares problem 10 times, and the error bars indicate the range of values obtained. We compare random sampling method and the hybrid-deterministic sampling with $\tau = 1/s$. Note that the maximum number of samples, $s=2^{19}$, represents only 1.1% of the rows in the matrix and achieves an accuracy of $10^{-4}$. For this problem, hybrid sampling clearly improves over random sampling, obtaining approximately 2 more digits of accuracy for $s=2^{19}$ samples. The second and third panel show the fraction of samples that were deterministically included ($\sdet$) and the fraction of the total sampling probability contained in these samples ($\pdet$). Note that these values are the same across all runs as they are deterministic based on the threshold $\tau$.
table\[y=SDET\] ;
table\[y=PDET\] ;
Next, we consider the rank $r=25$ CP tensor decomposition using matrix sketching. shows the results of and for sample sizes $2^{15}$–$2^{17}$. We do ten runs for each scenario, using the same ten initialization across all runs.
\[fig:uber-runs\]
in [1,2,3,4]{} [ +\[thick,mark=none, forget plot \] table \[x=TIME, y=M\_MED\]; ]{} iin [1,...,10]{} [ in [1,2,3,4]{} [ +\[mark size=.4pt, very thin\] table \[x=M\_Ri\_T, y=M\_Ri\_F\]; ]{} ]{}
\
\[fig:uber-fit-time\]
in [5, 1, 6, 2, 7, 3, 4]{} [ +\[boxplot, fill, draw=black\] table\[y=M\] ; ]{}
in [5, 1, 6, 2, 7, 3, 4]{} [ +\[boxplot, fill, draw=black\] table\[y=M\] ; ]{}
shows the fit versus time to compare and Hybrid with threshold $\tau=1/s$. (We did not show Random because it crowded the figure and was not much different.) The dotted lines correspond to individual runs while the solid line is the median of an interpolated curve found for each individual run. The markers for represents one epoch of five outer iterations, and the markers for corresponds to one outer iteration. In all runs, we report the true fit since this tensor was small enough that we could afford to calculate it. The randomized methods converge toward the solution much more quickly.
compares the final fit and total run time for and for both Random and Hybrid. Each box plot summarizes the values from the 10 runs, and the Standard and Hybrid runs correspond to those shown in \[fig:uber-runs\]. The left figure shows that, for each value of $s$, hybrid deterministic sampling improved the fit, most markedly for smaller $s$. Furthermore, achieves a comparable or better final fit than . The left figure shows that the Hybrid runs take longer than the Random runs, but this difference is only marked for $s=2^{17}$. The cost of deterministic inclusion increases with sample number as we are also lowering the threshold for inclusion. Overall, the Hybrid $s=2^{16}$ method achieves the best trade-off where achieves the same fit as the Standard method at roughly half the computational time.
Amazon Tensor {#sec:amazon}
-------------
This section demonstrates how scales favorably for extremely large sparse tensors. It also shows that on how the technique of combining repeats can significantly decrease the time dedicated to solving the sampled system. We consider a third-order tensor of Amazon product reviews of size 4,821,207 $\times$ 1,774,269 $\times$ 1,805,187 with 1.741 billion non-zeros ($1.1 \times 10^{-8}$%) downloaded from FROSTT [@frosttdataset]. Each entry $(i,j,k)$ is the number of times the user $i$ used word $j$ in a review of product $k$.
shows runs to calculate the CP tensor decomposition with rank $r=25$ for the Amazon tensor using (Standard) and (Hybrid with $s=2^{16}$ and $s=2^{17}$ samples and $\tau=1/s$). For the runs, we used an estimated fit with $s_{\text{fit}} = 2^{27}$ stratified samples, evenly divided between zeros and nonzeros.
\[fig:amazon-runs\]
in [1,2,3]{} [ +\[thick,mark=none, forget plot \] table \[x=TIME, y=M\_MED\]; ]{} iin [1,...,10]{} [ in [1,2,3]{} [ +\[mark size=.4pt, very thin\] table \[x=M\_Ri\_T, y=M\_Ri\_F\]; ]{} ]{}
\
\[tab:amazon-time\]
------------------- ---------------------- ------- ------- -------- --------
Random $s=2^{16}$ $2.0650 \times 10^3$ 13.21 333.6 0.3374 0.3380
Hybrid $s=2^{16}$ $2.8388 \times 10^3$ 9.61 346.5 0.3384 0.3391
Random $s=2^{17}$ $2.5920 \times 10^3$ 10.53 358.2 0.3387 0.3388
Hybrid $s=2^{17}$ $2.5532 \times 10^3$ 10.68 378.8 0.3387 0.3397
$2.7288 \times 10^4$ 1.00 - 0.3393 0.3396
------------------- ---------------------- ------- ------- -------- --------
shows the estimated fit versus time for the randomized algorithm, and the true fit versus time for standard . The estimated fit curves in this figure were bias-corrected by the difference between the final true fit and final estimated fit. The dotted lines correspond to individual runs and the solid lines to the median fit or estimated fit calculated across all runs.
displays median statistics across all runs and the maximum fit obtained. We first see that the fits very close to each other and essentially equivalent across all methods. The speedup provided by each variant of is calculated by comparing median run time to the median run time of . In particular, $s = 2^{17}$ with hybrid deterministic sampling achieves a total runtime speedup of 10.68 compared to in addition to finding an equivalent fit. Note that the median time for does not include calculating the final true fit as this was computed primarily to compare with fit obtained from and is not required for the algorithm. Lastly, we include the median epoch time to compare between runs with random and hybrid sampling. Hybrid sampling epochs do take longer than random sampling but the difference is small compared to full epoch time. Furthermore, the difference in speedup likely results primarily from the fact that we are using a noisy estimate of the fit to terminate the algorithm.
We also used the Amazon tensor to showcase the importance of combining repeated rows (as described in \[sec:comb-repe-rows\]) on the time required for iterations of . Note that combing repeated rows is used by default in all experiments except this one. We used the solution factor matrices from a run of with rank $r = 10$ and a fit of 0.3055 for the Amazon tensor. We considered three least squares problem corresponding to solving the subproblems for modes 1–3. shows the average time taken to solve the sampled system averaged across ten runs for four different methods: Random-No-Combo, Random-Combo, Hybrid-No-Combo, and Hybrid-Combo. While combining rows reduced the time needed for all methods, the difference is particularly dramatic in mode 2. The reduction in solve time comes both from the system being smaller and from the fact that rows that are repeatedly sampled due to high leverage scores are typically denser. The effect is much smaller on hybrid sampling as deterministic inclusion of high-probability rows results in fewer repeats. Although these differences are substantial, we note that in general, an iteration is dominated by the time it takes to extract the sampled fibers from the tensor. Across the four methods, the mean extraction time was between 26.74 and 29.88 seconds for mode 1, between 34.97 and 37.25 seconds for mode 2, and between 18.61 and 19.25 seconds for mode 3.
table\[y=M1\] ;
table\[y=M2\] ;
table\[y=M3\] ;
Reddit Tensor {#sec:reddit}
-------------
This section demonstrates how the advantages of scale favorably with extremely large sparse tensors. It also shows that the factors found by extract meaningful trends in the data in an unsupervised manner. We consider a third-order tensor of comments posted on Reddit (<https://www.reddit.com/>) during the year 2015. The tensor is 8,211,298 users $\times$ 176,962 subreddits $\times$ 8,116,559 words with 4.687 billion non-zeros ($4.0 \times 10^{-8}$% dense). The data comprises counts of the form $c(i,j,k)$ which give number of times user $i$ used word $k$ in a comment on subreddit $j$, where a subreddit is a community forum devoted to a given topic. Common stop words were removed and the remaining worked were stemmed. Users, subreddits, and words with fewer than five entries were removed. Users on Reddit subscribe and comment in a collection of subreddits related to their interests, which can be created by any user and have one-word names. Subreddits vary widely in subscribers, from large communities to which users are subscribed by default when they join, such as `r/AskReddit` and `r/funny`, to much more niche topics. Because a few high counts dominated the tensor, we use $x(i,j,k) = \log(c(i,j,k)+1)$ as the tensor for analysis. The operation preserves the sparsity of the tensor in the sense that the number of non-zeros remains unchanged while also preventing large count values from dominating the decomposition.
shows runs of and Hybrid with $s=2^{17}$ on the Reddit tensor. For the runs, we used an estimated fit with $s_{\text{fit}} = 2^{27}$ stratified samples, evenly divided between zeros and nonzeros.
\[fig:reddit-runs\]
in [1,2]{} [ +\[thick,mark=none, forget plot \] table \[x=TIME, y=M\_MED\]; ]{} iin [1,...,10]{} [ in [1,2]{} [ +\[mark size=.4pt, very thin\] table \[x=M\_Ri\_T, y=M\_Ri\_F\]; ]{} ]{}
\
\[tab:reddit-time\]
-------------------------- ---------------------- ------- -------- -------- --------
Random $s=2^{17}$ $2.1578 \times 10^4$ 16.08 1832.6 0.0585 0.0590
Random $s=2^{17}$ Hybrid $2.9231 \times 10^4$ 11.87 2231.0 0.0585 0.0589
$3.4701 \times 10^5$ 1.00 - 0.0588 0.0593
-------------------------- ---------------------- ------- -------- -------- --------
shows the fit versus time for (with estimated fit bias corrected as described for the Amazon runs) and for . The dotted lines correspond to individual runs and the solid lines to the median fit or estimated fit calculated across all runs. The randomized algorithm converged more than 11$\times$ more quickly.
displays median statistics across all runs and the maximum fit obtained. We first see that the fits very close to each other and essentially equivalent across all methods. The speedup provided by each variant of is calculated by comparing median run time to the median run time of . In particular, $s = 2^{17}$ with random sampling achieves a total runtime speedup of 16.08 compared to in addition to finding an equivalent fit. Note that the median time for does not include calculating the final true fit as this was computed primarily to compare with fit obtained from and is not required for the algorithm.
We give some examples of the components computed for this tensor in \[fig:reddit-factor6,fig:reddit-factor18,fig:reddit-factor19\]. We cannot show the entire components due to their sheer size. Instead, for each component, we show the top-25 highest-magnitude subreddits, the top-25 highest-magnitude words, and the top 1000 highest-magnitude users. The size of the bar represents the factor value magnitude and the color represents the overall prevalence, on a scale of zero to one. In this manner, the colors indicate rarer words or subreddits and are of interest since they are less likely to appear in many factors. Note that the terms of been stemmed so a word like “people” becomes “peopl”.
- shows component 6 (of 25) which is focused on non-U.S. news. The word factor includes rarer words like countries (stemmed to “countri”) and world. One can see the top subreddits include “worldnews”, “europe”, “unitedkingdom”, “canada”, “australia”, “syriancivilwar”, “india”, “Israel”, “UkraineConflict”, and “Scotland”.
- shows component 6 (of 25) focused on soccer and sports. The top words include “player”, “team”, “leagu” (stemmed version of league), “goal”, “fan”, and “club”. The top subreddits include “soccer”, “reddevils”, “Gunners”, “FIFA”, “LiverpoolIFC”, etc.
- shows component 19 (of 25) focused on movies and television, with a lean toward science fiction and fantasy. The top words include “movi\[e\]”, “film”, “watch”, and “charact\[er\]”. The top subreddits include “movies”, “television”, “StarWars”, “gameofthrones”, “marvelstudios”, etc.
![Reddit Factor 6/25: Politics and World News[]{data-label="fig:reddit-factor6"}](RedditComp6.png){width="75.00000%"}
![Reddit Factor 18/25: Soccer[]{data-label="fig:reddit-factor18"}](RedditComp18.png){width="75.00000%"}
![Reddit Factor 19/25: Film and Television[]{data-label="fig:reddit-factor19"}](RedditComp19.png){width="75.00000%"}
Enron Tensor {#sec:enron}
------------
This section illustrates how performance can be improved for certain tensors via initialization by randomized range finder (RRF). This is caused by the fact that the quality of the approximate solution outputted by randomized least squares is adversely affected by the norm of ${\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$, i.e., the portion of the response vector which is outside the range of the design matrix. In the CP least squares problem, this corresponds to how much of the matricized tensor is outside the range of the corresponding factor matrices. As the factor matrices change throughout the run of , this can have two implications. The first is that a random initialization could result in large ${\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$, hurting the performance of the run. We show that this can be fixed by simply initializing with a random linear combination of the fibers in the matricized tensor, a method referred to in the literature as RRF [@HaMaTr11]. The second is that for the solution factor matrices ${\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$ could remain significant. This is a property of the tensor that would generally lead to sub par performance of randomized methods on the problem.
We consider a 4-way tensor formed from the Enron emails released by the Federal Regulatory Commission downloaded from FROSTT [@frosttdataset]. The tensor is 6,066 $\times$ 5,699 $\times$ 244,268 $\times$ 1,176 with 54,202,099 non-zeros ($5.5 \times 10^{-7}$%). Entry $(i,j,k,l)$ is the number times sender $i$ sent an email to receiver $j$ using word $k$ on day $l$, For the experiments in this section, we formed the associated log count tensor by applying the function $\log(x + 1)$ to each element of the tensor.
shows the difference between runs with a random initialization and runs initialized via RRF. As before, the random initialization draws from a standard Gaussian for each element of the factor matrix. Runs initialized via RRF formed the initial factor matrix from a random linear combination of the matricized fibers. This was done by first drawing $s$ fibers uniformly from the non-zero fibers of the matricized tensor, in this case using $s = 100,000$. As already forms the linear indices of elements along each mode unfolding as a preprocessing step, sampling and extracting the fibers is an efficient computation. These are then multiplied by a random Gaussian matrix $\Mx{\Omega} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{s \times r}$ in order to form a random linear combination of the sampled fibers for each column of the factor matrix. By forming the columns of our initialization out of the columns of the matricized tensor we tend to decrease the magnitude of $\Xmat^{\perp}$, or the part of $\Xmat$ that is perpendicular to the column space of our factor matrix.
in [4, 1, 5, 2, 3]{} [ +\[boxplot, fill, draw=black\] table\[y=M\] ; ]{}
in [4, 1, 5, 2, 3]{} [ +\[boxplot, fill, draw=black\] table\[y=M\] ; ]{}
For each of the runs of , the same termination condition as the Uber tensor was used except that following each epoch, the estimated fit was calculated rather than the true fit. For the runs, we used an estimated fit with $s_{\text{fit}} = 2^{25}$ stratified samples, evenly divided between zeros and nonzeros. The tensor elements were only sampled once at the beginning of all the runs and shared across all epochs and runs.
The left panel of \[fig:enron\] shows the fit values across 10 runs for each initialization method for sample size $s=2^{18}$ and $s=2^{19}$; 10 runs of are also included for comparison. The experiments show that the RRF greatly improves the fit found by and that the fit is only comparable to if the RRF method is used. The right panel of \[fig:enron\] shows that the total run time is roughly the same for either initialization method. Furthermore, the median runtime with RRF initialization for $s=2^{18}$ samples is 5.78 times faster and for $s=2^{19}$ samples is 4.39 times faster than the median runtime for .
Conclusions
===========
We propose , a randomized algorithm which applies leverage score-based sketching to the overdetermined least squares problem in . By sampling according to leverage score estimates, we avoid destroying the sparse structure of the tensor through mixing while still requiring a reasonable number of samples for an $\epsilon$-accurate solution. But making this algorithm practical for large sparse tensors requires a number of additional techniques. First, we use a prior bound on the Khatri-Rao product leverage scores to efficiently sample by independently drawing rows from each factor matrix. From this, we can derive a bound on the number of samples required. Second, we extract the sampled tensor fibers efficiently by storing precomputed linear indices of the tensor fibers. Finally, we avoid repeated samples by combining repeated rows and deterministically including high-probability rows, techniques which have applications in matrix sketching more broadly. In our numerical results, we show that implemented with all these techniques yields order of magnitude speed up on real large-scale sparse data.
The paper leaves open many exciting theoretical directions. What is the optimal way to pick the number of samples (per mode even) and the deterministic threshold? In general, these were chosen in this paper through numerical experiments. Is it possible to show that hybrid sampling improves the $\beta$ factor in the leverage score estimates or to give a bound on the improvement in the $\epsilon$-accuracy? And is there a more robust stopping condition for the algorithm than estimated fit? Especially on the large tensors, obtaining a low-variance estimate of the fit required an extremely large number of samples.
Finally, has another advantage over in that it can be used on large distributed datasets. Say one wanted to decompose a tensor that had to be stored across multiple nodes. Each iteration of requires solving a system involving the entire tensor, but using one could store all the factor matrices on one node and sample based off the associated leverage scores. The node could then gather the sampled fibers from the distributed tensor and solve the much smaller sampled system on one node. Implementing this distributed algorithm and parallelizing much of the current implementation is a direction of future work.
Proof of {#sec:proof-thm:sketching}
=========
We provide a clear explanation of \[thm:sketching\] since the ingredients are spread through several references. For ease of reference to existing literature, we use standard least squares notation.
Consider the overdetermined least squares problem defined by $\A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times d}$ and $\V{b} \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with $n > d$ and $\operatorname{rank}(\A) = d$. Define $$\resid^2 \triangleq \min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\A \V{x} - \V{b}\|_2^2.$$ The SVD of the design matrix is $\A = {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}\Mx{\Sigma}_{\Mx{A}} \Mx{V}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}}_{\Mx{A}}$, so ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}$ is an orthonormal basis for the $d$-dimensional column space of $\A$. Let ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\perp}$ be an orthonormal basis for the $(n-d)$-dimensional subspace orthogonal to the column space of $\Mx{A}$. We define ${\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$ to be the projection of the vector $\V{b}$ onto this orthogonal subspace: ${\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\triangleq {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\perp} {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\perp {\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b}$. This vector is important because the residual of the least squares problem is the norm of this vector; $\V{x}$ can be chosen so that $\A \V{x}$ exactly matches the part of $\V{b}$ in the column space of $\A$ but will by definition always be the all zeros vector when onto the basis defined by ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\perp}$: $$\resid^2 = \min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\A \V{x} - \V{b}\|_2^2 = \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\perp} {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\perp {\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b}\|_2^2 = \|{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2$$ We denote the solution to the least squares problem by ${\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$, and thus $\V{b} = \A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}+ {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$.
We are specifically interested in the sketching problem defined by matrix $\Mx{S} \in \Real^{s \times n}$: $$\label{eq:lsq}
\min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\Mx{S}\A \V{x} - \Mx{S}\V{b}\|_2^2.$$ Following the technique in Drineas et al. [@drineas2011faster], we split the proof into two parts. In \[sec:prop-sketch-matr\], we prove bounds on both the residual and the solution of the sketched system under the assumption that two structural conditions hold for a fixed sketching matrix $\Mx{S}$. The proofs follow deterministically from the structural conditions and consider no aspect of how the sketch is generated. In \[sec:proof-that-leverage\], we then consider that $\Mx{S}$ is drawn from a distribution over matrices $\mathcal{D}$, i.e. $\Mx{S} \sim \mathcal{D}$, and prove the structural conditions hold with high probability. We use row sampling via leverage score overestimates and prove the two properties hold given the number of samples is large enough. Finally, the proof is completed by union bounding over these two properties occurring so that the bound on the residual and solution hold with high probability for sketching with leverage score overestimates.
Properties of Sketching Matrix under Structural Conditions {#sec:prop-sketch-matr}
----------------------------------------------------------
The results in this section are Lemma 1 and 2 in [@drineas2011faster]. The structure is similar to Theorem 23 in the Woodruff review [@Wo14], except that work uses a CountSketch matrix, a different type of sketching.
We begin by assuming our matrix has two structural conditions which we refer to throughout as structural conditions (SC): $$\begin{aligned}
\tag{SC1} \label{eq:sc1}
\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}) &\geq 1/\sqrt{2}, \qtext{and}\\
\tag{SC2} \label{eq:sc2}
\|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2 &\leq \epsilon \resid^2/2. \end{aligned}$$
We first consider bounds with no restraints on the vector $\V{b}$.
In the setting of the overdetermined least squares problem \[eq:lsq\], assume the sketch matrix $\Mx{S}$ satisfies \[eq:sc1,eq:sc2\] for some $\epsilon \in (0, 1)$. Then the solution to the sketched problem, ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$, satisfies the following two bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\A {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \V{b} \|_2^2 &\leq (1 + \epsilon) \|\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \V{b} \|_2^2, \qtext{and} \\
\|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2 &\leq \frac{\epsilon \|\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \V{b} \|_2^2}{\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A)} .
\end{aligned}$$
We begin by rewriting the sketched regression problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\Mx{S}\A \V{x} - \Mx{S}\V{b}\|_2^2
&= \min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\Mx{S}\A \V{x} - \Mx{S}(\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}+ {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}})\|_2^2, \\
&= \min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\Mx{S}\A (\V{x} + {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) - \Mx{S}(\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}+ {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}})\|_2^2, \\
&= \min_{\V{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\Mx{S}\A (\V{x} - {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) - \Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2, \\
&= \min_{\V{y} \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \|\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}(\V{y} - {\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) - \Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we have reparameterized the vectors $\V{x}$ and ${\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$ in terms of the orthonormal basis ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}\V{y} = \A \V{x}$ and the analogous relationships hold for ${\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}/{\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}/{\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$. Note that the residual is equal to our original problem and thus the solution is given by the reparameterized vector ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$. We apply the normal equations to this system to obtain: $$(\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}})^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}({\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) = (\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}})^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}.$$ By \[eq:sc1\] we have that $\sigma_i((\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}})^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}) = \sigma_i^2(\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}) \geq 1/\sqrt{2}$. Thus taking the norm squared of both sides gives and applying this conditions gives: $$\|({\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2 /2 \leq
\|(\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}})^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}({\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2
= \|(\Mx{S}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}})^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2.$$ Finally we apply \[eq:sc2\] to the right hand side of this inequality to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\|({\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2 /2 \leq \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2 &\leq \epsilon \resid^2/2, \\
\label{eq:orthBound}
\Longrightarrow \|({\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2 &\leq \epsilon \resid^2.\end{aligned}$$ We can then immediately show that this result implies the desired result on the residual: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \V{b} - \A {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2 &= \|\V{b} - \A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}+ \A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \A {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2, \\
&= \|\V{b} - \A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2 + \|\A ({\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) \|_2^2, \\
&= \resid^2 + \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}({\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) \|_2^2 = \resid^2 + \|({\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) \|_2^2, \\
&\leq \resid^2 + \epsilon \resid^2 = (1 + \epsilon) \|\V{b} - \A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used in line 2 that $\V{b} - \A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}= {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$ is orthogonal to $\A$ times any vector and in the third line that ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}$ is a matrix with orthonormal columns.
Lastly, to obtain the bound on the solution recall that $\A({\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}) = {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}({\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})$. Taking the norm of both sides we have: $$\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A) \|({\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2 \leq \|\A({\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2 = \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}({\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2.$$ Recall that we assume $\operatorname{rank}(\A)=d$ so that $\sigma_{\min}(\A)>0$. We then apply \[eq:orthBound\] and rearrange to obtain the desired result: $$\|({\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2
\leq \frac{\|({\ensuremath{\V{y}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{y}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}})\|_2^2}{\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A)}
\leq \frac{\epsilon^2 \resid^2}{\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A)}.$$
We can obtain a tighter bound if we assume a constant fraction of $\V{b}$ is in the column space of $\A$. This is typically a reasonable assumption for real-world least squares problems as the fit is only practically interesting if this is true.
In the setting of the overdetermined least squares problem, assume the sketch matrix $\Mx{S}$ satisfies \[eq:sc1,eq:sc2\] for some $\epsilon \in (0, 1)$. Furthermore, assume that for some fixed $\gamma \in (0, 1]$ the property $\|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b} \|_2 \geq \gamma \|b\|_2$. Then the solution to the sketched problem ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}$ satisfies the following bound: $$\|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2 \leq \epsilon^2 \kappa(\A)^2 (\gamma^{-2} - 1) \|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2,$$ where $\kappa(\A)$ denotes the condition number of the matrix $\A$.
Start by bounding the residual squared using our assumption on as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \V{b} \|_2^2 = \|{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2 &= \|\V{b}\|_2^2 - \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b} \|_2^2, \\
& \leq \gamma^{-2} \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b} \|_2^2 - \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b} \|_2^2, \\
&= (\gamma^{-2} - 1) \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \V{b} \|_2^2, \\
&= (\gamma^{-2} - 1) \|\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2, \\
&\leq \sigma^2_{\text{max}}(\A) (\gamma^{-2} - 1) \|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ By the previous theorem, we have that $\|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2 \leq \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A)} \epsilon^2 \|\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \V{b} \|_2^2$. Plugging in the above inequality yields the desired result: $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- {\ensuremath{\widetilde{\V{x}}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2
& \leq \frac{1}{\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A)} \epsilon^2 \|\A {\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}- \V{b} \|_2^2, \\
& \leq \epsilon^2 \frac{\sigma^2_{\text{max}}(\A)}{\sigma^2_{\text{min}}(\A)} (\gamma^{-2} - 1) \|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2, \\
& = \epsilon^2 \kappa(\A)^2 (\gamma^{-2} - 1) \|{\ensuremath{\V{x}_{\text{\rm\sffamily opt}}}}\|_2^2 .\end{aligned}$$
Proof that Leverage Score Estimates Meet Structural Conditions {#sec:proof-that-leverage}
--------------------------------------------------------------
The first structural condition, \[eq:sc1\], is clearly proven in Woodruff [@Wo14], so we just state the result here.
Consider $\Mx{A} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times d}$, its SVD ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}\Mx{\Sigma}_{\Mx{A}} \Mx{V}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}}_{\Mx{A}}$, and row leverage scores $\ell_i(\A)$. Let $\overline{\Vl}(\A)$ be an overestimate of the leverage score such that for some positive $\beta \leq 1$, we have $p_i\big(\overline{\Vl}(\A) \big) \geq \beta \cdot p_i\big(\Vl(\A)\big)$ for all $i \in [n]$. Construct row sampling and rescaling matrix $\Mx{S} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{s \times n}$ by importance sampling according to the leverage score overestimates. If $s > 144 d \ln(2d/\delta)/(\beta \epsilon^2)$, then the following holds with probability at least $1 - \delta$ simultaneously for all $i$: $$1 - \epsilon \leq \sigma_i^2(\Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}) \leq 1 + \epsilon$$
The second structural condition, \[eq:sc2\], can be proven using results for randomized matrix-matrix multiplication. Consider the matrix product ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$. This is the projection of the part of $\V{b}$ outside of the column space of $\A$ onto the column space of $\A$ and thus by definition is equal to the all zeros vector $\Mx{0}_{\operatorname{rank}(\A)}$. This condition requires us to bound how well the sampled product ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}$ approximates the original product. We can do this via the following lemma:
\[lemma:randMatMult\] Consider two matrices of the form $\Mx{A} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}$ and $\Mx{B} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times p}$ and sample number $s\in[n]$. We form an approximation of the product $\Mx{A} \Mx{B}$ in the following manner: choose $s$ columns, denoted $\{i^{(1)}, \ldots, i^{(s)}\}$, according to probabilities $\{p_1, \ldots, p_n\}$ such that $$p_k \geq \frac{\beta \|\Mx{A}(:, k)\|_2^2}{\|\A\|_F^2},$$ then form the approximate product $$\frac{1}{s} \sum_{j = 1}^{s} \frac{1}{p_{i^{(j)}}} \Mx{A}(:, i^{(j)}) \Mx{B}(i^{(j)}, :) \triangleq \A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B},$$ where we have defined $\Mx{S}$ to be the random row sampling and rescaling operator. We then have the following guarantee on the quality of the approximate product: $${\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| \Mx{A} \Mx{B} - \A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B} \|_F^2 \right ] \leq \frac{1}{\beta s} \|\Mx{A}\|_F^2 \|\Mx{B}\|_F^2.$$
Fix $i, j$ to specify an element of the matrix product and let $\{i^{(1)}, \ldots, i^{(s)}\}$ be the indices of the columns of $\A$/rows of $\Mx{B}$. We begin by calculating the expected value and variance of the corresponding element of the sampled matrix product, i.e., $(\A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij}$. This can be written in terms of scalar random variables $X_t$ for $t = 1, \ldots, s$ as follows: $$X_t = \frac{\Mx{A}(i, i^{(t)}) \Mx{B}(i^{(t)}, j)}{s p_{i^{(t)}}}
\quad \Longrightarrow \quad
(\A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij} = \sum_{t = 1}^s X_t$$ The expectation of $X_t$ and $X_t^2$ for all $t$ can be calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[X_t] &= \sum_{k = 1}^n p_k \frac{\Mx{A}_{ik} \Mx{B}_{kj}}{s p_k} = \frac{1}{s} (\A \Mx{B})_{ij}, \\
{\mathbb{E}}[X_t^2] &= \sum_{k = 1}^n p_k^2 \frac{\Mx{A}_{ik}^2 \Mx{B}_{kj}^2}{s^2 p_k} = \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\Mx{A}_{ik}^2 \Mx{B}_{kj}^2}{s^2 p_k}.
\end{aligned}$$ The relation between $X_t$ and $(\A^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij}$ immediately gives ${\mathbb{E}}[(\A^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij}] = \sum_{t = 1}^2 {\mathbb{E}}[X_t] = (\A \Mx{B})_{ij}$ and hence the estimator is unbiased. Furthermore, since the estimated matrix element is the sum of $s$ independent random variables, its variance can be calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Var}}\left [ (\A^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij} \right ] &= {\mathrm{Var}}\left [\sum_{t = 1}^s X_t \right ] = \sum_{t = 1}^s {\mathrm{Var}}[X_t] \\
&= \sum_{t = 1}^s \left ( {\mathbb{E}}[X_t^2] - {\mathbb{E}}[X_t]^2 \right ) \\
&= \sum_{t = 1}^s \left ( \sum_{k = 1}^n p_k^2 \frac{\Mx{A}_{ik}^2 \Mx{B}_{kj}^2}{s^2 p_k} - \frac{1}{s^2} (\A \Mx{B})_{ij} \right ) \\
&= \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\Mx{A}_{ik}^2 \Mx{B}_{kj}^2}{s p_k} - \frac{1}{s} (\A \Mx{B})_{ij}
\end{aligned}$$ Now we turn to the expectation we want to bound and apply these results: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| \Mx{A} \Mx{B} - \A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B} \|_F^2 \right ]
&= \sum_{i = 1}^m \sum_{j = 1}^p {\mathbb{E}}\left [ \left ( (\A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij} - (\Mx{A} \Mx{B})_{ij} \right )^2 \right ], \\
&= \sum_{i = 1}^m \sum_{j = 1}^p {\mathbb{E}}\left [ \left ( (\A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij} - {\mathbb{E}}[(\A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij}] \right )^2 \right ], \\
&= \sum_{i = 1}^m \sum_{j = 1}^p {\mathrm{Var}}\left [ \left ( \A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B})_{ij} \right ) \right ], \\
&= \sum_{i = 1}^m \sum_{j = 1}^p \left (\sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\Mx{A}_{ik}^2 \Mx{B}_{kj}^2}{s p_k} - \frac{1}{s} (\A \Mx{B})_{ij} \right ), \\
&= \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{\left ( \sum_{i = 1}^m \Mx{A}_{ik}^2 \right ) \left ( \sum_{j = 1}^p \Mx{B}_{kj}^2 \right )}{s p_k} - \frac{1}{s} \sum_{i = 1}^m \sum_{j = 1}^p (\A \Mx{B})_{ij}, \\
&= \frac{1}{s} \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{ \| \A(:, k)\|_2^2 \| \Mx{B}(k, :)\|_2^2}{p_k} - \frac{1}{s} \| \A \Mx{B} \|_F^2, \\
&\leq \frac{1}{s} \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{ \| \A(:, k)\|_2^2 \| \Mx{B}(k, :)\|_2^2}{p_k},
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we have used that the Frobenius norm of a matrix is strictly positive. Lastly, we use our assumption on the probabilities $p_k \geq \frac{\beta \|\Mx{A}(:, k)\|_2^2}{\|\A\|_F^2}$ to obtain the desired bound: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| \Mx{A} \Mx{B} - \A \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{B} \|_F^2 \right ]
&\leq \frac{1}{s} \sum_{k = 1}^n \frac{ \| \A(:, k)\|_2^2 \| \Mx{B}(k, :)\|_2^2}{p_k}, \\
& \leq \frac{1}{s} \sum_{k = 1}^n \left ( \|\A\|_F^2 \frac{ \| \A(:, k)\|_2^2 \| \Mx{B}(k, :)\|_2^2 }{\beta \|\Mx{A}(:, k)\|_2^2} \right ), \\
&= \frac{1}{\beta s} \|\A\|_F^2 \sum_{k = 1}^n \| \Mx{B}(k, :)\|_2^2 = \frac{1}{\beta s} \|\A\|_F^2 \|\Mx{B}\|_F^2.
\end{aligned}$$
We can apply Lemma \[lemma:randMatMult\] to obtain a bound on the probability of \[eq:sc2\] holding.
Consider $\Mx{A} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times d}$, its SVD ${\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}\Mx{\Sigma}_{\Mx{A}} \Mx{V}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}}_{\Mx{A}}$, and row leverage scores $\ell_i(\A)$. Let $\overline{\Vl}(\A)$ be an overestimate of the leverage score such that for some positive $\beta \leq 1$, we have $p_i\big(\overline{\Vl}(\A) \big) \geq \beta \cdot p_i\big(\Vl(\A)\big)$ for all $i \in [n]$. Construct row sampling and rescaling matrix $\Mx{S} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{s \times n}$ by importance sampling by the leverage score overestimates. Then provided $s \geq \frac{ 2 d}{\beta \delta \epsilon }$, the property $\|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} {\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_2^2 \leq \epsilon \resid^2/2$ holds with probability $\delta$.
Apply Lemma \[lemma:randMatMult\] to obtain a bound on the expected value: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}} \|_F^2 \right ]
&= {\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| \Mx{0}_{\operatorname{rank}(\A)} - {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}} \|_F^2 \right ], \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| \Mx{{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}} \Mx{{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}} - {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}} \|_F^2 \right ], \\
& \leq \frac{1}{\beta s} \|{\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}\|_F^2 \|{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_F^2 = \frac{d}{\beta s} \|{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_F^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Markov’s inequality states that for non-negative random variable $X$ and scalar $t > 0$, we can bound the probability $\Prob [ X \geq t]$ as follows: $$\Prob [ X \geq t] \leq \frac{{\mathbb{E}}[X]}{t}$$ We can apply this inequality to bound the probability that the sketching matrix violates \[eq:sc2\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Prob_{\Mx{S} \sim \mathcal{D}} \left [ \| {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}} \|_F^2 \geq \frac{\epsilon \|{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_F^2}{2} \right ] &\leq \frac{ 2 {\mathbb{E}}\left [ \| {\ensuremath{\Mx{U}_{\Mx{A}}}}^{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}\Mx{S}^{{\ensuremath{\mathsf{T}}}} \Mx{S} \Mx{{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}} \|_F^2 \right ]}{\epsilon \|{\ensuremath{\V{b}^{\perp}}}\|_F^2} \leq \frac{ 2 d}{\beta \epsilon s} \\
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we have used our bound the expected value. Thus if we set the right-hand side equal to $\delta$, we obtain that the probability that \[eq:sc2\] holds is greater than or equal to $1 - \delta$ as desired. Solving for $s$ yields that we thus must have $s \geq \frac{ 2 d}{\beta \delta \epsilon }$.
Lastly, we require both \[eq:sc1\] and \[eq:sc2\] to hold with probability $1 - \delta$. If we use $\delta/2$ in the proofs of both conditions, we can union bound over the two results at a cost of a factor of 2 in the samples required. Furthermore, \[eq:sc1\] requires more samples than \[eq:sc2\] and thus requires $s=O(r \log (r/\delta)/(\beta \epsilon^2))$ to hold.
Acknowledgments {#sec:acknowledgments}
===============
This work was supported by the DOE Office of Science Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Applied Mathematics. B.W.L. was also supported by the Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program (DE-FG02-97ER25308).
[10]{}
, [*Unsupervised multiway data analysis: A literature survey*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21 (2009), pp. 6–20, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2008.112).
, [*Randomized algorithms for computation of [Tucker]{} decomposition and higher order [SVD]{} ([HOSVD]{})*]{}, 2020, [arXiv:2001.07124](http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07124).
, [*Subspace embeddings for the polynomial kernel*]{}, in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2014, pp. 2258–2266.
, [*Efficient [MATLAB]{} computations with sparse and factored tensors*]{}, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 30 (2007), pp. 205–231, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/060676489).
, [*[MATLAB Tensor Toolbox Version 3.1]{}*]{}. Available online, June 2019, <https://www.tensortoolbox.org>.
, [*A practical randomized [CP]{} tensor decomposition*]{}, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 39 (2018), pp. 876–901, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/17M1112303), [arXiv:1701.06600](http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06600).
, [*Generalizing the column–row matrix decomposition to multi-way arrays*]{}, Linear Algebra and its Applications, 433 (2010), pp. 557–573.
, [*Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an [N]{}-way generalization of “[Eckart-Young]{}” decomposition*]{}, Psychometrika, 35 (1970), pp. 283–319, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310791).
, [*[SPALS]{}: Fast alternating least squares via implicit leverage scores sampling*]{}, in NIPS’16, 2016, <https://papers.nips.cc/paper/6436-spals-fast-alternating-least-squares-via-implicit-leverage-scores-sampling.pdf>.
, [*Sketching for kronecker product regression and p-splines*]{}, in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2018, pp. 1299–1308.
, [*Tensor-based semantically-aware topic clustering of biomedical documents*]{}, Computation, 5 (2017), p. 34.
, [*Fast monte carlo algorithms for matrices i: Approximating matrix multiplication*]{}, SIAM Journal on Computing, 36 (2006), pp. 132–157.
, [ *Fast approximation of matrix coherence and statistical leverage*]{}, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13 (2012), pp. 3475–3506, <http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v13/drineas12a.html>.
, [*Lectures on randomized numerical linear algebra*]{}, 2017, [arXiv:1712.08880](http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.08880).
, [ *Faster least squares approximation*]{}, Numerische mathematik, 117 (2011), pp. 219–249.
, [*[LSAR]{}: Efficient leverage score sampling algorithm for the analysis of big time series data*]{}, 2019, [arXiv:1911.12321](http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12321).
, [*Fast low rank approximations of matrices and tensors*]{}, The Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra, 22 (2011).
, [*Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions*]{}, [SIAM]{} Rev., 53 (2011), pp. 217–288, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/090771806), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/090771806>.
, [*Foundations of the [PARAFAC]{} procedure: Models and conditions for an “explanatory" multi-modal factor analysis*]{}, UCLA working papers in phonetics, 16 (1970), pp. 1–84. Available at <http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/harshman/wpppfac0.pdf>.
, [*Lower memory oblivious (tensor) subspace embeddings with fewer random bits: Modewise methods for least squares*]{}, 2019, [arXiv:1912.08294 \[math.NA\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08294).
, [*Faster [Johnson-Lindenstrauss]{} transforms via [Kronecker]{} products*]{}, Sept. 2019, [arXiv:1909.04801 \[cs.IT\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04801). submitted for publication.
, [*Tensor decompositions and applications*]{}, SIAM Review, 51 (2009), pp. 455–500, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/07070111X).
, [*Stochastic gradients for large-scale tensor decomposition*]{}, June 2019, [arXiv:1906.01687 \[stat.ML\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.01687). submitted for publication.
, [*Randomized algorithms for matrices and data*]{}, [arXiv:1104.5557v3 \[cs.DS\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5557v3).
, [*Tensor-cur decompositions for tensor-based data*]{}, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 30 (2008), pp. 957–987.
, [*Low-rank tucker decomposition of large tensors using tensorsketch*]{}, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018, pp. 10096–10106.
, [*Fast randomized matrix and tensor interpolative decomposition using countsketch*]{}, 2019, [arXiv:1901.10559 \[cs.NA\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10559).
, [*Guarantees for the [Kronecker]{} fast [Johnson]{}–[Lindenstrauss]{} transform using a coherence and sampling argument*]{}, Linear Algebra and its Applications, 602 (2020), pp. 120–137, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2020.05.004).
, [*Multiaspectforensics: Pattern mining on large-scale heterogeneous networks with tensor analysis*]{}, in 2011 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, IEEE, 2011, pp. 203–210.
, [*Empirical discriminative tensor analysis for crime forecasting*]{}, in International Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management, Springer, 2011, pp. 293–304.
, [*Semantic social network analysis by cross-domain tensor factorization*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 4 (2017), pp. 207–217.
, [*Compressed matrix multiplication*]{}, ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (TOCT), 5 (2013), pp. 1–17.
, [*Provable deterministic leverage score sampling*]{}, in Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, ACM, 2014, pp. 997–1006.
, [*Location based social network analysis using tensors and signal processing tools*]{}, in 2015 IEEE 6th International Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), IEEE, 2015, pp. 93–96.
, [*Fast and scalable polynomial kernels via explicit feature maps*]{}, in Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 2013, pp. 239–247.
, [*Non-negative tensor factorization for human behavioral pattern mining in online games*]{}, Information, 9 (2018), p. 66.
, [*Tensor decomposition for signal processing and machine learning*]{}, 2016, [arXiv:1607.01668 \[stat.ML\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01668).
, [*[FROSTT]{}: The formidable repository of open sparse tensors and tools*]{}, 2017, <http://frostt.io/>.
, [*Relative error tensor low rank approximation*]{}, in Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA ’19, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pp. 2772–2789, <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3310435.3310607>.
, [*Low-rank [Tucker]{} approximation of a tensor from streaming data*]{}, 2019, [arXiv:1904.10951 \[cs.NA\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.10951).
, [*Fast and guaranteed tensor decomposition via sketching*]{}, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015, pp. 991–999.
, [*Sketching as a tool for numerical linear algebra*]{}, [FNT]{} in Theoretical Computer Science, 10 (2014), pp. 1–157, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0400000060), [arXiv:1411.4357](http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4357).
, [*Visual analytics of bike-sharing data based on tensor factorization*]{}, Journal of Visualization, 21 (2018), pp. 495–509.
, [*Parasketch: Parallel tensor factorization via sketching*]{}, in Proceedings of the 2018 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SIAM, 2018, pp. 396–404.
[^1]: Stanford University, Stanford, CA ()
[^2]: Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA ()
[^3]: Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA-0003525. This paper describes objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.
[^4]: For the general problem, we replace $n$ with $n_{\max}$ where $n_{\max} = \max \set{ n_k | k \in [d+1]}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Learning low dimensional representation is a crucial issue for many machine learning tasks such as pattern recognition and image retrieval. In this article, we present a quantum algorithm and a quantum circuit to efficiently perform A-Optimal Projection for dimensionality reduction. Compared with the best-know classical algorithms, the quantum A-Optimal Projection (QAOP) algorithm shows an exponential speedup in both the original feature space dimension $n$ and the reduced feature space dimension $k$. We show that the space and time complexity of the QAOP circuit are $O\left[ {{{\log }_2}\left( {nk} /{\epsilon} \right)} \right]$ and $O[ {\log_2(nk)} {poly}\left({{\log }_2}\epsilon^{-1} \right)]$ respectively, with fidelity at least $1-\epsilon$. Firstly, a reformation of the original QAOP algorithm is proposed to help omit the quantum-classical interactions during the QAOP algorithm. Then the quantum algorithm and quantum circuit with performance guarantees are proposed. Specifically, the quantum circuit modules for preparing the initial quantum state and implementing the controlled rotation can be also used for other quantum machine learning algorithms.'
author:
- Bojia Duan
- Jiabin Yuan
- Juan Xu
- Dan Li
bibliography:
- 'QAOP.bib'
title: 'Quantum algorithm and quantum circuit for A-Optimal Projection: dimensionality reduction'
---
Introduction {#sec1:level1}
============
Learning low dimensional image representations has gained significant importance in many image processing tasks such as recognition and retrieval [@CJL17; @WNH17; @SLH17]. A range of applications of this problem can be seen in the field of medical imaging such as liver cirrhosis, lung cancer classification and breast cancer diagnosis [@SLH17]. Another typical example is face recognition which is typically used in security systems or as a commercial identification and marketing tool [@JHJ18]. Recent studies have shown that images are possibly sampled from a low dimensional manifold, however, the visual features, such as color, texture and shape, which are usually extracted for the image representation, are usually of very high dimensionality [@HZZ16]. Therefore, a range of techniques have been developed for dimensionality reduction. For instance, principal component analysis (PCA) is guaranteed in terms of the linearly embedded manifold [@Bishop06]. Moreover, Isomap, Locally Linear Embedding, and Laplacian Eigenmap are proposed for nonlinear embedded manifold [@TSL00; @RS00; @BN01].
Different from all the aforementioned techniques which are not directly related to the regression task, X. He proposed a novel dimensionality reduction algorithm named A-Optimal Projection (AOP) which performs better regression performance in the reduced space [@HZZ16]. This approach can be performed under either unsupervised or supervised mode, which is a more widely used algorithm compared to the unsupervised algorithm PCA or the supervised algorithm linear discriminant analysis (LDA) [@Bishop06]. Moreover, different from most dimensionality reduction algorithms which are applied as pre-processing of the data, AOP can directly improve the performance of a regression model in the reduced space, therefore, the learned regression model can be as stable as possible.
Time complexity is a significant drawback in classical machine learning algorithms. A range of quantum algorithms have achieved exponentially speed up in machine learning compared with the classical ones [@AAD15; @Wittek14]. In particular, quantum algorithms for solving the problem of pattern classification and image classification problems were proposed, covering an important area of machine learning [@SSP16; @Duan17]. Recently, a quantum generative algorithm which is more capable of representing probability distributions was proposed, generating an intriguing link among quantum many-body physics, quantum computational complexity theory and the machine learning frontier [@GZD18]. The relationship between feature maps, kernel methods in machine learning and quantum computing was also investigated, and the idea of embedding data into a quantum Hilbert space opens up a promising avenue to quantum machine learning [@SK19]. Moreover, small quantum computers, larger special purpose quantum simulators, annealers, etc., exhibit promising applications in machine learning, and the perspectives on the work of these hardware have also been discussed [@BWP17]. Quantum machine learning has also been combined with the information security. It was designed to protect private data during performing quantum machine learning, which has potential applications in the big data era [@SZ17].
In the application field of quantum dimensionality reduction, the quantum algorithm for PCA has been proposed for unsupervised mode [@LMR14], and the quantum algorithm for LDA has been proposed for supervised mode and classification [@CD16]. In this paper, we focus on the new dimensionality reduction algorithm AOP which can be used both on unsupervised and supervised model, and propose a quantum algorithm for AOP, which achieves exponentially speedup compared with the classical polylogarithmic in both $n$, the original feature space dimension, and $k$, the reduced feature space dimension.
Our work has two major contributions. First, we present a quantum algorithm for solving the learning process of the AOP algorithm. A reformulation of the original classical AOP algorithm is introduced here which helps the QAOP algorithm be implemented more efficiently. The quantum algorithm is made of iterations, where each iteration mainly consists of phase estimation and a controlled rotation. The reformulated AOP and the partial trace technology can help omit the quantum-classical interactions during the quantum algorithm. Second, we design a detailed quantum circuit for the proposed QAOP algorithm which makes it possible to execute the QAOP algorithm on a universal quantum computer. The circuit for preparing the initial state is presented and the detailed circuit for the controlled rotation is designed. The space and time analysis of the quantum circuit also shows an exponential speedup in the size of the feature space than the classical counterparts.
This paper is arranged as follows: We give a brief overview of the classical AOP algorithm in Sec. \[sec2:level1\]. In Sec. \[sec3:level1\], the quantum algorithm for AOP algorithm which is used in dimension reduction is presented. In Sec. \[sec4:level1\], the overview and detailed quantum circuits for solving QAOP algorithm are designed. Finally we show the conclusions in Sec. \[sec5:level1\].
Review of classical A-Optimal Projection {#sec2:level1}
========================================
In this section, we briefly review the AOP model and learning algorithm.
The classical AOP dimensionality reduction aims to improve the regression performance in the reduced space which preserves similarities between the data pairs. The AOP dimensionality reduction algorithm returns the directions of projections, and with this result, the data can be projected onto a lower-dimensional subspace which can be directly used for regression problem.
Let ${\bf{X}} = \left( {{{\bf{x}}_1}, \cdots ,{{\bf{x}}_m}} \right)$ be a $n \times m$ data matrix, where $m$ is the number of data points and $n$ is the number of features. In the graph based dimensionality reduction, we are given a nearest neighbor graph $G$ which represents the geometrical structure of the data manifold. Each vertex of the graph represents a data point. Let ${\bf{S}} \in \mathbb R{^{m \times m}}$ be the weight matrix of the graph and $N_k\left({\bf{x}}\right)$ denote the $k$ nearest neighbors of ${\bf{x}}$. Then a simple example of ${\bf{S}}$ can be defined as follows: $${S_{ij}} = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1, \quad if \quad {{\bf{x}}_i} \in {N_k}\left( {{{\bf{x}}_j}} \right) \quad
or \quad{{\bf{x}}_j} \in {N_k}\left( {{{\bf{x}}_i}} \right)\\
0, \quad otherwise
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:z}$$
AOP aims to find a projection matrix ${\bf{A}} \in \mathbb R{^{n \times k}}$ that maps the the points ${{\bf{x}}_i}$ to ${{\bf{y}}_i} \in \mathbb R{^k} $ $(i = 1,...,m$, and $k \ll n )$, where ${{\bf{y}}_i} = {{\bf{A}}^T}{{\bf{x}}_i}$. And using ${{\bf{y}}_i}$ to train a linear regression model: $$z = {{\bf{\beta }}^T}{\bf{y}} + \epsilon_0
\label{eq:z}$$ where $z$ is the observation, ${\bf{\beta}}$ is the weight vector and $\epsilon_0$ is an unknown error with Gaussian distribution.
Formally, the objective function of AOP is: $$\mathop {\min }\limits_{\bf{A}}
Tr\left( {{{\left( {{{\bf{A}}^T}{\bf{X}}\left( {{\bf{I}}
+ {\lambda _1}{\bf{L}}} \right){{\bf{X}}^T}
{\bf{A}} + {\lambda _2}{\bf{I}}} \right)}^{ - 1}}} \right)
\label{eq:obj}$$ where $ {\lambda _1}$ and $ {\lambda _2}$ are the regularization coefficients which are very small, and ${\bf{L}} = diag\left( {{\bf{S1}}} \right) - {\bf{S}}$ is the graph Laplacian (${\bf{1}}$ is a vector of all ones).
To solve the objective function, Ref. [@HZZ16] introduces a variables [**[B]{}**]{} and the optimization problem (\[eq:obj\]) is equivalent to the following: $$\mathop {\min }\limits_{{\bf{A}},{\bf{B}}} {\left\| {{\bf{I}} - {{\bf{A}}^T}
\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}} \right\|^2} + {\lambda _2}
{\left\| {\bf{B}} \right\|^2}
\label{eq:obj1}$$ where $\widetilde {\bf{X}} = {\bf{X}}\Sigma $, and $\Sigma$ is from the cholesky decomposition: ${\bf{I}} + {\lambda _1}{\bf{L}} = \Sigma {\Sigma ^T}$.
It tells us that the optimal ${\bf{A}}$ can be obtained by iteratively computing ${\bf{A}}$ and ${\bf{B}}$. Then the overall procedure of the AOP learning algorithm is depicted as follows:
1\) Initialize the matrix ${\bf{A}}$ by computing the PCA of the data ${\bf{X}}$.
2\) Compute the matrix ${\bf{B}}$ according to the Eq. (\[eq:B\]):
$$\frac{{\partial \phi }}{{\partial {{\bf{B}}^T}}}
= 0 \Rightarrow {\bf{B}}
= {\left( {{{\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^T}{\bf{A}}{{\bf{A}}^T}\widetilde {\bf{X}}
+ {\lambda _2}{\bf{I}}} \right)^{ - 1}}{\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T}{\bf{A}}
\label{eq:B}$$
3\) Update the matrix ${\bf{A}}$ according to the Eq. (\[eq:A\]), and normalize ${\bf{A}}$ such that ${\left\| {\bf{A}} \right\|_F} \le {\rho_0} $.
$$\frac{{\partial \phi }}{{\partial {\bf{A}}}}
= 0 \Rightarrow {\bf{A}}
= {\left( {\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}{{\bf{B}}^T}
{{\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^T}} \right)^{ - 1}}\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}
\label{eq:A}$$
where $\rho_0$ is used as a constraint parameter to control the size of ${\bf{A}}$.
4\) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until convergence.
Quantum A-Optimal Projection {#sec3:level1}
============================
In this section, we propose the quantum AOP algorithm for dimensionality reduction. We firstly reformulated the original classical AOP algorithm. And with the help of the reformulation, the proposed quantum AOP algorithm can then be implemented more efficiently.
Reformulation of the AOP algorithm {#sec3.1:level2}
----------------------------------
We reformulated the algorithm in Sec. \[sec2:level1\] in terms of quantum mechanics. Firstly, we adjust the initialization of ${\bf{A}}$ to make it closer to the optimal solution than the original algorithm. Secondly, we combine the steps 2 and 3 into one step and remove the variable [**[B]{}**]{}. The advantage of eliminating [**[B]{}**]{} is to help avoid quantum-classical transformation during the iteration of the algorithm. Specifically, in one iteration of the original algorithm, a quantum state is needed to be computed and sampled as to reconstruct the matrix [**[B]{}**]{}, and then used to update [**[A]{}**]{}. In our methods, the elimination of the matrix [**[B]{}**]{} can help update the quantum state representing [**[A]{}**]{} without sampling and reconstruction in one of the iterations. Finally, by introducing the partial trace technology, quantum-classical interaction can also be omitted between the iterations.
\(1) Initialization of ${\bf{A}}$. The original AOP algorithm compute PCA of the data ${\bf{X}}$ to initialize the matrix ${\bf{A}}$. In contrast, we compute PCA of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$ to obtain the initialization ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$. As shown in Eq. (\[eq:obj\]), when $ {\lambda _1}$ and $ {\lambda _2}$ are set to zero, the objection function (\[eq:obj\]) is equivalent to the objection function of PCA referring to the data ${\bf{X}}$. And when $ {\lambda _2}$ is zero, the objection function (\[eq:obj\]) is equivalent to the objection function of PCA referring to the data ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$. It is obvious that the later one is closer to the optimal solution than the former one.
\(2) Reformulation of the AOP algorithm. Now turning to the steps 2 and 3 of the AOP algorithm in one of the iterations. Suppose the singular value decomposition of the matrix ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$ is ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}=\sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^r {{\sigma _j}\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} $, where $r \le \min \left( {m,n} \right)$ is the rank of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$, and ${\sigma _k} \left( {{\sigma _1} > \cdots > {\sigma _r} > 0} \right)$ are the singular values of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$, with ${{\bf{u}}_j}$ and ${{\bf{v}}_j}$ being the left and right singular vectors. Obviously, we have ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T} = \sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^r {{\sigma _j}\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right|} $ and $\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T} = \sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^r {\sigma _j^2\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right|} $.
As ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$ is the PCA of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$, we have
$${{\bf{A}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
= pca\left( {\widetilde {\bf{X}}} \right)
= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|} ,
\label{eq:A0}$$
where $k$ is the rank of ${\bf{A}}$, and $\left|{\bf{j}}\right\rangle$’s are the basis states. Now we have the theorem 1 (and the proof is shown in Appendix \[A1\].).
**Theorem 1**: *Given the matrix ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}=\sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^r {{\sigma _j}\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} $, the $i$-th iteration of the AOP algorithm outputs the matrix ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}}$: $${{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}}
=\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k { {\beta _j^{\left( i \right)}} \left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|}
= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {
\frac{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|}
\label{eq:Anew}$$ where $1 \le i \le s$ and ${\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}}=1$ for all $j$’s.*
According to the theorem 1, the reformulated AOP algorithm is presented as follows:
1\) Initialize the matrix ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$ by computing the PCA of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$ according to Eq. (\[eq:A0\]).
2\) Update the matrix ${\bf{A}}$ according to Eq. (\[eq:Anew\]).
3\) Repeat step 2 until convergence.
The modeling of the AOP algorithm is shown in Fig. \[fig1\].
![Reformulation of the AOP algorithm.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
QAOP algorithm {#sec3.2:level2}
---------------
The overall procedure of our QAOP algorithm is then proposed as follows.
*Algorithm.* $\textbf{A}^{(s)} = QAOP \left({\widetilde {\bf{X}}}, {\lambda _2}\right)$.
1\. Initialize $i=1$ , apply quantum PCA algorithm of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$ to compute $\textbf{A}^{(0)}$ [@LMR14].
2\. Perform one iteration $Q$ of the QAOP algorithm to compute $\textbf{A}^{(i)}$, i.e. $\textbf{A}^{(i)} = Q \left( {\widetilde {\bf{X}}}, \textbf{A}^{(i-1)} \right)$.
3\. Set $i=i+1$, and repeat step 2 until the number of iterations $i = s$; now the projection matrix $\textbf{A}^{(s)}$ can be obtained.
The quantum algorithm for $i$-th iteration $Q$ of the QAOP algorithm in Step 2 is presented as follows.
\(1) Prepare four quantum registers in the state $$\begin{aligned}
\left| {{\psi _0 }} \right\rangle = \left| 0 \right\rangle^a
\left( {\left| 0 \right\rangle \left| 0 \right\rangle \cdots \left| 0 \right\rangle } \right)^{C}
\left( {\left| 0 \right\rangle \left| 0 \right\rangle \cdots \left| 0 \right\rangle } \right)^{B}
\left( {\left| {{\psi _{\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}}}} \right\rangle } \right)^A.
\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $a$ represents the ancilla qubit, the superscripts ${C}, {B}, A$ represent the register ${C}, {B}$ and $A$, respectively.
\(2) Perform the unitary operation ${{\bf{U}}_{PE}}\left( {\widetilde {\bf{X}}} {\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^\dag \right)$ and ${{\bf{U}}_{PE}}\left( {\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}}^\dag \right)$ on the state, then we have the state $$\begin{aligned}
\left| {{\psi _1}} \right\rangle
= \frac{1}{{\sqrt {{N_1}} }}{\left| 0 \right\rangle ^a}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k
{\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}{{\left| {\sigma _j^2} \right\rangle }^{C}}
{{\left| {{{\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}} \right\rangle }^{B}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle {{\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle }^A}} .
\end{aligned}$$ Here ${{\bf{U}}_{PE}}$ represents the unitary matrix for phase estimation which we fully characterized in [@Duan17]:
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\bf{U}}_{PE}}\left( {\bf{X}} \right) = \left( {{\bf{F}}_{{\bf{T}}}^\dag \otimes {{\bf{I}}}} \right)\left( {\sum\nolimits_{\tau = 0}^{T - 1} {\left| \tau \right\rangle {{\left\langle \tau \right|}} \otimes {e^{i{\bf{X}}\tau {{{t_0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{t_0}} T}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} T}}}} } \right)\left( {{{\bf{H}}^{ \otimes t}} \otimes {{\bf{I}}}} \right),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:U_PE}$$
where ${\bf{F}}_{{\bf{T}}}^\dag$ is the inverse quantum Fourier transform and ${\sum\nolimits_{\tau = 0}^{T - 1} {\left| \tau \right\rangle {{\left\langle \tau \right|}^C} \otimes {e^{i{\bf{A}}\tau {{{t_0}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{t_0}} T}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} T}}}} }$ is the conditional Hamiltonian evolution [@HHL09].
\(3) Apply a controlled rotation ${\bf{R}}_{f}$ to the ancilla qubit, controlled by both the register ${C}$ and ${B}$. ${\bf{R}}_{f}$ is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{R_f}: &{\left| 0 \right\rangle ^a}{\left| {\sigma _j^2} \right\rangle ^{C}}
{\left| {{{\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}} \right\rangle ^{B}}\\
& \to {\left[ {\rho \left( {1 + \frac{{{\lambda _2}}}
{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}}\right)}^2}}}} \right)\left| 1 \right\rangle
+ \sqrt {1 - {\rho ^2}{{\left( {1 + \frac{{{\lambda _2}}}
{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}}}} \right)}^2}} \left| 0 \right\rangle } \right]^a}
{\left| {\sigma _j^2} \right\rangle ^{C}}{\left| {{{\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}} \right\rangle ^{B}},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Rf}$$ where $\rho<1$ is a parameter used for normalization of the quantum state.
This rotation transforms the state to $$\begin{aligned}
\left| {{\psi _2}} \right\rangle
= & \frac{1}{{\sqrt {{N_1}} }} {{\left[ {\rho \left( {1 + \frac{{{\lambda _2}}}
{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}}}} \right)\left| 1 \right\rangle
+ \sqrt {1 - {\rho ^2}{{\left( {1 + \frac{{{\lambda _2}}}
{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}}}} \right)}^2}}
\left| 0 \right\rangle } \right]}^a} \\
& \otimes \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}
{{\left| {\sigma _j^2} \right\rangle }^{C}}
{{\left| {{{\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}} \right\rangle }^{B}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle {{\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle }^A}} .
\end{aligned}$$
\(4) Uncompute the registers $C$, $B$ and $A$, remove the register $C$ and $B$, and measure the ancilla qubit to be $\left| 1 \right\rangle$. Then, we have the state proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
\left| {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
= \frac{1}{{\sqrt {{N_2}} }}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k
{\frac{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}
+ {\lambda _2}}}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle {{\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle }^A}} .
\end{aligned}$$
Here, we can construct the matrix ${\textbf{A}^{(i)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i)}}^\dag$ for the phase estimation in the next iteration by taking a partial trace of $\left| {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}} \right|$. Note that the eigenvectors of ${\textbf{A}^{(i)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i)}}^\dag$ are ${{\bf{u}}_j}$ and the corresponding eigenvalues are ${\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i} \right)}} \right)}^2$. Then the density matrix that represents ${\textbf{A}^{(i)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i)}}^\dag$ can be obtained [@SSP16] :
$$\begin{aligned}
t{r_2}\left( \left| {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}} \right| \right)
= \frac{1}{\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^r {{\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i} \right)}} \right)}^2}}
\sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^r {{\left( {\beta _j^{\left( {i} \right)}} \right)}^2 \left| {{{\bf{u}}_k}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {{{\bf{u}}_k}} \right|
= \frac{{\textbf{A}^{(i)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i)}}^\dag}
{tr \left( {{\textbf{A}^{(i)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i)}}^\dag} \right) }}.
\end{aligned}$$
QAOP circuit {#sec4:level1}
============
In this section, we study the QAOP algorithm in terms of the quantum circuit model. The quantum circuits provide the possibility to implement the quantum algorithm on a universal quantum computer. First, we present the overview model of the QAOP circuit. Second, we study in depth the realization of the initial state preparation and the controlled rotation in terms of the quantum circuit model. Finally, the space and time resources required for the quantum circuit are analyzed.
The overview of the circuit for solving QAOP is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. It provides one model to implement the QAOP algorithm. Take the $i$-th iteration of the QAOP algorithm for example. It can be divided into three major steps: (1) Phase estimation: as the eigenspace of the unitary ${e^{ - i\widetilde {\bf{X}}{{\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^T}{t_0}}}$ and ${e^{ - i{{\bf{A}}^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}}{{\left( {{{\bf{A}}^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}}} \right)}^T}{t_0}}}$ are both spanned by the eigenvectors ${\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle }$, they can be both implemented on the input state ${\left| {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right\rangle }$. And the Hadamard gates and the inverse QFT of ${{\bf{U}}_{PE}}\left( {\widetilde {\bf{X}}} {\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^\dag \right)$ and ${{\bf{U}}_{PE}}\left( {\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}}^\dag \right)$ can be implemented in parallel. (2) Controlled rotation: it consists of ${U_{\beta ,\sigma }}$ and $c-R_y$. Firstly the operation ${U_{\beta ,\sigma }}$ computes the function ${y_j}$ of the output eigenvalues of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}} {\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^\dag $ and ${\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i-1)}}^\dag $ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
{y_j} = 1 + \frac{{{\lambda _2}}}{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2}}} .
\end{aligned}$$
And then the operation $c-R_y$ extracts the value of $y_j$ in the basic states of the register $L$ to the amplitude of the ancilla qubit. (3) Uncomputing: undo the Reg. $B,C$ and $L$, and measure the top ancilla qubit. If the result returns to 1, then the Reg. $A$ of the quantum system collapses to the output state ${\left| {\psi _{\bf{A}}^{\left( {i} \right)}} \right\rangle }$, which is also the input state of the $\left(i+1 \right)$-th iteration.
![Overview of the quantum circuit for solving the reformulated AOP. Wires with ’/’ represent the groups of qubits. The label Q in the dotted box represents one iteration of QAOP algorithm. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
We now deal with the detailed QAOP circuit. In the following, we mainly investigate the quantum circuits for the initial state preparation and the controlled rotation in one iteration of the QAOP circuit.
State preparation {#sec4.1:level2}
-----------------
At the very beginning, we present a detailed quantum circuit for preparing the initial state of the QAOP algorithm. Suppose each element of ${\textbf{A}^{(0)}} \in \mathbb R{^{n \times k}}$ is given, and its corresponding quantum state ${\left| {{\psi _{\textbf{A}^{(0)}}}} \right\rangle } = \left| {{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{q}}} \right\rangle$ is a $q$-qubit quantum state, where $q=O\left [ \log_2 \left ( nk \right )\right ]$. Following the approach in [@KM02], the quantum circuit for the initial state preparation can be shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. Here, we introduce quantum random access memory (QRAM) to omit the register $\left| {\bar \psi } \right\rangle $ in [@KM02].
![The circuit for state preparation. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.png){width="1\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig3\], an register of $p=O\left (\log_2 \epsilon ^{-1}\right )$ qubits is used for storing the ${\omega ^{\left( i \right)}}$, where ${\omega ^{\left( i \right)}}$ is short for $\omega _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}} \left(i=1,2,3,...,q \right)$ satisfying: $${\cos ^2}\left( {2\pi \omega _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}} \right)
= {\left( {\frac{{{\alpha _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}0}}}}
{{{\alpha _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}}}} \right)^2} +
O\left( {poly\left( \epsilon \right)} \right).$$ All the $\omega _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}$ can be computed classically and they are supposed to be stored in the QRAM. Given the index ${{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}$, define $j=h\left({{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}\right)$ being the address where the data ${\omega _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}$ stores, where $h\left( \cdot \right)$ is a hash function mapping ${{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}$ to $j$. Then define the unitary operation $U_i$ which implements the QRAM readout operation [@GLM08a]:
$$\begin{aligned}
{U_i}: &\sum\limits_{{a_1},{a_2}, \cdots ,{a_{i - 1}} \in \{{0,1}\} }
{{\alpha _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}
\left| {{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}} \right\rangle } \left| j \right\rangle
\left| 0 \right\rangle\\
\overset{QRAM}{\rightarrow}
&\sum\limits_{{a_1},{a_2}, \cdots ,{a_{i - 1}} \in \{{0,1}\}}
{{\alpha _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}\left| {{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}} \right\rangle
\left| j \right\rangle
\left| {{\omega _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}} \right\rangle } .
\end{aligned}$$
specifically, $U_i$ outputs the content ${\omega _{{a_1}{a_2} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}$ of the $j$-th memory cell in QRAM. Ref. [@HXZ12] shows that this procedure can be implemented in time $O\left(p \right)$.
And the number of ${U_i}$ in the circuit for state preparation is $q$, so the total memory calls of QRAM is $O\left(pq\right)$. Therefore, an inverse in $pq$ error rate suffices to achieve an overall constant error per QRAM look-up [@AGJ15].
Moreover, we make further study on $c - {S_{\omega^{\left( i \right)}}}$ which is defined in Ref. [@KM02]: $$\begin{aligned}
c - {S_{\omega^{\left( i \right)}}}:\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle
\left| 0 \right\rangle \to \left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle
{e^{2\pi i\omega ^{\left( i \right)}}}\left| 0 \right\rangle ,
\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle \left| 1 \right\rangle
\to \left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle
{e^{ - 2\pi i\omega^{\left( i \right)} }}\left| 1 \right\rangle .
\end{aligned}$$ Define ${R_l} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{e^{{{2\pi i} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\pi i} {{2^l}}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{2^l}}}}}}&0\\
0&{{e^{{{ - 2\pi i} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{ - 2\pi i} {{2^l}}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{2^l}}}}}}
\end{array}} \right)$, then the controlled unitary $c-R_l$ implements the following transformation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| {\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| 0 \right\rangle
&\to {e^{2\pi i{{\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}}
\mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} {{2^l}}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{2^l}}}}}\left| {\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| 0 \right\rangle \\
\left| {\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| 1 \right\rangle
&\to {e^{ - 2\pi i{{\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} {{2^l}}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{2^l}}}}}
\left| {\omega _l^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle \left| 1 \right\rangle
\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega_l^{\left( i \right)}$ is the $l$-th binary bit of $\omega^{\left( i \right)}$, specifically, ${\omega ^{\left( i \right)}} = {2^{ - 1}}\omega _1^{\left( i \right)} + {2^{ - 2}}\omega _2^{\left( i \right)} + \cdots + {2^{ - p}}\omega _p^{\left( i \right)} = 0.\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}\omega _2^{\left( i \right)} \cdots \omega _p^{\left( i \right)}$. Now $\prod\limits_{l = 1}^p {\left( {c - {R_l}} \right)} $ achieves the function of $c - {S_{\omega^{\left( i \right)}}}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| {\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| {\omega _2^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\cdots \left| {\omega _p^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| 0 \right\rangle
&\to {e^{i2\pi
\left( {0.\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}
\omega _2^{\left( i \right)} \cdots \omega _p^{\left( i \right)}} \right)}}
\left| {\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| {\omega _2^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\cdots \left| {\omega _p^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle \left| 0 \right\rangle \\
\left| {\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| {\omega _2^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\cdots \left| {\omega _p^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| 1 \right\rangle
&\to {e^{ - i2\pi
\left( {0.\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}\omega _2^{\left( i \right)}
\cdots \omega _p^{\left( i \right)}} \right)}}
\left| {\omega _1^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| {\omega _2^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\cdots \left| {\omega _p^{\left( i \right)}} \right\rangle
\left| 1 \right\rangle
\label{eq_cRk}
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the quantum circuit for $c - {S_{\omega^{\left( i \right)}}}$ can be implemented as shown in Fig. \[fig4\].
![The circuit for $c - {S_{\omega^{\left( i \right)}}}$, where $\left| {{a_i}} \right\rangle
= \frac{{{\alpha _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}0}}}}{{{\alpha _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}}}\left| 0 \right\rangle
+ \frac{{{\alpha _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}1}}}}{{{\alpha _{{a_1} \cdots {a_{i - 1}}}}}}\left| 1 \right\rangle $. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Now we can simply infer that the number of qubits needed for preparing the initial quantum state ${\left| {{\psi _{\textbf{A}^{(0)}}}} \right\rangle }$ is $O\left(p+q \right)$, and the number of gates required is $O\left ( pq \right )$.
In summary, with $V = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}1&0\\ 0&{ - \iota}\end{array}} \right)$, the unitary $\left( {I \otimes V} \right)\left( {I \otimes H} \right)\left( {c - {S_\omega}} \right)\left( {I \otimes H} \right)$ implements the transformation: $$\begin{aligned}
&\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle \left| 0 \right\rangle \\
\overset{I \otimes H}{\rightarrow}
&\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle
\frac{{\left| 0 \right\rangle + \left| 1 \right\rangle }}{{\sqrt 2 }}\\
\overset{c - {S_\omega}}{\rightarrow}
&\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)}\right\rangle \frac{{{e^{2\pi \iota \omega^{\left( i \right)} }}
\left| 0 \right\rangle + {e^{ - 2\pi \iota \omega ^{\left( i \right)}}}
\left| 1 \right\rangle }}{{\sqrt 2 }}\\
\overset{I \otimes H}{\rightarrow}
&\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle \left[ {\cos \left( {2\pi \omega^{\left( i \right)} } \right)
\left| 0 \right\rangle + \iota \sin
\left( {2\pi \omega ^{\left( i \right)}} \right)\left| 1 \right\rangle } \right]\\
\overset{I \otimes V}{\rightarrow}
&\left| \omega ^{\left( i \right)} \right\rangle \left[ {\cos \left( {2\pi \omega ^{\left( i \right)}} \right)
\left| 0 \right\rangle + \sin \left( {2\pi \omega ^{\left( i \right)}} \right)\left| 1 \right\rangle } \right] \\
=&\left| {{\omega ^{\left( i \right)}}} \right\rangle \left| {{a_i}} \right\rangle
\end{aligned}$$
The controlled rotation {#sec4.2:level2}
-----------------------
The controlled rotation mainly involves the computation of $U_{\beta,\sigma}$ and $c-R_y$. In the stage of $U_{\beta,\sigma}$, Newton’s method is introduced for computing $y_j=y\left( {\sigma _j^2,\beta _j^2} \right) = \frac{\rho \left({\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2 + {\lambda _2}} \right)}{{ \sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}} = \rho + \frac{{\rho {\lambda _2}}}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}}$, where $\rho<1$ is used for normalization of the quantum state. The value of $y_j$ are computed out and stored in the basis state of the register $L$, and the number of qubits for storing $y_j$ is $d = O\left( {{{\log }_2}\kappa } \right)$. In the stage of $c-R_y$, $y_j$ is used as controlled qubit controlling the top ancilla qubit in Fig. \[fig2\].
\(1) For $U_{\beta,\sigma}$, let ${z_j} = z\left( {\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2} \right) = {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {\left( {\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2} \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2} \right)}}$, then we have ${y_j} = \rho + \rho {\lambda _2} z_j^{\left( {s'} \right)}$. Here we use Newton iteration to approximate ${1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {\left( {\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2} \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2} \right)}}$, for ${\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}>1$. The quantum circuit for computing the initial approximation ${z_j^{\left( 0 \right)}}$ can be seen in [@CPP12]. Applying the Newton method to $f\left( {{z_j}} \right) = {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 {{z_j}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{z_j}}} - \sigma _j^2\beta _j^2$, we can get the Newton iteration function: $z_j^{\left( {i + 1} \right)} = g\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)}} \right) = z_j^{\left( i \right)} - \frac{{f\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)}} \right)}}{{f'\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)}} \right)}} = - \sigma _j^2\beta _j^2{\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)}} \right)^2} + 2z_j^{\left( i \right)}$. Then the detailed circuit for one iteration of Newton’s method is presented in Fig. \[fig5\]. The number of qubits needed in the ancilla registers is $O(d)$. The number of fundamental quantum operations for implementing addition and multiplication is $O\left[poly \left(d \right) \right]$, where the degree of the polynomial is no more than $3$ [@VBE96; @PRM17], and the number of gates for implementing shift is $O(d)$.
![The circuit for $z_j^{\left( {i + 1} \right)} = - \sigma _j^2\beta _j^2{\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)}} \right)^2} + 2z_j^{\left( i \right)}$. []{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The quantum circuit for ${y_j} = \rho + \rho {\lambda _2} z_j^{\left( {s'} \right)}$ can be simply realized as shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. The circuit can be simply realized with the quantum circuits for addition and multiplication. Therefore, the number of qubits and gates needed in the circuit are $O(d)$ and $O\left[ poly \left(d \right) \right]$, respectively.
![The circuit for ${y_j} $. []{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
To sum up, the overall quantum circuit for $U_{\beta,\sigma}$ can be designed as shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. And we can simply infer that the number of qubits needed in these circuits is $O(d+b)$. Let the number of Newton iteration be $s'$, then the number of gates required in Fig. \[fig7\] is $O\left[s'poly \left(d \right) \right] $.
Now we analyze the error caused by Newton’s iteration. Similar to the error analysis in [@Duan18; @CPP12], the error consists of two parts. One is error $e_{s'}$ caused by the Newton’s iteration, the other is the roundoff error ${{\hat e}_{s'}}$ caused by truncating the result of one iteration to $d$ qubits of accuracy.
According to the Newton iteration function, we have $g\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)}} \right) -\frac{1}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}}
= - \sigma _j^2\beta _j^2{\left( {z_j^{\left( i \right)} - \frac{1}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}}} \right)^2}$. Then the error $e_{s'}$ satisfies ${e_{s'}}:= \left| {z_j^{\left( {s'} \right)} - \frac{1}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}}} \right| = \sigma _j^2\beta _j^2 e_{{s'} - 1}^2
= \frac{1}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}}{\left( {\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2{e_0}} \right)^{{2^{s'}}}}$. Following the approach in [@CPP12], the initial error ${e_0}$ satisfies ${\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2} {e_0} < 1/2$, then for error ${\varepsilon _N}$ we have ${2^{ - {2^{s'}}}} \le {\varepsilon _N}$, which implies ${s'} \ge \left\lceil {{{\log }_2}{{\log }_2}\varepsilon _N^{ - 1}} \right\rceil$, where ${\varepsilon _N}$ denotes the desired error of Newton iteration without considering the truncation error. We can also follow the result in [@CPP12] that the truncation error ${{\hat e}_{s'}}$ satisfies ${{\hat e}_{s'}}: = \left| {{{\hat z}^{\left( {s'} \right)}} - {z^{\left( {s'} \right)}}} \right| \le {s'}2^{-d}$.
In short, with the number of the iteration steps being ${s'} = O\left( {{{\log }_2}d} \right)$, the error caused by the unitary ${\bf{U}}_{\sigma,\tau}$ is $\left| {z_j^{\left( {s'} \right)} - \frac{1}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^2}}} \right| \le {\varepsilon _N} + {s'}2^{-d}$, where ${\varepsilon _N} \ge{2^{ - {2^{s'}}}}$.
![The circuit for the unitary $U_{\beta,\sigma}$. []{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.png){width="1\linewidth"}
\(2) For $c-R_y$, in order to make the output quantum state accurate, the rotation angle $\theta$ of $R_y$ satisfies $\theta= arc\sin\left ( y \right )$. Since $arcsin$ has a convergent Taylor series, we can approximate
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta = arcsin\left ( y \right ) \approx y+\frac{1}{6}y^{3} +\frac{3}{40}y^{5} +\frac{5}{112}y^{7} + \cdots .
\end{aligned}$$
Then the quantum circuit for computing the rotation angle of ${c-R_y}$ can be implemented as shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. This circuit also only consists of the operations for addition and multiplication, therefore the number of qubits and gates required are $O(d)$ and $O\left[poly \left(d \right) \right]$ respectively.
![The circuit for computing the rotation angle of ${c-R_y} $. []{data-label="fig8"}](fig8.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The quantum circuit for $c-R_y$ is shown in Fig. \[fig9\], where $\theta_1, \cdots, \theta_d$ are the binary bits of the output $\theta$ in Fig. \[fig8\]. Obviously, the space and time complexity are both $O(d)$.
![The circuit for ${c-R_y} $. []{data-label="fig9"}](fig9.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Complexity {#sec4.4:level2}
----------
We firstly analyze the space and time resources used in phase estimation. Let the efficient condition number of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}} {\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^\dag $ be $\kappa$. As ${\textbf{A}^{(0)}}$ is induced by PCA of ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}}$, the condition number of ${\textbf{A}^{(0)}} {\textbf{A}^{(0)}}^\dag$ is not greater than $\kappa$, and so as the ${\textbf{A}^{(i)}} {\textbf{A}^{(i)}}^\dag$ for $i = 1, \cdots, s-1$. Therefore, ${\sigma _j}^2 \in \left[ {1/\kappa ,1} \right]$ and ${\beta _j}^2 \in \left[ {1/\kappa ,1} \right]$, and the numbers of qubits to store $\sigma _j^2$ in Reg. $B$ and $\beta _j^2$ in Reg. $C$ are both $b = O\left( {{{\log }_2}\kappa } \right)$. Moreover, we can learn from [@NC10] that $O\left( {{b^2}} \right)$ operations and two calls to the controlled-unitary black boxes are needed in the stage of phase estimation.
We now analyze the space and time complexity of the whole QAOP circuit. In one iteration $Q$ of the QAOP circuit, the number of qubits required for preparing the initial quantum state ${\left| {{\psi _{\textbf{A}^{(0)}}}} \right\rangle }$ is $O\left(p+q \right)=O\left [ \log_2 \left ( nk/ \epsilon \right )\right ]$. And phase estimation requires $O\left( {{{\log }_2}\kappa } \right)$ qubits, where the condition number $\kappa$ is usually taken as $\kappa = O\left( {1/\epsilon } \right)$. Therefore, the space complexity of phase estimation is $O\left( \log_2\epsilon^{-1} \right ) $. Taking the ancilla qubits in the controlled rotation into account, the number of qubits in this stage is $O(d+b)=O\left( {{{\log }_2}\kappa } \right)=O\left( \log_2\epsilon^{-1} \right )$. The number of qubits will not increase with the number of iterations of QAOP. To sum up, the total number of qubits required in the quantum circuit is $O\left [ \log_2 \left ( nk/ \epsilon \right )\right ]$.
Now turning to the time consumption. In one iteration $Q$, the number of gates for the initial state preparing stage is $O\left ( pq \right )=O\left [\log_2(nk)\log_2\epsilon^{-1} \right ] $. And phase estimation requires $ O\left( b^2 \right)= O\left[ \left( {{{\log }_2}\kappa } \right)^2 \right] = O\left[ \left( {{{\log }_2}\epsilon^{-1} } \right)^2 \right]$ operations and two calls to the controlled-unitary black boxes. The number of quantum gates in the controlled rotation is $O\left[s'poly \left(d \right) \right] = O\left[ s'{{poly}}\left({{\log }_2}\kappa \right)\right] = O\left[ s'{{poly}}\left({{\log }_2}\epsilon^{-1} \right)\right]$. The number of iteration $Q$ is $s$, therefore the total time complexity of the QAOP circuit is $O[ ss' {\log_2(nk)} {{poly}}\left({{\log }_2}\epsilon^{-1} \right)]$.
In summary, $O\left[ {{{\log }_2}\left( {nk} /{\epsilon} \right)} \right]$ space and $O[ {\log_2(nk)} {{poly}}\left({{\log }_2}\epsilon^{-1} \right)]$ elementary operations allow us to implement the QAOP circuit with fidelity at least $1-\epsilon$, when the number of iterations of the QAOP algorithm $s$ and the number of Newton’s iteration $s'$ are both small constant numbers.
Conclusions {#sec5:level1}
===========
We have shown that the proposed quantum algorithm QAOP can be used to speed up the learning process of an important dimensionality reduction algorithm in pattern recognition and machine learning. We firstly reformulated the original AOP algorithm, therefore the quantum-classical interactions during the quantum algorithm can be omitted. We then proposed the QAOP algorithm and investigated the quantum circuits for solving the QAOP algorithm. The detailed quantum circuits for preparing the input quantum state and the circuits for solving the controlled rotation are presented. The space and time complexity of the quantum circuit show that the number of the qubits and gates required are $O\left[ {{{\log }_2}\left( {nk} /{\epsilon} \right)} \right]$ and $O[{\log_2(nk)} {{poly}}\left({{\log }_2}\epsilon^{-1} \right)]$, respectively. The result shows that the QAOP algorithm and QAOP circuit for dimensionality reduction may motivate to conduct new investigations in quantum machine learning.
This work was supported by the Funding of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 61571226 and No. 61701229), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. BK20170802), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded Project (Grants No. 2018M630557 and No. 2018T110499), Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds (Grant No. 1701139B), and the Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics PhD short-term visiting scholar project. The authors also acknowledge Michele Mosca for inspiring discussions.
Proof of theorem 1 {#A1}
==================
**Proof:** According to Eq. (\[eq:A0\]), we have the initialization of ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( 0 \right)}} =\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k { {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|} $, where ${\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}}=1$ for all $j$’s. Obviously, $\left\langle {{{{\bf{u}}_j}}} {\left | {\vphantom {{{{\bf{u}}_j}} {{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}} \right\rangle = 0$ when $j \ne j'$ and $\left\langle {{{{\bf{u}}_j}}} {\left | {\vphantom {{{{\bf{u}}_j}} {{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}} \right\rangle = 1$ when $j = j'$. In the following, we simplify ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( 0 \right)}}$ as ${\bf{A}}$. Therefore, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T}{\bf{A}}
& = \left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^r {{\sigma _j}\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}}
\right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right|} } \right)
\left( {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
{\left| {{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \right) \\
& = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {{\sigma _j}{\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{{\bf{u}}_j}}}
{\left | {\vphantom {{{{\bf{u}}_j}} {{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}}}
\right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
{{{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} }
= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {{\sigma _j}
{\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:XA}$$
and ${\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T}{\bf{A}}{{\bf{A}}^T}\widetilde {\bf{X}} = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {
{\left( \sigma _j{\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} $. According to the Eq. (\[eq:B\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{B}} &
= {\left( {{{\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^T}{\bf{A}}{{\bf{A}}^T}\widetilde {\bf{X}}
+ {\lambda _2}{\bf{I}}} \right)^{ - 1}}{\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T}{\bf{A}} \\
& = {\left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k
{{\left( \sigma _j{\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} \left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} + {\lambda _2}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^r
{\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} } \right)^{ - 1}}
\left( {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {{\sigma _{j'}} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_{j'}}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \right)\\
& = {\left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {\left(
{{\left( \sigma _j{\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2}+ {\lambda _2}} \right)
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} } \right)^{ - 1}}
\left( {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {{\sigma _{j'}} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_{j'}}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \right)\\
& = \left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {{{\left(
{{\left( \sigma _j{\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}} \right)}^{ - 1}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} } \right)
\left( {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {{\sigma _{j'}} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_{j'}}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \right)\\
& = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {\sum\limits_{j'= 1}^k
{{{\left( {{\left( \sigma _j{\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}} \right)}^{ - 1}}
{\sigma _{j'}} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{{\bf{v}}_j}}}
{\left | {\vphantom {{{{\bf{v}}_j}} {{{\bf{v}}_{j'}}}}}
\right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
{{{{\bf{v}}_{j'}}}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \\
& = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k
{\frac{{{\sigma _j {\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
{{{\left( \sigma _j {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:B1}$$
Similarly, we have $$\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}
= \left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {{\sigma _j}\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {{{\bf{v}}_j}} \right|} } \right)
\left( \sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k
{\frac{{{\sigma _{j'} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
{{{\left( \sigma _{j'} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
\left| {{{\bf{v}}_{j'}}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} \right)
= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k
{\frac{{{\sigma _j^2 {\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
{{{\left( \sigma _j {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|}
\label{eq:XB}$$ and $\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}{{\bf{B}}^T}{\widetilde {\bf{X}}^T}
= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {
{\left (\frac{{{\sigma _j^2 {\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
{{{\left( \sigma _j {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}} \right)^2}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right|} $.
According to the Eq. (\[eq:A\]), we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\bf{A}}^{\left( 1 \right)}}
&= {\left( {\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}{{\bf{B}}^T}
{{\widetilde {\bf{X}}}^T}} \right)^{ - 1}}\widetilde {\bf{X}}{\bf{B}}\\
& = \left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {
{\left (\frac {{{\left( \sigma _j {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
{{{\sigma _j^2 {\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
\right)^2}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right|} } \right)
\left( {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {
\frac{{{\sigma _{j'}^2 {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
{{{\left( \sigma _{j'} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}} \right\rangle
\left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \right)\\
& = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {\sum\limits_{j' = 1}^k {
{\left (\frac {{{\left( \sigma _j {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
{{{\sigma _j^2 {\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
\right)^2}
\frac{{{\sigma _{j'}^2 {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
{{{\left( \sigma _{j'} {\beta _{j'}^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {{{{\bf{u}}_j}}}
{\left | {\vphantom {{{{\bf{u}}_j}} {{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}}}
\right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace}
{{{{\bf{u}}_{j'}}}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j'}} \right|} } \\
& = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^k {
\frac {{{\left( \sigma _j {\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}} \right)^2} + {\lambda _2}}}
{{{\sigma _j^2 {\beta _{j}^{\left( 0 \right)}} }}}
\left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:A1}$$
Eq. (\[eq:A1\]) shows that after one iteration of the algorithm, only the singular values of ${\bf{A}}$ are updated while the singular vectors stay the same. Therefore, for $i$-th iteration of the algorithm, let ${{\bf{A}}^{\left( i \right)}} =\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k { {\beta _j^{\left( i \right)}} \left| {{{\bf{u}}_j}} \right\rangle \left\langle {\bf{j}} \right|} $, where ${\beta _j^{\left( 0 \right)}}=1$ for all $j$’s according to Eq. (\[eq:A0\]). We can easily have $\beta _j^{\left( i \right)} = \frac{{{{\left( {{\sigma _j}\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}} \right)}^2} + {\lambda _2}}}{{\sigma _j^2\beta _j^{\left( {i - 1} \right)}}}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- 'Instituto de Física Teórica, Univrsidade Estadual de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 875, 01405-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil '
- 'FINPE,Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 66318, 05315-970, São Paulo, SP, Brazil'
author:
- 'C. M. Maekawa[^1]'
- 'M. R. Robilotta[^2]'
title: '$\sigma$-fields x Chiral Scalars in Nuclear Three Body Potentials'
---
epsf.sty
The scalar-isoscalar field of an effective chiral Lagrangian transforms differently in either linear or non-linear frameworks: in the former case it is the counterpart of the pion whereas in the latter it is chiral invariant on its own. We compare the predictions from these two models for nucleon interactions and find results which are identical for two-body and rather different for three-body potentials. Some qualitative features of three-body interactions are discussed.
Introduction
============
Since the fundamental work of Yukawa, the meson exchange theory has been successfully applied to the description of the nucleon-nucleon force. Nowadays it is well established that the one pion exchange potential (OPEP) is dominant at large distances, yielding a strong force with spin and isospin dependences.
The next layer of the interaction is associated with the exchange of two pions. This system has the lightest mass beyond the OPEP and involves an intermediate pion-nucleon ($\pi N$) amplitude in a kinematical region which is not directly accessible to experiment. Therefore a proper theoretical treatment of this component of the potential requires the use of information based on dispersion relations, as pointed out long ago by Cottinghan and VinMau [@Vin+]. The implementation of this idea led to the Paris potential [@Lac+75], which is rather successful in describing experimental data.
An important feature of the $\pi N$ amplitude is chiral symmetry, as emphasized more than 25 years ago by Brown and Durso [@Bro+]. Recently the application of chiral symmetry to the NN interaction has deserved much attention, initially in the restricted framework of pion and nucleon degrees of freedom [@chi], and nowadays it is fair to say that the theoretical formulation of this sector of the interaction is free of ambiguities. However, a Lagrangian containing only pions and nucleons cannot reproduce low-energy $\pi$N data and hence this very reliable part of the model has to be complemented [@Kol+; @Rob+]. The combination of chiral symmetry and experimental information about the intermediate $\pi N$ amplitude, based on dispersion relations, was brought into this problem in the last two years [@Rob+], with a successful description of asymptotic $NN$ scattering data [@Bal+; @Kai+].
In contrast with the OPEP, the two-pion exchange potential (TPEP) produces an attractive interaction that depends little on spin and isospin, because it is dominated by the exchange of a scalar-isoscalar system. In many phenomenological potentials, the actual two-pion dynamics is simulated by the exchange of an effective scalar-isoscalar meson, with a mass around 550 MeV. In the framework of chiral symmetry, this meson is usually identified with the counterpart of the pion in the linear sigma-model and one obtains a prediction for its coupling constant to the nucleon. The existence of a scalar-isoscalar meson is controversial, the main candidate being the f$_0$(400-1200), that may be present in $\pi\pi$ scattering [@PDG]. In the case of NN scattering, the TPEP is quite well accounted for by non-linear chiral dynamics, constrained by experimental information, and the scalar-isoscalar meson is unnecessary. According to the unwritten law of quantum mechanics, stating that processes which are not forbidden are compulsory, the exchange of two pions must be considered in any realistic description of the NN interaction and the use of the sigma field to simulate the actual TPEP gives rise to shortcomings. In particular, a scalar field with mass $m_s$ yields a central $NN$ potential proportional to $e^{-m_sr}/r$, whereas the spatial dependence of TPEP is closer to $\left( e^{-\mu r}/r\right) ^2$, $\mu $ being the pion mass [@Rob+; @Kai+]. Moreover, the TPEP is proportional to $g^4$, where $g$ is the $\pi N$ coupling constant, whereas the exchange of a sigma is proportional to $g^2$. In spite of all these problems, the use of an effective scalar field may be useful in problems where simplicity is more important than precision. As far as the former is concerned an effective scalar field allows calculations at tree level, whereas the exchange of two pions involves loop integrations.
If one is willing to use an effective scalar field in a calculation, there are two possibilities at hand. The first one consists in employing the usual sigma field of the linear model, which is the chiral partner of the pion. The other possibility is to use a scalar field in the framework of non-linear Lagrangians, which is chiral invariant and appears naturally when the non-linear fields are obtained from the linear ones [@Wei]. These two scalars fields couple differently to pions and nucleons and hence lead to predictions which do not overlap for some specific processes. The main purpose of this work is to explore these predictions in the case of three-body forces. Our presentation is divided as follows: in sect. 2 we compare linear and non-linear Lagrangians and in sect 3 we motivate the physical predictions of the latter. In sect. 4 we derive the kernel of the three-body force, which is fully developed in sect. 5. Finally, in sect 6 we discuss qualitatively some features of the force associated with sigmas and chiral scalars.
Lagrangians
===========
In this section we introduce the Lagrangians describing both the sigma and the chiral scalar. In the framework of linear dynamics the field $\sigma $ is the chiral partner of the pion field since, for an axial transformation $\delta ^A$, we have $\delta ^A\mbox{\boldmath$ \pi$
}\rightarrow \sigma $ and $\delta ^A\sigma \rightarrow -\mbox{\boldmath $\pi
$}$. In the case of non-linear dynamics, the pion field is represented by ${%
\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}$ and we also consider a new field $S$, which corresponds to a generalization of the field $\sigma ^{\prime }$, introduced long ago by Weinberg [@Wei]. The corresponding axial transformation are $%
\delta ^A{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}=}F({\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}^2) $, where $F({\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}^2)$ is a function of ${\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}%
}^2$ and $\delta ^AS=0$. The last transformation implies that $S$ is a chiral scalar.
The linear Lagrangian ${\cal L}_\sigma $ has the usual form
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_\sigma &=&\frac 12\left(\partial _\mu \sigma \partial ^\mu\sigma
+ \partial _\mu \mbox{\boldmath $\pi $}\cdot \partial ^\mu \mbox{\boldmath $\pi $} \right)
-\frac{\mu ^2}2\left( \sigma ^2+\mbox{\boldmath $\pi $}%
^2\right) +\frac 12f_\pi \mu ^2\sigma +U\left( \sigma ^2+\mbox{\boldmath
$\pi $}^2\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\bar Ni{\not \partial }N-g\bar N\left( \sigma +i{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}%
\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath$\pi$}} }\gamma _5\right) N \label{Llin}\end{aligned}$$
where $N$ is the nucleon field that transforms linearly, $f_\pi $ is de pion decay constant, $\mu $ is the pion mass, $g$ is the $\pi N$ coupling constant and the term $U\left( \sigma ^2+\mbox{\boldmath $\pi $}^2\right) $ represents the self interactions of the mesonic fields. In the framework of the linear sigma model the scalar fluctuations are associated with a field $%
\epsilon $, related to $\sigma $ by
$$\sigma =f_\pi +\epsilon .$$
Replacing this into the Lagrangian (\[Llin\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_\sigma &=& \frac 12\left( \partial _\mu \epsilon \partial ^\mu \epsilon -m_\epsilon^2\epsilon ^2\right)
+\frac 12\left( \partial _\mu \mbox{\boldmath $\pi $}\cdot \partial ^\mu \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$ }
-\mu ^2\mbox{\boldmath $\pi $}^2\right)
+U\left( \left( f_\pi +\epsilon \right) ^2+\mbox{\boldmath $\pi $}^2\right)
\nonumber \\
&&+\bar Ni{\not \partial }N-g\bar N\left( f_\pi +\epsilon +i \mbox{\boldmath
$\tau $}\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$ }\gamma _5\right) N. \label{L1}\end{aligned}$$
In the non-linear approach, the Lagrangian ${\cal L}_S$ is written as
$${\cal L}_S=\left[ \frac 12\left( \partial _\mu S\partial ^\mu
S-m_s^2S^2\right) -U\left( S\right) \right]
+\left[ \frac 12\left( \partial _\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}\cdot \partial ^\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}
+\partial _\mu f\partial ^\mu f\right) +f_\pi \mu ^2f\right] +{\cal L}_N,$$
where $f$ corresponds to the function $f=\sqrt{f_\pi ^2-{\mbox{\boldmath
$\phi $}}^2}$. Formally, $U(S)$ describes the self interactions of the scalar field and ${\cal L}_N$ represents both the nucleon sector and its interactions with bosonic fields. This part of Lagrangian may be cast in many different forms, two of which are widely employed in the literature. In one of them, the pion-nucleon coupling is pseudo-vector (PV) and, in the other, it is pseudo scalar (PS). For PV coupling, one has
$${\cal L}_N^{PV}=\bar \psi i\gamma _\mu D^\mu \psi -m\bar \psi \psi
+\frac g{2m}\bar \psi \gamma _\mu \gamma _5{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}\psi\cdot D^\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}
-g_sS\bar \psi \psi \;\;, \label{Lpv}$$
where $\psi $ is the nucleon field that transforms non-linearly, $m$ is its mass and $g_s$ represents the coupling of the nucleon to the scalar. In this expression the pion and nucleon covariant derivatives are given by [@Wei68]
$$\begin{aligned}
D^\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}} &=&\partial _\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}-
\frac 1{f+f_\pi }\partial ^\mu f{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}, \\
D^\mu \psi &=&\left[ \partial ^\mu +i\frac 1{f_\pi \left( f+f_\pi \right) }
\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}}2 \cdot \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}\times
\partial ^\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}\right) \right] \psi .\end{aligned}$$
This Lagrangian has been used recently in the study of $\pi N$ form factors in constituent quarks models [@Mae+97] and it is worth noting that its last term describes a chiral invariant coupling between the scalar and the nucleon.
In the case of $PS$ coupling, one has
$${\cal L}_N^{PS}=\bar Ni{\not \partial }N -g\bar N\left( f+i{\mbox{\boldmath
$\tau $}}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}\gamma _5\right) N
-\frac{g_s}{f_\pi }S\bar N\left( f+i{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath
$\phi $}}\gamma _5\right) N,$$
\[33\]
where $N$ is the nucleon field that transforms linearly. The last term of this expression has the same meaning as the corresponding one in eq. (\[Lpv\]).
On general grounds one knows that, in the framework of chiral symmetry, results should not depend on the choice of ${\cal L}_N$ [@ref11; @ref12]. The equivalence between the PS and PV Lagrangians was verified explicitly in the case of TPEP [@Rob+] and of pion-nucleon interactions in constituent quark models [@Mae+97]. Because of this equivalence and of the similarity with the linear Lagrangian, our discussions are set in PS case. Thus our complete non-linear Lagrangian is written as
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_S^{PS} &=&\frac 12\left( \partial _\mu S\partial ^\mu S-m_S^2S^2\right)
+\frac 12\left( \partial _\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}\cdot \partial ^\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}
+\partial _\mu f\partial ^\mu
f\right) +f_\pi \mu ^2f+U\left( S\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\bar Ni{\not \partial }N-\left( g+\frac{g_s}{f_\pi }S\right) \bar N\left(
f+i{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi $}}\gamma
_5\right) N. \label{Lnl}\end{aligned}$$
The interaction terms in eqs (\[Lnl\]) and (\[L1\]) have the same scalar-nucleon and pion-nucleon vertices depicted in fig. 1a. However, the non-linear approach also yields extra vertices, representing seagull scalar-pion-nucleon and pion-pion-nucleon interactions, among others, displayed in fig. 1b. These results indicate that, at tree level, both Lagrangians produce the same $NN$ potential. On the other hand the extra scalar-pion-nucleon vertex represents a genuine difference between the two approaches and has consequences in processes such as pion absorption by a two-nucleon system or three body forces.
Effective Seagull
=================
The purpose of this section is to discuss the meaning of the effective seagull interaction in terms of more basic processes. In order to do this, we note that, in the framework of non-linear Lagrangians, the TPEP in the pure nucleon sector is given by the five diagrams of fig. 2a [@Rob+], which we may want to associate with an effective scalar exchange. When an external pion is attached to these processes, we have the three possibilities indicated in fig. 2b, the last one corresponding to an effective seagull, whose dynamical meaning is given in fig 2c.
The nine diagrams associated with the effective seagull interaction can be understood as arising from the product of the amplitudes $T^{ba}$and $%
P^{bca} $, where the former describes the pion-nucleon scattering $\pi
^a\left( k\right) N\left( p\right) \rightarrow \pi ^b\left( k^{\prime
}\right) N\left( p^{\prime }\right) $ and latter represents the contribution from pion production, $\pi ^a\left( k\right) N\left( p\right) \rightarrow
\pi ^b\left( k^{\prime }\right) \pi ^c\left( q\right) N\left( p^{\prime
}\right) $, as indicated in fig 3. The composite amplitude is denoted by $A$ and given by $$A=-i\int \frac{d^4Q}{\left( 2\pi \right) ^4}T^{ba}P^{bca}\frac 1{k^2-\mu ^2}%
\frac 1{k^{\prime 2}-\mu ^2},$$ where $Q=\frac 12\left( k-k^{\prime }\right) .$
Using the $\pi N$ vertices obtained from eq. (\[Lnl\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
P^{bca} &=&ig^3
\left\{ \left( \delta _{ab}\tau _c-\delta _{bc}\tau _a-\delta _{ac}\tau _b+i\epsilon _{bac}\right) \right.
\nonumber\\
&&\times \bar u\left[ \frac{\not{k'}}{\left( p'+k'\right) ^2-m^2}
\; \gamma _5 \; \frac{\not{k}}{\left( p+k\right) ^2-m^2}\right] u
\nonumber \\
&&+\delta _{ac}\tau _b \;
\bar u\left[ \gamma _5\frac{\not{k'}}{\left(p'+k'\right) ^2-m^2}\;\frac 1{gf_\pi }\right] u
\nonumber\\
&&\left. +\delta _{bc}\tau _a \;
\bar u\left[ \frac 1{gf_\pi }\;\frac{\not{k}}{\left( p+k\right) ^2-m^2}\gamma _5\right] u\right\} .\end{aligned}$$
The part of A corresponding to a scalar-isoscalar exchange is associated with the factor $\delta _{ab}$ in the $\pi N$ amplitude and hence it is proportional to
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta _{ab}P^{bac} &=&ig^3\tau _c \;
\bar u\left[ \frac{\not{k'}}{\left(p'+k'\right) ^2-m^2}\; \gamma _5 \; \frac{\not{k}}{\left( p+k\right)^2-m^2}\right.
\nonumber\\
&&\left. -\gamma _5 \; \frac{\not{k'}}{\left( p'+k'\right) ^2-m^2}\;\frac 1{gf_\pi }
-\frac 1{gf_\pi }\;\frac{\not {k}}{\left(p+k\right) ^2-m^2}\; \gamma _5\right] u.\end{aligned}$$
In order to identify the main contribution to this amplitude, we go to the soft pion limit, by using $k=k^{\prime }=(k_0,0)$ and then take the limit $%
k_0\rightarrow 0$. We thus obtain
$$\delta _{ab}P^{bca}\stackrel{soft}{\rightarrow }-\frac{ig^3}{4m^2}\tau_c \bar u \gamma _5u,$$
which has the same structure as the effective scalar-nucleon seagull vertex predicted by the non-linear Lagrangian given by (\[Lnl\]).
Effective $\pi NN$ vertex
=========================
As far as NN interactions are concerned both the linear and non-linear Lagrangians, given by eqs. (\[L1\]) and (\[Lnl\]), yield potentials at tree level, which are due to the exchanges of one pion and one scalar meson associated with the diagrams of fig. 1a. In principle the scalar coupling constants predicted by these Lagrangians could be different. However, we are interested only in dynamical distinctions between the sigma and the chiral scalar and, from now on, we set $g_s=g$ in order to force both models to simulate exactly the same two-body potential.
On the other hand, these models produce different predictions for the effective $\pi NN$ vertex and in this section we consider the form of this interaction. The basic ingredients are the amplitudes $T_\sigma $ and $T_s$, that describe the processes $\pi N\rightarrow \sigma N$ and $\pi
N\rightarrow SN$ respectively. The amplitude $T_\sigma $ is determined by just the first two diagrams of fig. 4a whereas $T_s$ also includes the seagull term. As the calculations of $T_\sigma $ and $T_s$ are quite similar, we denote both amplitudes by $T$ and identify the seagull contribution by a parameter $\lambda $, such that $T_\sigma =T\left( \lambda
=0\right) $ and $T_s=T\left( \lambda =1\right) $. At tree level, $T$ is given by the diagrams depicted in fig 4a, and we have
$$T\left( \lambda \right) =-ig^2\tau _c\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p'$}}\right)
\left[ \frac{\not{p}_d+m}{p_d^2-m^2}\gamma _5+\gamma _5\frac{\not{p}_x+m}{p_x^2-m^2}
+\frac \lambda {gf_\pi }\gamma _5\right] u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) .
\label{alambda0}$$
with $p_d=p+k$, $p_x=p^{\prime }-k$. Using Dirac equation, we rewrite (\[alambda0\]) as
$$T\left( \lambda \right) =-ig^2\tau _c\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p'$}}\right)
\left[ \frac{\not{k}}{p_d^2-m^2}+\frac{\not{k}}{p_x^2-m^2}+\frac \lambda
{gf_\pi }\right] \gamma _5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) .
\label{alambda}$$
It is worth pointing out that, as shown in [@Mae+97], this result does not depend on our choice of the $PS$ coupling in non-linear Lagrangian and it would be the same if the $PV$ scheme were adopted.
This amplitude contains positive frequency states, which do not enter in the construction of the proper $\pi NN$ kernel. In order to isolate these contributions, we write the nucleon propagator as $$\frac{\not p+m}{p^2-m^2}=\frac 1{2E}\left[ \frac 1{p^0-E}\sum_su^s\left( {%
\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) \bar u^s\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) +%
\frac 1{p^0+E}\sum_sv^s\left( -{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) \bar v^s\left(
-{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) \right] ,$$ where $E=\sqrt{{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\ 2}+m^2}$. Thus $$\left[ \frac{\not p+m}{p^2-m^2}\right] _{(+)}=\frac 1{2E}\left[ \frac{\not
p+m}{p^0-E}-\gamma ^0\right]$$ and the positive energy contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\left( +\right) } &=&-ig^2\tau _c\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
^{\prime }\right) \left[ \frac{\not k}{2E_d\left( p_d^0-E_d\right) }+\frac{%
\not k}{2E_x\left( p_x^0-E_x\right) }\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. -\left( \frac 1{2E_d}-\frac 1{2E_x}\right) \gamma ^0\right] \gamma
_5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) , \label{Tmais}\end{aligned}$$
with $\tilde p_i=\left( E_i,\vec p_i\right) $ for $i=d,x$.
Subtracting (\[Tmais\]) from (\[alambda\]) we get $\bar T$, the irreducible positive frequency amplitude
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar T\left( \lambda \right) &=&-ig^2\tau _c\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p
$}}^{\prime }\right) \left[ -\frac{\not k}{2E_d\left( p_d^0+E_d\right) }-%
\frac{\not k}{2E_x\left( p_x^0+E_x\right) }\right. \label{Tbar}
\nonumber\\
&&+\left. \left( \frac 1{2E_d}-\frac 1{2E_x}\right) \gamma ^0+\frac \lambda {%
gf_\pi }\right] \gamma _5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$
This allows the proper kernel for the process $\pi N_jN_k$ as shown in fig 4b, to be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
K\left( \lambda \right) &=&-ig^3\left\{ \tau _c\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath
$p $}}^{\prime }\right) \left[ -\frac{\not k}{2E_d\left( p_d^0+E_d\right) }-%
\frac{\not k}{2E_x\left( p_x^0+E_x\right) }\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&&+\left. \left. \left( \frac 1{2E_d}-\frac 1{2E_x}\right) \gamma ^0+\frac
\lambda {gf_\pi }\right] \gamma _5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right)
\right\} ^{(j)} \nonumber \\
&&\times \frac 1{q^2-m_s^2}\left[ \bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
^{\prime }\right) u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) \right] ^{(k)},
\label{TvwpiNN}\end{aligned}$$
where $q=p_2^{\prime }-p_2$.
Three body force
================
In this section we derive the three-nucleon force due to the simultaneous exchanges of one pion and one effective scalar meson and the basic diagram is shown in figure 5. It produces the following three-nucleon amplitude
$$\begin{aligned}
T^{ijk}(\lambda ) &=&g^4{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{(i)}\cdot {%
\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{(j)}\left[ \bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
^{\prime }\right) \gamma _5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) \right]
^{(i)}\frac 1{k^2-\mu ^2} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left\{ \bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\prime }\right)
\left[ -\frac{\not k}{2E_d\left( p_d^0+E_d\right) }-\frac{\not k}{2E_x\left(
p_x^0+E_x\right) }\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&&+\left. \left. \left( \frac 1{2E_d}-\frac 1{2E_x}\right) \gamma ^0+\frac
\lambda {gf_\pi }\right] \gamma _5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right)
\right\} ^{(j)} \nonumber \\
&&\times \frac 1{q^2-m_s^2}\left[ \bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
^{\prime }\right) u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) \right] ^{(k)}.\end{aligned}$$
In order to obtain the non-relativistic limit of $T^{ijk}(\lambda )$, denoted by $t^{ijk}(\lambda )$, we use
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac 1{2E_d}-\frac 1{2E_x}\sim \frac{{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^2}{m^3}, \\
&&\frac 1{2E_d\left( p_d^0+E_d\right) }+\frac 1{2E_x\left( p_x^0+E_x\right) }%
\sim \frac 1{2m^2},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\prime }\right) u\left( {%
\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) &\rightarrow &I, \\
\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\prime }\right) \gamma _5u\left( {%
\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) &\rightarrow &\frac 1{2m}{\mbox{\boldmath
$\sigma $} }\cdot \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
^{\prime }\right) , \\
\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\prime }\right) \gamma ^0\gamma
_5u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) &\rightarrow &\frac 1{2m}{%
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }\cdot \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}+{%
\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\prime }\right) , \\
\bar u\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}^{\prime }\right) \not k\gamma _5u\left(
{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}\right) &\rightarrow &-{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }%
\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $k $},} \\
\frac 1{k^2-\mu ^2} &\cong &-\frac 1{{\mbox{\boldmath $k $}}^2+\mu ^2}, \\
\frac 1{q^2-m_s^2} &\cong &-\frac 1{{\mbox{\boldmath $q $}}^2+m_s^2},\end{aligned}$$
where the arrows indicate that the normalization of the spinors were also changed. Using these results and keeping only terms of the order ${\bf p}/m$, we get the non-relativistic amplitude
$$\begin{aligned}
t^{ijk}(\lambda ) &=&\frac{g^4}{\left( 2m\right) ^2} {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}^{(i)}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{(j)} \; {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(i)}\cdot {\bf k }\; \frac 1{{\bf k}^2+\mu ^2} \nonumber \\
&&\times {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(j)}\cdot \left[ \left( \frac 1m -%
\frac \lambda{gf_\pi }\right) {\bf k } +\frac \lambda {gf_\pi }{\bf q}%
\right] \frac 1{{\bf q}^2+m_s^2},\end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf k }={\bf p}_i-{\bf {p'}}_i$and ${\bf q}= {\bf p'} _k- {\bf p}_k$. The full non-relativistic amplitude $t_{3N}$ is given by the permutation over all indices $ijk.$
In momentum space the three body potential $W$ is defined by $$\left\langle {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_1^{\prime }{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
_2^{\prime }{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_3^{\prime }\left| W\right| {%
\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_1{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_2{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
_3\right\rangle =-(2\pi )^3\delta ^3\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_1^{\prime
}+{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_2^{\prime }+{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_3^{\prime }-{%
\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_1-{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}_2-{\mbox{\boldmath $p $}}%
_3\right) t_{3N}. \label{W3N}$$
We apply Fourier transform to (\[W3N\]) in order to obtain the potential in configuration space and we have
$$\left\langle {\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_1^{\prime }{\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}%
_2^{\prime }{\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_3^{\prime }\left| W\right| {%
\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_1{\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_2{\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}%
_3\right\rangle =\delta \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_1^{\prime }-{%
\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_1\right) \delta \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}%
_2^{\prime }-{\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_2\right) \delta \left( {\mbox{\boldmath
$r $}}_3^{\prime }-{\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_3\right) W.$$
and the component $W^{ijk}$ of the local potential $W$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
W^{ijk} &=&\frac{g^4}{\left( 4\pi \right) ^2\left( 2m\right) ^2}\frac{\mu m_s%
}m{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{\left( i\right) }\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau
$}}^{\left( j\right) }
\nonumber\\
&&\times \left[ \left( 1-\frac{\lambda m}{gf_\pi }\right) U\left(
m_sr_{kj}\right) {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{\left( i\right) }\cdot {%
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla $ }}_{ji}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{\left(
j\right) }\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla $
}}_{ji}U\left( \mu r_{ji}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&& +\left. \frac{\lambda m}{gf_\pi }{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(i)}\cdot
{\mbox
{\boldmath$\nabla$ }}_{ji}U\left( \mu r_{ji}\right) {\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$
}}^{(j)} \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla $}}_{kj}U\left( m_sr_{kj}\right)
\right] , \end{aligned}$$
where $U(\mu r)=\frac{\exp (-\mu r)}{\mu r}$ and $r_{kj}=r_k - r_j$.
We assume the approximate identity $\frac m{gf_\pi }\simeq 1$ and, similarly to the procedure used in the two pion exchange three-nucleon force [@Coe+], we regularize the mesonic exchanges with the following dipole form factor $$G\left( k^2\right) =\left( \frac{\Lambda ^2-\mu ^2}{\Lambda ^2-k^2}\right)
^2,$$ where $\Lambda $ is a cut off parameter.
The regularization changes the Yukawa-type function into $$U\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) =\frac{e^{-\mu r}}{\mu r}-\frac \Lambda \mu
\frac{e^{-\Lambda r}}{\Lambda r}-\frac 12\frac \mu \Lambda \left( \frac{%
\Lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}-1\right) e^{-\Lambda r}$$ and its derivatives are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial U\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) }{\partial r_\alpha } &=&\mu
\frac{r_\alpha }rU_1\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) , \\
\frac{\partial ^2U\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) }{\partial r_\alpha \partial
r_\beta } &=&\frac{\mu ^2}3\left[ \delta _{\alpha \beta }\left( U\left( \mu
r,\Lambda \right) -G\left( r\right) \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\left( \frac{3r_\alpha r_\beta }{r^2}-\delta _{\alpha \beta
}\right) U_2\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) \right] ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
U_1\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) &=&-\left( \frac 1{\mu r}+1\right) \frac{%
e^{-\mu r}}{\mu r}+\frac{\Lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}\left( 1+\frac 1{\Lambda r}%
\right) \frac{e^{-\Lambda r}}{\Lambda r} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac 12\left( \frac{\Lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}-1\right) e^{-\Lambda r}, \\
U_2\left( \mu r,\Lambda \right) &=&\left( 1+\frac 3{\mu r}+\frac 3{\mu ^2r^2}%
\right) \frac{e^{-\mu r}}{\mu r}-\frac{\Lambda ^3}{\mu ^3}\left( 1+\frac 3{%
\Lambda r}+\frac 3{\Lambda ^2r^2}\right) \frac{e^{-\Lambda r}}{\Lambda r}
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac 12\frac \Lambda \mu \left( \frac{\Lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}-1\right)
\left( 1+\frac 1{\Lambda r}\right) e^{-\Lambda r}, \\
G\left( r\right) &=&\frac 12\frac \mu \Lambda \left( \frac{\Lambda ^2}{\mu ^2%
}-1\right) ^2e^{-\Lambda r}.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting these results into the potential, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
W^{ijk} &=&\frac 43\left( \frac{g\mu }{2m}\right) ^4\frac m{\left( 4\pi
\right) ^2}\frac{m_s}\mu {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{(i)}\cdot {%
\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{(j)} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left\{ \left( 1-\lambda \right) \left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $}
}^{(i)}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma $}}^{(j)}U\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda
\right) \left( U\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right) -G\left( r_{ji},\Lambda
\right) \right) \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&&+\left. {\bf S}_{ij}\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{ji},{%
\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{ji}\right) U\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda \right)
U_2\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&& +\lambda \frac{m_s}\mu
\left[ {\bf S}_{ij}\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{ji},{\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{kj}\right)
+{\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{ji}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{kj} \;
{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma $} }^{(i)}\cdot { \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma $ } }^{(j)} \right]
\nonumber\\
&& \left. \times U_1\left(\mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right) U_1\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda \right)
\right\} ,\end{aligned}$$
where $${\bf S}_{ij}\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $ \hat r$}}_{ji},{\mbox{\boldmath$ \hat r$}}_{kj}\right)
=3{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(i)}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath
$\hat r$}}_{ji}{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(j)}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath
$\hat r$}}_{kj}-{\bf \hat r}_{ji}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{kj}{%
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(i)}\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $}^{(j)}.$$
Discussion
==========
Initially, we discuss the role of chiral symmetry in the results of the previous section. Inspecting eq.(25), one notes that all the terms of the potential contain two gradients, reflecting the fact that they come from eq.(22), which is a uniform second order polynomial in meson momenta, as expected from a calculation based on chiral symmetry. This feature of the problem is independent of $\lambda$. On the other hand, the detailed form of the potential is quite sensitive to this parameter. The value $\lambda=0$ corresponds to a scalar field, denoted by $\sigma$, which is the chiral partner of the pion. The value $\lambda=1$, in turn, indicates processes based on a chiral invariant field S. It is worth pointing out that results with $\lambda=1$ are, as they should, independent of the representation adopted for the pion field and, in particular, of the use of either PS or PV pion-nucleon couplings. So the parameter $\lambda$ describes dynamical processes which are genuinely different.
At tree level, these effects cannot be distinguished in NN interactions, but they manifest themselves in the reactions NN $\rightarrow\pi$NN, $\pi$d$\leftrightarrow$NN, in axial form factors of nuclei and in three-body forces. In the present work we have considered only the last kind of application.
Our results with $\lambda=1$ coincide with that presented by Coon, Peña and Riska [@CPR]. These authors also obtained a contact interaction, employing a PV pion-nucleon coupling and a scalar-meson coupled to nucleons. In the framework of chiral symmetry, this combination means that they have tacitly used a Lagrangian equivalent of our eq.(5) and hence their $\sigma$ field corresponds to our S.
In this work we are concerned mainly with the differences between the cases $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=1$ for three-body forces. The full exploration of this aspect of the problem would require a precise calculation of trinucleon observables, especially the binding energy. In order to produce a preliminary qualitative indication of the role of the force considered in this work, we evaluate the expectation value $\left\langle S\right| W\left| S\right\rangle $, where $\left| S\right\rangle$ represents the principal S-state of the trinucleon, which is the basic component of its ground state wave function.
This state is written as [@Coe+]
$$\left| S\right\rangle =S\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{ji}\right)
\Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right)$$
where $S\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $r $}}_{ji}\right) $ is the spatial component and $\Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right) $ is the antisymmetric spin-isospin wave function with $z$-components $m$ and $t$ respectively.
The action of the tensor operators $S_{ij}$ over $\left| S\right\rangle $ results in states with orbital angular momentum different from zero. Using
$$\left[ \Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right) \right]
^{\dagger }{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}^{(i)}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau $}}%
^{(j)}\;{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma $} }^{(i)}\cdot {\mbox {\boldmath $\sigma$ }%
}^{(j)}\Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right) =-3$$
we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right) \right]
^{\dagger }W^{ijk}\Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right)
&=&-4\left( \frac{g\mu }{2m}\right) ^4\frac m{\left( 4\pi \right) ^2}\frac{%
m_s}\mu \nonumber \\
&&\times \left\{ \left( 1-\lambda \right) U\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda \right)
\left[ U\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right) -G\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda
\right) \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&&+\left. \cos \theta _j\lambda \frac{m_s}\mu U_1\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda
\right) U_1\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda \right) \right\}\end{aligned}$$
where $\cos \theta _j={\mbox{\boldmath $\hat r$}}_{ji}\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath$\hat r$}}_{kj}$. Using the results of [@Coe+] and neglecting the very short range function $G\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right) $ [@RI], we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right) \right]
^{\dagger }W^{ijk}\Gamma _{\frac 12t}^{\frac 12m}\left( {\sf a}\right)
&=&-\left\{ \left( 1-\lambda \right) C_\sigma U\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda
\right) U\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&+\left. \lambda C_S\cos \theta _jU_1\left( \mu r_{ji},\Lambda \right)
U_1\left( m_sr_{kj},\Lambda \right) \right\} ,\end{aligned}$$
where $C_\sigma $ and $C_S$ are the strength coefficients of sigma and chiral scalar respectively, given by
$$\begin{aligned}
C_\sigma &=&4\left( \frac{g\mu }{2m}\right) ^4\frac 1{\left( 4\pi \right) ^2}%
\frac{m_s}\mu m, \\
C_S &=&4\left( \frac{g\mu }{2m}\right) ^4\frac 1{\left( 4\pi \right) ^2}%
\left( \frac{m_s}\mu \right) ^2m.\end{aligned}$$
Choosing $m_s=550MeV$ and $g=13.5$, the strength coefficients become $%
C_\sigma =96MeV$ and $C_S=378MeV$.
In fig. 6 we show equipotential plots for the choices $\lambda =0$ (graph $a$) and $\lambda =1$ (graph $b$), constructed by keeping two nucleons $1\;fm$ apart and varying the position of the third one. As the plots are symmetric under rotation around the x-axes the specification of a single quadrant describes the spatial energy distribution. Inspecting this figure one learns that the predictions from both models are rather different, indicating that the effective seagull is very important. In the linear approach, the interaction is attractive over a wide region, whereas the non-linear scalar produces a repulsion around the triangular configuration and these differences should show up in observables.
One is aware that a study based on just S trinucleon waves can provide only rough indications, since it is well known that D waves do play an important role in trinucleons. Nevertheless, in the absence of a detailed study, we may assume that the trends associated with our equipotential plots would reflect in the binding energy. This assumption is supported by the results of ref.[[@CPR]]{} where a three-body force given by our eq.(22) with $\lambda=1$ was shown to produce a decrease of the binding energy which is rather welcome.
As a final comment, it is important to point out that the discussion presented in section 3 makes us to be biased towards the chiral scalar, but final conclusions must wait until a complete evaluation of the diagrams of fig 2c, which is now in progress.
The work of one of us (C.M.M.) was supported by FAPESP, Brazilian Agency.
[99]{}
W. N. Cottingham and R. Vinh Mau, Phys. Rev. [**130**]{} (1963) 735.
W. N. Cottingham, M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, J-M. Richard and R. Vinh Mau, Phys. Rev. [**D8**]{} (1973) 800; M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, J. M. Richard, R. Vinh Mau, P. Pires and R. Tourreil, Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{} (1980) 861.
G. E. Brown and J. W. Durso, Phys. Lett. [**B435**]{} (1971) 120.
C. Ordóñez and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. [**B291**]{}(1992) 459; L. S. Celenza, A. Pantziris and C. M. Shakin, Phys. Rev. [**C46**]{} (1992) 2213; J. L. Friar and S. A. Coon, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{} (1994) 1272; C. A. da Rocha and M. R. Robilotta, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{} (1994); M.C. Birse, Phys. Rev [**C49**]{} (1994) 2212; C. A. da Rocha and M. R.Robilotta, Phys. Rev [**C52**]{} (1995) 531.
C. Ordóñez, L. Ray and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. [**72**]{} (1994) 1982; Phys. Rev. [**C53**]{} (1996) 2086.
M. R. Robilotta, Nucl. Phys. [**A595**]{} (1995) 171; M. R. Robilotta and C. A. da Rocha, Nucl. Phys. [**A615**]{} (1997) 391
J. L. Ballot, M. R. Robilotta and C. A. da Rocha, to appear in Phys.Rev. C.
N. Kaiser, R. Brockmann and W. Weise, preprint nucl-th/9706045.
R.M. Barnett et al, Phys.Rev. [**D54**]{} (1996) 1.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**18**]{} (1967) 188.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**166** ]{}(1968) 1568.
C. M. Maekawa and M. R. Robilotta, Phys. Rev. [**C55** ]{}(1997) 2675.
S. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. [**177** ]{}(1969) 2239; C. G. Callan,S. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. [**177** ]{}(1969) 2247.
S. A. Coon and J. L. Friar, Phys. Rev. [**C34** ]{}(1986) 1060.
M. R. Robilotta and H. T. Coelho, Nucl. Phys. [**A460** ]{}(1986) 645.
S. A. Coon, M. T. Peña and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rev. [**C52** ]{}(1995) 2925.
M. R. Robilotta and M. P. Isidro Filho, Nucl. Phys. [**A451** ]{}(1986) 581.
Fig.1.Interactions of nucleons (full lines), pions (broken lines) and scalar-isoscalar mesons (wavy lines) present in both linear and non-linear models (a) and only in the latter (b).
= 17 cm Fig.2. Dynamical content of the effective scalar-isoscalar field in (a) nucleon-nucleon interactions, (b) the $\pi NN$ kernel and (c) the seagull term; conventions are the same as in fig.1 and the crosses in nucleon propagators indicate that they do not contain positive frequency components.
Fig.3. The effective seagull (a) as composed by the $\pi N\rightarrow \pi N$ (b) and $\pi N\rightarrow \pi \pi N$ (c) amplitudes.
Fig.4. (a) Amplitudes for the processes $\pi N\rightarrow \sigma N\;(\lambda
=0)$ and $\pi N\rightarrow SN\;(\lambda =1)$; (b) the corresponding $\pi NN$ kernel.
Fig.5. Basic diagram for the three-body force.
=10 cm =10 cm Fig.6 Equipotential plots for the expectation value of the three body force in the trinucleon ground state, calculated using eq (36) with $\Lambda
=1.5GeV$ for the linear (a) and non linear (b) models. One of the nucleons is fixed at $x=0.5$ $fm$, another at $x=-0.5$ $fm$ and the position of the third one is varied.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this study we map out the large-scale structure of citation networks of science journals and follow their evolution in time by using stochastic block models (SBMs). The SBM fitting procedures are principled methods that can be used to find hierarchical grouping of journals into blocks that show similar incoming and outgoing citations patterns. These methods work directly on the citation network without the need to construct auxiliary networks based on similarity of nodes. We fit the SBMs to the networks of journals we have constructed from the data set of around 630 million citations and find a variety of different types of blocks, such as clusters, bridges, sources, and sinks. In addition we use a recent generalization of SBMs to determine how much a manually curated classification of journals into subfields of science is related to the block structure of the journal network and how this relationship changes in time. The SBM method tries to find a network of blocks that is the best high-level representation of the network of journals, and we illustrate how these block networks (at various levels of resolution) can be used as maps of science.'
author:
- 'Darko Hric[^1]'
- 'Kimmo Kaski[^2]'
- 'Mikko Kivelä[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: Stochastic Block Model Reveals the Map of Citation Patterns and Their Evolution in Time
---
Introduction
============
The process of creating scientific knowledge relies on publications that are often stored and archived, with the primary purpose of preserving and distributing the knowledge obtained through research. These archives can also be used to study the science making itself, for example, by extracting information of collaborations, citations, or keywords of the published articles. Research in this field has a fairly long and rich history with wide range of research topics, like the assessment and prediction of performance and quality of individual papers, researchers, institutions, journals, fields, and even countries [@Taylor1967; @Nerur2005; @Lehmann2008; @Althouse2009], as well as identification of various large scale structures of science [@Price1965; @Carpenter1973; @Small1999; @Waltman2010; @Leydesdorff2013; @Boyack2014], journal classification [@Leydesdorff2006; @Janssens2009; @Zhang2010; @Wang2016], following research trends [@Porter2009; @Persson2010; @Chen2013], and recognizing the emerging fields or researchers [@Small1989; @Lambiotte2009; @Cozzens2010; @Shibata2011; @Small2014].
Bibliographic databases, like Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, store metadata of scientific publications, which can be used to analyse science making at all levels, from large scale structure to performance of individual papers. The number of *entities* in the data, including articles, journals, citations, and scientists is very large and keeps growing exponentially (\[app:basic\_stats\]; @Pan2016arXiv). To make sense of such massive amounts of data available about science one needs to simplify it and find its inherent patterns. This idea is not different from creating *maps* that provide a simplified description of reality, i.e. maps of science that describes the endeavour of science in a broad sense [@Small1999; @Boyack2005; @Chen2013]. Such a map needs to provide a reasonably accurate simplification of the structures it is mapping, i.e. individual elements need to be grouped (or clustered) to preserve large-scale patterns, while obscuring small and unimportant details. However, this is not a trivial task, and finding an optimal simplification accurately and reliably is becoming even more challenging as the networks under study continue to grow.
Conventional data analysis tools, such as clustering or dimension reduction methods, can be used to simplify the data about the complex relationships between the data entities. Representing the entities as vectors of their features is a common and practical abstraction that allows the use of clustering methods in the space of features, in which the most similar entities are grouped based on the similarity of the used features. These vectors can contain citation information between the entities, and one can define similarity measures, like bibliographic coupling, co-citation, distance between citation vectors (Euclidean, cosine, Jaccard, etc.), and correlation coefficients between the citation vectors or publication texts (abstracts, keywords, etc.) [@Kessler1963; @Small1973; @Marshakova1973; @Carpenter1973; @Leydesdorff2012; @Boyack2005; @Janssens2009].
The data of scientific progress can be analysed with a variety of methods once the data has been preprocessed. The dimensionality reduction techniques project the vectors into the most significant subspaces revealing groups of correlated entities (multidimensional scaling, factor analysis, etc.) [@Small1999; @Leydesdorff2013]. Classical clustering techniques, e.g. hierarchical clustering and k-means, operate on the full space of features, and provide groups of similar entities, based on implicitly or explicitly defined similarity measure or distance [@Punj1983; @Modha2000; @Boyack2005; @Silva2013]. The factor analysis applied separately to the citing and cited direction of the complete citation matrix, enables further specialization into the types of clusters it finds, since by using only one direction at a time, it detects clusters based on past and future citations, separately [@Leydesdorff2009]. The co-citation and bibliographic coupling use similarities in citations in the future and past respectively, and thus provide a separation naturally [@Weinberg1974]. The results of this type of analysis depends on the prepossessing step of constructing the data vectors and similarities, and great care is needed in interpreting the results [@Boyack2005; @Eck2009].
The bibliometric data can also be analysed by constructing networks—such as the citation network between journals—and directly finding structure in them using the general purpose tools for analysing the networks. The development of such methods within network science has exploded since massive amounts of data on large variety of networks—such as on social and transportation networks—have become available [@Newman2003; @Boccaletti2006]. A prominent way of finding structure in citation networks using these methods is to investigate network clusters or communities [@Porter2009Communities; @Fortunato2010; @Fortunato2016Community], which are subnetworks that have a large number of links inside them [@Rosvall2008; @Lambiotte2009; @Chen2010; @Lancichinetti2012; @Radicchi2012]. The assumption with most of these methods is that the network is constructed from densely connected cores of nodes or journals that have a relatively small number of citations to the rest of the network. This is in contrast to the methods based on similarity of journals that can find clusters with a strong preference for receiving or giving citations from a certain subset of journals, for instance work of applied research can cite theoretical works, without being cited back.
Even if one would accept the premise that the community-like structures are relevant in citation networks, many community detection methods are besieged with intrinsic problems. Very often they detect structures even in case of random networks by mistaking noise for data, they might be very sensitive to small perturbations (noise), and posses a “resolution limit”, i.e. suffering from the inability to identify communities below a certain size that depends on the total size of the network [@Guimera2004; @Fortunato2007]. The performance, reliability, and even the results to some extent depend on the choice of a method from the large set of currently available methods.
The problems with community detection methods are well-known in the network science literature, and the need to find the richer structure in networks than those obtained by partitioning nodes to communities has been acknowledged for many types of networks [@Palla2005; @Leskovec2009; @Wang2010; @Xie2013; @Rombach2014Core]. Very recently, as a solution to this problem, the old idea of using stochastic block models (SBMs) as models of network structure [@Lorrain1971; @Holland1983; @Wasserman1987] has received renewed attention, because of the theoretical and algorithmic advances that enabled their use in a reliable and scalable way [@Bianconi2009; @Karrer2011; @Peixoto2012]. SBM is a model in which nodes belong to *blocks* and edges are created between (and within) the blocks with some fixed probabilities for each pairs of blocks. The methods based on SBMs work by finding the model which best explains the network data. The best explanation is not necessarily the model that would have most likely produced the data, but the simplicity of the model must also be taken into account, and the principled and powerful ideas from statistical inference literature are used to avoid such overfitting. One can consider the blocks as “super nodes” that are connected with weighted edges, and SBM methods then—by definition—try to find the “super network” that is the best simplification of the original network.
Here we take the advantage of the recent advances in SBM methods found in the network science literature and apply them to large scale citation networks between journals. We use journal citation networks from Thomson Reuters Citation Index for the years ranging from 1900 to 2013 which contains hundreds of millions of citations. Unlike many previous in-depth studies of citation networks that have concentrated on small subsets of the citation network [@Pieters1999; @Grossman2002; @An2004; @Nerur2005; @Porter2009; @Zhang2010; @Shibata2011], we focus on the large scale citation networks that are constructed using all articles in this bibliographic dataset. First we divide the full time period into the time windows of 5 or 10 years and use the articles in those windows to construct networks of the journals active in each window. That is, we take snapshots of the contemporary science at different points of time and track the important developments by fitting them with hierarchical SBMs. We visualize the resulting block structure at multiple levels of hierarchy, and illustrate the presence of blocks that are not community-like by categorizing them as sources, sinks, bridges, and communities. Moreover, we follow the evolution of these block categories in 16 largest fields of science in time and report the large-scale changes in them over more than a hundred-year observation period.
The citation networks can be studied in isolation but they can also be augmented and compared with many other data sources such as journal categorizations, article keywords, and author information. Previous studies have, for example, compared predetermined journal categories to network clusters [@Boyack2005; @Janssens2009] or to factors from factor analysis [@Leydesdorff2009]. They have also constructed networks using categories as nodes [@Zhang2010] and evaluated the quality of categorisations using criteria that favour cluster-like categories [@Wang2016]. Here we will utilize a recently developed generalization of the SBM method that allows the inclusion of any “tag” information about the nodes [@Hric2016] and use it to analyse how much information the predetermined journal categorizations carry about the block structure of the citation networks. This approach does not assume that the journal classifications are the ground truth, but determines the suitability of subject categories for describing citation structure by asking how much better we can do in estimating the citation flows with the classifications than we can do without the knowledge of the classifications. The construction of contemporary citation networks allows us to track the congruity of the subject categories with citation patterns throughout the last century.
The paper is organized as follows. The process of building annotated journal networks from raw citation data is described in \[sec:data\]. The stochastic block models are introduced and described in \[sec:SBM\]. Then the visualization of the citation networks is described and a selection of results is presented in \[sec:vis\_cit\_flows\]. More detailed analysis of journal blocks properties is done in \[sec:conn\_patt\], while \[sec:evolution\] deals with their evolution in time. Next a comparison between the subject categories and citation structure is developed and presented in \[sec:pred\_power\_of\_categories\]. Conclusions are made in \[sec:Conclusions\]. Some basic properties of the data and additional results are presented in \[app:basic\_stats,app:sf\_predictiveness\].
Data {#sec:data}
====
All the networks constructed in this paper are based on data on articles and citations extracted from three *Thomson Reuters Citation Index*^^ datasets (*Science Citation Index Expanded*, *Social Sciences Citation Index*^^, and *Arts & Humanities Citation Index*^^). This database contains information about the publishing year and the venue (journal, proceeding, conference, etc.) of articles, and each venue (from now on called *journal*) is assigned to none, one, or several *subfields*. We join the subfields into larger *fields* similar to @Parolo2015. The data set spans from year 1900 to 2013 and contains $\sim$76 000 journals, $\sim$5.5M articles, and $\sim$630M citations in total. A more detailed description of the data can be found in \[app:basic\_stats\].
As the full data set spans for more than a hundred years, it includes information needed to track development of modern western science. We aim to investigate how the citation patterns have evolved during this time period and to that end we split the data into multiple time windows, each of which is then used to construct a contemporary network of journals. The total volume of publications and citations is growing exponentially in time (@Pan2016arXiv), and because of this we set the time window length to ten years before 1970s and to five years afterwards.
Network construction {#sec:data_networks}
--------------------
In each time window, a node corresponds to an *active* journal that has publications in the given time period. The connections between the journals are constructed using outgoing citations from these journals such that there is a directed link from journal *a* to journal *b* if an article in journal *a* cites an article in journal *b*, and the weight of this link is taken to be the number of such citations. For each time window we only count the contemporary citations satisfying the following two criteria: (1) the cited article is published in a journal that is active in the time window, and (2) the time difference between the citing and the cited article is shorter than the length of the window. This procedure ensures that all articles in the time window contribute equally (with their citations) to network links.
We have also tested a different approach for selecting the contemporary citations where both the citing and the cited article were required to be within the time window. The more strict filtering of contemporary citations brings imbalance to incoming and outgoing citations of articles depending whether they are published at the beginning or towards the end of the window: those at the beginning have larger pool of articles they can receive citations from than the pool they can cite, and the opposite for articles towards the end of the window. We replicated all the results reported in this article using the networks created with this method, and they were very similar to the ones reported here.
Simplified networks {#sec:data_simple}
-------------------
All of our results with the exception of the ones described in \[sec:pred\_power\_of\_categories\] are obtained using the weighted and directed networks of journals described above. Although all methods used in this manuscript are fully capable of dealing with non-simple networks, due to current technical limitations in the implementation of the method, in \[sec:pred\_power\_of\_categories\] we used simplified networks (undirected, unweighted, and without self-loops). A naive method of discarding link directions and weights, and removing self-loops, leaves the networks very dense, and is a poor approximation because it regards all links equally important, irrespective of their direction or weight. A usual approach, is to set a global threshold on the link weights that keeps only the strongest links, or to use only the links that form a maximum spanning tree [@Kruskal1956; @Macdonald2005]. Both of these are global methods, meaning that the decision on whether a link will be kept or removed depends on the weight distribution and the structure of the full network. We use a local thresholding method, in which statistical significance of weights of links of every node are calculated based on a null model defined for each node separately [@Serrano2009]. All links receive a score based on this criteria which, by excluding links above a certain threshold, allows us to keep only the desired number of links. We have tested the range of thresholds and find that the results are robust against the change of the threshold value (see \[sec:pred\_power\_of\_categories\]).
Stochastic Block Model {#sec:SBM}
======================
Networks and graphs can be measured and summarized at many levels of granularity, starting from global or macroscopic measures—such as the total number of links or diameter—to local or microscopic measures such as node degree or the clustering coefficient [@Newman2010Introduction]. Here we concentrate on describing networks in a mesoscopic scale that is between these two extremes. Network analysis methods that work at this level of granularity almost exclusively deal with sets of nodes and links called *communities* or depending on the field of research, *clusters*, *groups*, *modules*, etc. [@Wasserman1994; @Boccaletti2006; @Schaeffer2007; @Fortunato2010]. There is not a single, precise definition of community, but most often it is described as a set of nodes with more connections between them than to the rest of the network [@Porter2009Communities; @Fortunato2010]. The community paradigm assumes that a network can be described as a collection of tightly knit sets of nodes, which are loosely connected to each other.
Stochastic block model relaxes the assumption about the nature of constituent sets of nodes such that they only need to be equivalent in the way they connect to other blocks, which in effect allows for a description beyond the community structure, like bipartite, core-periphery, etc. [@Karrer2011; @Barucca2016]. SBM is a generative model, meaning that it assumes a model of the underlying structure and prescribes a procedure for building networks that have this structure in common. The model is defined by assigning all nodes to disjoint sets[^4] called *blocks* and setting the number of links between and within blocks. Obeying the above described constraints, a network is generated by randomly placing links between nodes. An equivalent description is to set the probabilities for placing a link between any two blocks, but we used the link counts following the approach laid out in @Peixoto_hierarchical_2014.
Nodes within blocks share the probabilities for links towards the nodes in other blocks but also including their own block. In journal citation networks this means that all the journals in a block have the same citation patterns to other blocks. They can, for instance, receive most of their citations from one set of journals, and give them out to another set, or have higher than average probability to exchange citations with some blocks and lower-than-average probability with other blocks. Two blocks could also have identical citation patterns to other blocks, but different number of internal citations. All this tells us that this model groups nodes (journals) into classes by their role in the network, whichever those are.
Once the model is known, building networks with the prescribed block structure is straightforward. However, the more common situation is opposite to this: only a single realization of the model of the empirical network at hand is known, and parameters of the model that most likely produce this network, need to be inferred. Finding the most likely parameters is a highly non-trivial task, and many approaches to solve it have been used [@Wasserman1987]. All approaches use an objective function, in one form or the other, that measures the probability of the given parameters to be the ones that produced the observed network. The problem with this naive approach is that the best fitting model will be too detailed and will reproduce the observed network with very high accuracy, which goes against the purpose of the models in providing a good simplification of the reality. The cause for this is the fact that the simple approach uses all available data, including noise, for fitting the parameters. In the extreme case a highly-detailed model ends up putting all the nodes in their own blocks, since this reproduces the network perfectly. A simple solution to prevent this from happening is to introduce the number of blocks as a constraint in the fitting procedure [@Karrer2011]. This works fine in cases where the number of blocks is known, otherwise it needs to be inferred from data, for instance by finding a balance between the model description length and its goodness-of-fit to data. Some of the approaches in this direction are listed in @Latouche2012Variational. In this work we are taking advantage of the recent progress with this topic that estimates the number of blocks by including the information necessary for describing the model parameters into the total information amount being minimized such that it penalizes a too lengthy description [@Peixoto_parsimonious_2013; @Peixoto_model_2014].
One of the main issue with the classical SBMs, in addition to overfitting, is that they assume Poisson-distributed node degrees, so any deviation from the expected structure is considered a feature of the data and the fitting algorithm tries to find a model that would adequately describe it. Fitting this model with a network with a different degree distribution would yield blocks that represent classes of nodes based on their degrees, not just on which other nodes they connect to. So, for instance, highly cited journals would be separated from journals publishing review articles, that presumably cite in large volumes but do not get cited as much. Also, journals that play a central role in their respective communities would be put together, even if communities might not be otherwise related. The *degree-corrected* stochastic block model is “blind” to this kind of structure: it separates nodes into classes based on their degree, which removes unfair competition for links between nodes of largely different degrees [@Karrer2011]. This effectively includes the degree sequence into the model that does increase the information needed to describe the model, but the benefit of a simpler model for describing the data lowers the total description length in most cases.
The SBM and its degree-corrected variant can be expanded to describe hierarchical structure of blocks [@Peixoto_hierarchical_2014]. In this case, each level constitutes a network of blocks and the best fit of SBM of the level below it, starting from the network itself at the bottom level, to the trivial one-block level on top. Fitting all the levels is done simultaneously to obtain the minimum description length of the whole structure. This approach shows several advantages, like allowing for even smaller blocks that can reliably be inferred and providing a multi-resolution view of the network. Hierarchical SBM can be viewed as a stack of progressively simpler weighted networks—each level in the hierarchy is a zoomed-out version of the level below it. This means that we can inspect connectivity patterns of groups of nodes at the desired level of detail/group sizes.
The existence of the smallest identifiable blocks is in community detection literature known as the *resolution limit* and it is defined as the smallest group that a method is able to identify [@Fortunato2007]. One of the most commonly used objective functions is modularity [@Newman2004], for which it has been shown that it is not able to separate small groups, even in obvious cases, if the number of links inside them is too small compared to the number of links in the rest of the network [@Fortunato2007]. It should be noted that SBMs are not completely immune to resolution limit problems [@Choi2012; @Peixoto_parsimonious_2013], which presents a problem in the comparative analysis of networks spanning two orders of magnitude, as is the case with our time slices. The smallest detectable blocks scale with the network size, which means that high-resolution levels for large networks would remain hidden from us. Fitting the blocks at all resolutions for the hierarchical SBM at the same time reduces the limit, because each lower level uses blocks from the level above as a constraint, so block inference at the lower levels is in effect done locally in each higher-level block [@Peixoto_hierarchical_2014].
The criteria and algorithms described above are implemented in `graph-tool` Python module, which we use to do all SBM fitting in this work [@peixoto_graph-tool_2014].
Visualizing citation flows between blocks {#sec:vis_cit_flows}
=========================================
Hierarchical SBM levels can be visualized as networks that provide us with a multi-resolution map of the citation network. Network visualization is a powerful tool for visual inspection of complex network data, but its readability and thus usefulness depends on the level of details presented and the total size of the network. In addition, if the network is dense, i.e. average node degree is large, it is even harder to make a clear picture of it. Lower levels contain a lot of information in fine detail, but they are often vast and too dense for visualization to be readable. But not all weighted links are equally important if we are interested in large-scale patterns. This means we can depict only the most important ones, making the network significantly less dense. This is again done by the procedure outlined in \[sec:data\], which keeps only the links that form the backbone of the network [@Serrano2009].
![Networks of SBM blocks for the time periods of 1920s, 1960s, and 1995-2000. The top row shows resolution levels most similar to subfields, bottom to fields. The node shapes and colours represent the dominant field in that block and the node sizes are proportional to the number of articles. Directed links are coloured and sized logarithmically, according to the number of citations they carry. Node and link sizes are normalized per pairs of networks from the same time window, so that these sizes can be compared between the two resolution levels but not across the time windows. The link colours are normalized for each network separately. []{data-label="fig:networks"}](block_graphs_grid.pdf)
Three examples of networks of SBM blocks for the time periods of 1920s, 1960s, and 1995-2000, at the levels most similar, i.e. the closest matching number of blocks to subfields and fields are depicted in \[fig:networks\].
Clustering of blocks of similar fields is quite visible in all six networks. Medicine forms the biggest cluster, followed by Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Large-scale structure remains similar for all three time periods: Medicine is tightly connected to Biology, which is then connected to Chemistry and Physics. This structure is in accordance with the previously published maps [@Rosvall2008; @Leydesdorff2009]. The figures also include interesting small-scale details that vary between the resolutions and time windows. For instance, the interdisciplinary blocks are often located at the boundaries between other fields, but this effect is more visible in the subfield resolution level.
The fact that there are multiple blocks with the same dominant field in levels having the most similar number of blocks to the number of assigned fields, is a consequence of large heterogeneity of the field sizes and importance. Large fields also have rich internal structure that overshadows small, more simple fields in process of inferring the best blocks at each hierarchical level. In this sense, the choice of taking the number of fields as a guide for choosing the most appropriate level might be an overly simplified one.
Connectivity patterns of blocks {#sec:conn_patt}
===============================
In contrast to traditional community detection, blocks in SBM are not limited to “dense subgroups” where the citations stay inside the blocks, but a block can also represent a structure where the citations flow out of or into the block, as long as all journals in the block behave in similar way. We summarize the type of block in terms of citation flows by counting the number of citations entering the block $s_{in}$ (articles in the block are being cited), leaving the block $s_{out}$ (they cite articles in other blocks) and internal citations $s_{int}$ (citing articles in the same block)[^5].
Note that the sum of the three flow counts represents the total activity of the journals in the block. Here we are not interested in the total activities but in the type of flows. We investigate these types by separating the total flow from our flow measures and concentrate on relative in-, out-, and internal flows. These normalized flows are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{s}_{in}=s_{in}/s_{tot}, \\
\bar{s}_{out}=s_{out}/s_{tot}, \\
\bar{s}_{int}=s_{int}/s_{tot}, \\
\end{aligned}
\qquad \text{where} \quad s_{tot}=s_{in}+s_{out}+s_{int}.
\label{eq:s_def}$$ By normalising the flows by the total activity we reduce the number of free parameters needed to describe blocks’ flow patterns from three to two. That is, the sum of the three relative flows equals to one such that knowing two of them is enough as the third one can always be calculated based on them. This means that we can report the two out of the three flow measures that are the most convenient for us.
![Properties of blocks depending on their location on the connectivity pattern plot. $\bar{s}_{in}$ and $\bar{s}_{out}$ are relative in- and out- flows of citations to/from the block. Due to relation $\bar{s}_{in} + \bar{s}_{out} \leq 1$ points are confined to regions outlined by grey lines. Regions, as well as red points at special locations, are marked with arrows and annotated with descriptions of the properties of blocks at those locations. []{data-label="fig:props_schema"}](props_schema.pdf){width=".65\textwidth"}
For visualizing the connectivity patterns of blocks, the choice of $\bar{s}_{in}$ and $\bar{s}_{out}$ as $x$ and $y$ coordinates makes it easy to visually asses the block’s properties from its position on the plot as illustrated in \[fig:props\_schema\]. Since the sum $\bar{s}_{in}+\bar{s}_{out}$ must be $\leq1$, points can lie only in the triangle bounded by the diagonal $(0,1)-(1,0)$. Proximity to the origin tells us how much “self-centred” or “community-like” the block is, while the distances from the axes signify the balance between receiving and giving out citations. It helps to consider four extremal cases for a block, marked with red points in \[fig:props\_schema\]:
**(0,0)**
: *Pure community*. Journals in this block are isolated from the rest of the network. Articles published in these journals only cite and get cited by articles in journals from this block.
**(1,0)**
: *Pure sink*. Journals in this block only receive citations and do not cite at all.
**(0,1)**
: *Pure source*. Journals in this block do not get cited, but cite others.
**(0.5,0.5)**
: *Pure bridge*. Journals in this block cite and get cited equally, but there are no citations within the block.
In most cases, the values lie somewhere between these extremes. The triangular space can be divided into three regions outlined by grey lines in \[fig:props\_schema\] that contain blocks with the following properties:
**Inner triangle**
: is community-like (“a community in a weak sense” \[@Radicchi2004Defining\]). More than half of the citations pertaining to this block stay within it.
**Upper wing**
: mostly cites others.
**Lower wing**
: mostly receives citations.
In \[fig:block\_props\] we visualize the types of connectivity patterns of blocks found in the citation networks. We display the data for three time periods (1920s, 1960s, and 1995-2000) and for three levels of resolution. This gives us an overview of the types of mesoscale structures one can find in the citation networks. A large number of blocks detected by the SBM method fall outside the inner triangle, and are thus not community-like structures even in the weak sense [@Radicchi2004Defining]. This is especially evident for high-resolution levels where the vast majority of inferred blocks are not communities. Note that the inclination towards non-community-like structures is a feature of the data as the SBM method does not have a preference for any particular type of block structure.
Note that, in the hierarchical structure of blocks, the level that contains larger blocks cannot have less community-like blocks than a level that contains smaller blocks, and for the one block at the top of the hierarchy *all* citations are internal. This can be illustrated by considering the merger of two blocks: their internal citations remain internal, but part of their external citations that go between them become internal to the merged block (c.f. Appendix \[app:block\_merge\]). In consequence, the average fraction of internal citations in the block at the higher level of hierarchy can only be equal to or higher than the weighted average of the two blocks at the lower level of hierarchy.
![Connectivity patterns of structural and classification blocks, for the time periods of 1900–1910, 1950–1960, and 1995–2000. Each row corresponds to a different block type: journals themselves; the first SBM level; subfields classification; SBM level with the closest matching number of blocks to the number of subfields (SBM: $\sim$subfields); fields classification; and SBM level with the closest matching number of blocks to the number of fields (SBM: $\sim$fields). Blocks are represented as points (coloured and shaped according to the dominant field in a block) with coordinates being the ingoing and outgoing citations as fractions of total citations for each block ($\bar{s}_{in}$ and $\bar{s}_{out}$, \[eq:s\_def\]). Point areas are proportional to the number of articles published by all of block’s journals. Blocks with fewer that 10 total citations are not shown. Blocks containing a selected set of journals are annotated. []{data-label="fig:block_props"}](block_props-size_by_papers-grid3x6.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
The outlined procedure can be used with any kind of partition of the journals to “blocks”, not just ones inferred for SBM. The journals are explicitly partitioned in the data by subfield and field classification, and we want to compare these partitionings to ones given by the blocks found by the SBM method. For our purposes it is useful to view both of these partitions as block structures, but to avoid confusion we name the blocks as determined by the classification data *classification blocks*, and the ones inferred by SBM from the citation patterns’ *structural blocks*. Journals themselves form elementary blocks, which can be viewed as the “zeroth” level of hierarchical SBM or any other hierarchical block structure. These zeroth level blocks give us properties of individual journals. Journals are assigned to subfields (in the dataset), which are in turn grouped into fields. One would expect this classification to be reflected in citation patterns, since it should group similar journals together. We are able to test this assumption by comparing the properties of artificial blocks, defined by subfields and fields, with blocks inferred from citations. Hierarchical SBM provides us with many levels at different resolutions, and in \[fig:block\_props\] we compare the level with the most similar number of blocks to the number of subfields and fields in that network.
Individual journals span the whole space of in- and out- flow balance (there are many strong sinks as well as strong sources), while the overwhelming majority do not predominantly cite themselves. There are annotated journals of higher prominence that are found in the lower wing, which is to be expected since they receive more citations than give out.
The first SBM level determines the smallest non-trivial structural blocks, and it is the smallest grouping of journals that cite, and are cited, in a similar way as they have similar citation patterns towards the rest of the network. Compared with the level of journals the spread of points is reduced in all time periods, although to a varying degree. The spread is reduced with time: there is almost no change in 1920s, some change in 1960s and a significant constriction of values for 1995-2000. This could be a consequence of the resolution limit, where smaller details are increasingly harder to capture as the size of the network increases, or the outlying journals carry less information in later years, so they are combined with more moderate ones.
At the level of subfields (the 3rd and 4th rows in \[fig:block\_props\]), both structural blocks and classification blocks display a pattern where multidisciplinary blocks are located mostly on the cited side. This is expected given that these blocks are dominated by high impact journals publishing high quality articles from a wide spectrum of fields. Comparing the distribution of points for classification blocks versus structural blocks we see that the latter ones are more evenly spread out in 1960s and 1995-2000, while this is not the case in 1900s. There are also more community-like blocks in the structural case, in particular in the fields of Economics, Physics, and Mathematics and Geosciences in 1920s. This means that SBM captures a broader spectrum of block types, while classification blocks tend to be more similar to each other or they have a preference for certain properties.
The highest level of hierarchy we focus on—for both classification blocks and structural blocks—is the level of fields (5th and 6th rows in \[fig:block\_props\]). Constriction in classification blocks is again present, albeit not so strong as for the subfields. With time, Multidisciplinary field strongly separates from the bulk that remains more elongated in the community-bridge direction and slightly leaned toward source-like behaviour. Similar to the level of subfields, Multidisciplinary block tends to become more cited with time for both classification and structural blocks, with this behaviour being more pronounced for structural blocks and the last time period. Medicine and Physics get separated into a community-like block, meaning that the most citations remain within their field, which was not the case for the subfields. The SBM finds multiple blocks of mixed fields that are source- and community-like for 1960s, and only community-like for 1995-2000. Most of the mixed blocks in 1960s are comprised of unclassified journals, number of which rises in the second half of the century (see \[app:basic\_stats\] for details). For classification blocks these journals are all collected under the “mixed/unknown” field (large white square).
Note that one needs to be careful when comparing blocks across different panels in \[fig:block\_props\], as there is no guarantee that blocks with similar qualities in different panels comprise of the same journals. Deeper analysis in this direction would require listing all journals in a block, or annotating journals of interest (which is done for a few journals in \[fig:block\_props\]).
Evolution of block connectivity patterns in time {#sec:evolution}
================================================
In the previous section we summarized the types of citation flows of individual blocks. We will next build on this summarization method, and quantify the evolution of citation flows of specific fields. To be more precise, we ask the question: what is the expected type of citation flow of the block where a randomly chosen article of a given field belongs to?
The expected flows for a journal in a field can be calculated by collecting all journals belonging to a field and taking a weighted average of the flows of the blocks they belong to. To calculate average flows for articles, averaging needs to be weighted by a fraction of journals’ publications out of the total number in the field: $$\bar{s}^{f}_x = \frac{\sum_{j} a_j \bar{s}_x}{\sum_{j}a_j}\,,
\label{eq:sf_def}$$ where $\bar{s}_x$ is any of the three average flows (in-, out-, and internal) from \[eq:s\_def\], $a_j$ is the number of articles published by the journal $j$, and the sums go over all journals of the field $f$. If we do this for networks in all time windows, in addition to differentiating fields among themselves, we can follow the evolution of citation flow patterns of individual fields over time.
![Evolution of structural and classification block connectivities in time, for 16 largest fields. Fields are grouped in columns (colours are the same as in \[fig:block\_props\]) and each row is for different type of blocks, from top: journals themselves; the first SBM level; subfields classification; SBM level with the closest matching number of blocks to the number of subfields (SBM: $\sim$subfields); fields classification; and SBM level with the closest matching number of blocks to the number of fields (SBM: $\sim$fields). Time (in years) is on the horizontal axis. Relative citation flows of blocks containing journals from the respective field \[see \[eq:sf\_def\]\] are shown as shaded regions: bottom part (the darkest) is for internal flow $\bar{s}^{f}_{int}$, middle (lighter) for incoming flow $\bar{s}^{f}_{in}$, and top part (the lightest) for outgoing flow $\bar{s}^{f}_{out}$. The average value of each flow is marked with a black line, and the error of the mean is shown as a transitional shade between regions. The central horizontal line marks 50% of the flow. []{data-label="fig:block_props_in_time"}](block_props_in_time-norm_by_papers-top16-8col-no_smooth.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The evolution of the average citation flows or block connectivities for 16 most prominent fields is shown in \[fig:block\_props\_in\_time\]. Fields are ordered by the surface area under the logarithm of the number of journals in each field. Logarithmic scale is used to leverage the impact of the exponential increase of the number of journals (c.f. \[app:basic\_stats\]). Similar to the previous section, we repeat the analysis for structural blocks inferred for the SBM and classification blocks given as classifications of the data (fields and subfields). That is, the average flows $\bar{s}^{f}_x$ (in-, out- and internal) of a field $f$ are calculated over all the field’s journals, and the values $\bar{s}_x$ are taken from blocks, either the structural blocks or the classification blocks, the journals belong to.
For half of the 16 fields, the internal flows of classification blocks are larger than the internal flows of the inferred structural blocks. Mathematics, Economics, Geosciences, Law, Education, Political Science, and Anthropology journals are found to reside in structural blocks that are more community-like than the corresponding classification blocks. This could mean that SBM is able to find their “natural” communities—ones that capture the most of the citation flows—while the classifications alone are not able to achieve. The strength of this effect varies, with the most striking examples being Mathematics, Law, and Political Science. Classification blocks of Economics, and partially Geosciences and Law are themselves quite community-like. The opposite effect is present for Medicine and Biology, meaning that the structural blocks are less community-like than classification ones. This can be explained by the fact that these fields have a large number of both subfields and journals, so they contain a rich internal structure of blocks with large flow of citations between them. Their internal citation structure might also be different from other fields, as they contain highly cited papers describing methods and procedures [@Small1974].
The in-flows $\bar{s}^{f}_{in}$ and out-flows $\bar{s}^{f}_{out}$ are quite balanced for most fields, with a few notable exceptions. Multidisciplinary field has noticeably more incoming citations than outgoing, for all hierarchy levels and for both types of blocks. This does not necessarily mean that all journals in Multidisciplinary field attract citations, but it can be due to the fact that it contains several high profile journals[^6], like Nature, Science, and PNAS. Individual journals in Political Science field receive more citations than they give out, while this difference vanishes for the blocks they belong to. The opposite is true for Medicine, Health, and Environmental (they give out more citations than they receive) and this behaviour remains present for blocks in higher levels.
In time domain, fields exhibit a wealth of behaviours. Some have relatively stable patterns (Medicine, Chemistry, Economics, Multidisciplinary, and to some degree Health and Political Science), most of the others have large changes around the World War II, while some have uniform and steady shifts (Education and Anthropology are the most notable).
The most striking feature is the sudden rise in share of outgoing flows at the time of the WWII, mostly for classification blocks, and to some degree for journals of some fields. The largest rises are in decreasing order for: Law, Geosciences, Mathematics, Anthropology, Physics, Biology, and Environmental. In Biology and Chemistry a faint effect is also visible at the level of journals, while in case of Environmental it is mostly a drop in internal flow. Given that this effect is almost invisible for structural blocks, the observed changes most likely do not arise from the change in journals’ citation patterns, but in the way they are classified. This sudden change correlates with the large increase of the number of subfields (c.f. \[app:basic\_stats\]).
Some fields exhibit slow but steady change over time, predominantly in the structural blocks. Anthropology journals are citing more external literature and less themselves with time, which is also visible in the smallest structural blocks, to lesser extent in the structural blocks of size of subfields, and not at all in the structural blocks of size of fields. This means that considerable amount of the citation flow that is increasingly going out of the journals is nevertheless retained inside the structural blocks. Biology, Chemistry, Multidisciplinary, and Education journals show similar behaviour, but their outgoing flows remain stable also in the structural blocks of size of subfields. A plausible explanation is that as a new journal appears in the field, it “steals” some of the citation flows from the old journals while mimicking their citation pattern towards the rest of the network, which means that they will all be nevertheless put into the same block by SBM. Proving such explanations would require a more detailed analysis.
Predictive power of subject categorisations {#sec:pred_power_of_categories}
===========================================
Citation networks can be augmented with a wealth of information about articles, journals, and authors. These include subfields, tags, keywords, author affiliations, etc. In this work we use classification of journals into subject categories (subfields) provided in the dataset, and we are interested in how much does this classification correspond to the structural blocks found in the citation patterns.
The comparison of two partitions—such as classifications, clusterings, or block structures—is in general often done using some comparison measure, such as Jaccard index, Omega index, and Variation of Information [@Meila2007]. It is typical to compare partitions arising from a classification given in the data and the groups arising from the network structure as returned by some community detection method [@Bommarito2010; @Chen2010; @Lancichinetti_comparison_2009; @Hric2014; @Yang2015]. This is a viable option in our case as well, but we would have to make a choice of a comparison measure. Because the question of how similar two partitions are is ill-defined, each comparison measure realises it differently and can even return different results [@Meila2007; @Traud2011; @Fortunato2016Community].
Instead of asking how similar the two partitions are, we ask the question: *what can we know about the citations of a journal from its classification?* Exactly this question is answered by including node annotations into SBM as it is done by @Hric2016, which is based on the notion that annotations on nodes are just meta-information one has about the network—there is no principled difference between the data about connections between two nodes (links) and between a node and its annotations. In literature dealing with the community detection in networks this distinction between data and annotations is often made explicit, either by treating annotations as a sort of “ground truth” for groups [@yang_community-affiliation_2012; @yang_structure_2012; @Yang2015], or as features that need to be learned by the model [@Newman2016]. Here instead, annotations are treated as nodes of a bipartite network consisting of “data” nodes (journals in the citation network) and “annotation” nodes (subfields or fields of the journals), and connection exists between data node and all of its annotations (there can be any number of them, including zero).
\[fig:layers\] illustrates the resulting combined network that consists of two kinds of nodes (journals and annotations) and two kinds of links (citations and journal-annotation assignment). SBM is then fitted with a constraint that each inferred block must contain only one kind of nodes. The benefits of this procedure is that the node annotations contribute to the inferred node blocks, and annotations are also grouped into blocks of “equivalence”.
![Schematic representation of joint journal-annotations model. Journals with citations connecting them (blue circles and full lines) are augmented with annotations (red squares and grey lines). SBM is fitted onto the whole network such that blocks of journals are separate from blocks of annotation (blue circles and red squares respectively). Note that a journal can have multiple annotations, or it can be unannotated. Here we use subfield and field classifications as the annotations of journals, but any other data on journals can be used. []{data-label="fig:layers"}](two_layer_SBM2c.pdf)
Working in this framework, the question from the beginning of this section can be formulated as: *how much information gain does one get about links of a single node, after learning the node’s annotations?* To answer it the following procedure is used. A small fraction of nodes is removed from the network (5% or 100, whichever is smaller), turning them into “extra nodes”—the nodes we are missing the information on, and would like to know our chances in correctly guessing where their links connect to. Then, the blocks are inferred for both the original network (without annotations), and one described above (with annotations included in an additional layer). Without annotations, the only thing we know about extra nodes is their degree. How are these links distributed to existing blocks depends only on which block does the new node belong to (in SBM the only thing defining the node is its degree and block). However, we do not know which block the extra node belongs to, and its probability of being in a block can only be taken to be the size distribution of the blocks. In case we have the node’s annotations, we know its links in the annotations layer which narrows our choice of blocks it can belong to and thus raises the probabilities of guessing the correct links. If we denote the probability for guessing all links of node $i$ without knowing annotations with $P_i$ and the same by using annotations as $P_i(ann)$ we can quantify the relative improvement with the *predictive likelihood ratio* $\lambda_i$: $$\lambda_i = \frac{P_i(ann)}{P_i+P_i(ann)}\,.
\label{eq:lambda}$$ The predictive likelihood ratio $\lambda_i$ takes values from $[0,1]$ and is above $0.5$ if annotations improve link prediction power, around $0.5$ if they do not change it, and below $0.5$ if they decrease it. The average $\lambda_i$ of all sample nodes is the *average predictive likelihood ratio* $\langle\lambda\rangle$ for a dataset.
![Node prediction performance, measured by the average predictive likelihood ratio ${{\left<\lambda\right>}}$ for subfields and fields \[see \[eq:lambda\]\]. The ${{\left<\lambda\right>}}$ values are calculated for simplified networks (see \[sec:data\_simple\]) for 14 time slices used previously, with five threshold values $\alpha$: $0.05,\ldots,0.25$. Each bar corresponds to a single time windows and the dots above each bar indicate the thresholds $\alpha$ with values increasing from left to right. Results are averaged over all the nodes from ten samples for each case, each one formed by removing 5% or 100 nodes, whichever is smaller. The bar heights correspond to averages over $\alpha$ values.[]{data-label="fig:improvements"}](improvements.pdf)
We use the average predictive likelihood ratio ${{\left<\lambda\right>}}$ to measure the ability of subfield and field classifications to predict journals’ citations in the simplified networks (see \[sec:data\_simple\]). Predicting the links of the simplified networks is equivalent to predicting which journals are the most important sources and destinations for the citations of the extra nodes, because these networks only include the most important links for each node and do not include the actual citation counts for the links. The values for ${{\left<\lambda\right>}}$ are presented in \[fig:improvements\] for each individual time slice, and for five threshold levels that preserve $\sim$6% to $\sim$21% of the most important links (representing $\sim$23% to $\sim$45% of citations) and $\sim$51% to $\sim$99% of nodes, respectively.
Overall, both subfield and field classification correlate positively with the citation structure. The only exception are the low threshold networks for 1900s, in which knowing the journal’s (sub)field does not help in predicting its citations. Low threshold values in this already small network caused the loss of large fraction of links and nodes, which lowered the quality of the approximation by the simplified and thresholded network. Higher threshold values do not have this problem.
Subfields are more predictive with time while the predictiveness of the fields does not change as much. The reasons for this can be some sort of overspecialization of subfields, which do not necessarily correspond to the citation patterns of the journals being classified. Fields, on the other hand, remain as a good proxy for large-scale citation structure throughout the whole time period.
Predictability of individual fields {#sec:pred-field}
-----------------------------------
The method described in the previous Section answers the question of how much information we gain about journal’s citations if we know what subfields it is classified into. We will next divide this question into smaller parts, and ask how much information do we gain by knowing that a journal belongs to a specific subfield.
Using the model from @Hric2016 it is possible to calculate how much information gain (for guessing node’s links) does a single annotation provide, in comparison to a case where annotations are assigned randomly. Information gain relative to the random case is defined as predictiveness $\mu_a$, and it is defined per annotation block $a$. Further details and formulas can be found in @Hric2016.
Here we again consider subfields and fields as annotations of journals. After fitting the SBM onto the two-layered network of citations and annotations, the predictiveness of each block of subfields (or fields) is calculated. Fields in the same block inherit predictiveness of the block, which follows from the SBM assumption that all annotations in a block are equivalent. By calculating the field predictivenesses for all time windows, on top of being able to compare fields to each other, their change in time can also be tracked both relatively and absolutely.
Because the implementation of SBM fitting algorithm is probabilistic, variations in results are to be expected with small differences in the networks (for instance two 10-year windows with 9-year overlap), and even in different runs of fitting function on the same network. These variations cause $\mu_a$ values for the network from adjacent time windows to vary considerably, obscuring more general trends. Taking an average $\mu_a$ of all time windows that a year belongs to, we are able to overcome these fluctuations. Additional clarity is achieved by ten-year sliding averages of these values.
![Predictivenesses measured by $\mu$ of the top 16 fields, for classification into fields, for all available years. The values are ten-year sliding averages of average $\mu$ for all time windows using that year. Each panel contains a groups of four fields in the order of decreasing $\mu$ after 1960. Shaded region in the background is the total span of values is drawn as []{data-label="fig:field_imps"}](field_imps_grid-isi_fields.pdf)
Here we present the predictivenesses of individual fields, for the case where classification into fields was used. The results for the case where subfields were used instead, are presented in \[app:sf\_predictiveness\].
Based on field predictiveness in \[fig:field\_imps\], the time can be split into three periods: before 1940s, the transition period, and after 1970s. Before 1940s the fields have on average higher predictiveness, but since the data is quite scarce for this period, one needs to be careful when drawing conclusions. In the transition period all the fields have very poor predictiveness, experiencing a rebound after 1970 for all but handful of fields in the last panels (Engineering, Environmental, Medicine, Biology, Multidisciplinary, and Health). This can be a sign of major changes science has gone through after the WWII.
Mathematics has the highest predictiveness in the third period by a visible margin, while before 1940s the best scoring fields are Engineering and Multidisciplinary. It has risen sharply from the bottom in the transition period to the top in just 25 years, i.e. from 1955 to 1980. This means that citation patterns of Mathematics papers became more characteristic after 1970s, which is picked up by SBM and Mathematics journals end up in a small number of exclusive blocks. For Engineering it is the opposite: it fared very high before 1940s, did not suffer hard in the transition, but never recovered. The same can be said about Multidisciplinary field: it had even sharper drop and did not really recover.
On the other side of the spectrum are often large fields (Engineering, Medicine, Biology), or related to a large field (Environmental, Anthropology, and Health). Their large size means that they contain rich structure within themselves, which gets detected by the SBM as large number of blocks. Hence knowing just the field label tells little about the small blocks within the field.
Conclusions and Discussion {#sec:Conclusions}
==========================
The tools developed in network science are routinely used to analyse the citation networks, and in particular network clustering methods are often used to identify large-scale patterns in these networks. Recently, there has been significant advances in stochastic block modelling methods within the network science literature, but large-scale analysis of citation patterns using these methods have been missing until now. The main difference between the SBM methods and the conventional graph clustering is that the SBM methods can be used to detect a variety of mesoscale structures—not just dense subgraphs. Therefore, the SBM methods lead to compelling advantages over traditional network clustering only for networks in which the dominant structure is not a collection of dense communities that are sparsely connected to each other. In this article we have shown that this is the case for citation networks by fitting the SBMs to them: the blocks that best explain these networks are only rarely even weak communities. This observation is true across multiple resolution levels and through the whole history of modern science.
The idea of finding sets of journals with similar citation patterns and similar roles is not new, but the SBM formalises it in a way that is novel to citation network analysis. Nodes in a block do not necessarily share the same links to all other nodes, but they do share similar links to all other blocks. Previously similar structures were found by calculating similarity matrices between journals (or other elements) and applying data clustering methods that work on the similarities. This type of multi-stage method requires researcher to first choose a similarity measure and then a clustering method and the type of clusters found reflect the unique combination of these two choices. The SBM method is more transparent: there is a single easy-to-interpret model that is fitted to the data. Model fitting has its own pitfalls and problems, but these difficulties have been solved for SBM in the recent literature leading to a very robust and efficient fitting methods. This point is demonstrated by the fact that the SBM method works consistently with minimal prepossessing for both relatively small networks representing citation patterns in the 1900s and in the recent large-scale networks.
The journals are classified manually into subfields and fields, and these classes can be viewed as human-curated blocks. Such classification block structures should correspond to the structure of the citation networks, and it is interesting to study how these two are related. A typical—although often flawed [@Hric2014]—approach for doing this is to consider the classification blocks as “ground truth” and compare them to structural blocks using some subset of the many measures designed to quantify similarity or dissimilarity of partitions. Here, we have taken a more direct and well-grounded approach to ask the question of how much can the field classifications help in predicting the citation patterns. We used the SBMs to test this, and found that overall the subfield classifications have become more helpful. The ability to predict citations based on categorization was further split for different time periods and for different fields revealing a rich variety of temporal patterns.
We have demonstrated that SBMs are very suitable for the type of structure found in the citation networks, and therefore the SBM methods have the potential of becoming one of the standard tools in analysing citation networks in the future. The work presented here only lays a basis for such future analysis, even though we have analysed modern science in its full length and width. There are several immediate new research avenues and directions that are still interesting and open. Obviously, case studies can be focused on subsets of journals, at various levels of details, and for any time period, not just the ones considered here. Further, one can study how the rich annotation data of scientific articles is related to the structure of the citation networks. For example, the relationships of keywords, authors, institutional affiliations, and countries to the structure of the networks can be analysed. The SBM method used here partitions annotations—in addition to journals—into blocks of equivalence, and these annotation blocks deserve to receive detailed attention. For instance, one can find blocks of authors, institutions or countries that have the same role in the structure of the citation networks. Lastly, rich hierarchical structures returned by SBM are ripe for comparison to existing ontologies that is left for future work.
Acknowledgments {#sec:acknowledgments}
===============
We thank Tiago P. Peixoto for providing technical help regarding `graph-tool` Python module, and useful comments on the final manuscript. This work was supported by the European Community’s H2020 Program under the scheme “INFRAIA-1-2014-2015: Research Infrastructures”, Grant agreement No. 654024 “SoBigData: Social Mining & Big Data Ecosystem” (http://www.sobigdata.eu). D.H. and K.K. gratefully acknowledge MULTIPLEX, grant number 317532 of the European Commission. We acknowledge the computational resources provided by the Aalto Science-IT project.
Dataset: basic statistics
=========================
The total number of journals, articles and citations in the dataset is 76418, 55199417 (of which 38212193 have citations flowing in or out) and 632340116, respectively.
The number of journals, articles, in- and out- citations for every year are presented in \[fig:basics\], left. Exponential growth of science in all aspects is clearly visible. On the right are plotted numbers of journals and citations in networks for each time window. They are also growing exponentially which prompted us to use shorted time windows after 1970s. Due to using only the references not older than the length of the time window, only a certain fraction of citations is used, which is plotted with grey lines on the right side of \[fig:basics\]. Ten-year windows retain around 70% of the citations, while 5-year ones around 35%.
In contrast to all other measures, number of subject categories grows only linearly in time (\[fig:basics\_tags\], left). It needs to be pointed out that these values do not necessarily represent the reality truthfully, since it is assumed that classifications of a journal remain the same throughout its lifespan, for simplicity reasons. Fractions of classified journals depicted on the right side of \[fig:basics\_tags\] show that most journals are classified to at least one subfield, with the lowest fraction of classified journals being around year 1970.
[cc]{}
![Number of journals, articles, and citations. Left: values for every year in the dataset. Right: values for every network made from slicing the data in time windows, including the fraction of used citations out of all citations pertinent on journals in each time window. []{data-label="fig:basics"}](basics.pdf)
![Number of journals, articles, and citations. Left: values for every year in the dataset. Right: values for every network made from slicing the data in time windows, including the fraction of used citations out of all citations pertinent on journals in each time window. []{data-label="fig:basics"}](basics_dsets_and_frac.pdf)
[cc]{}
![Number and distribution of subject categories. Left: number of fields and subfields for every year. Right: fractions of journals classified in different number of subfields. []{data-label="fig:basics_tags"}](basics_sfs.pdf)
![Number and distribution of subject categories. Left: number of fields and subfields for every year. Right: fractions of journals classified in different number of subfields. []{data-label="fig:basics_tags"}](basics_tags.pdf)
Predictiveness of individual fields
===================================
Field predictivenesses ($\mu_{f}$) from \[sec:pred-field\] are calculated using field categories as “meta-information”. The same can be calculated for the case when subfields are used instead, the results of which are presented in \[fig:field\_imps\_sf\]. Although $\mu_{sf}$ values are calculated for subfields, values for fields are calculated as averages of all subfields belonging to a field. In addition to averages, errors of the mean are shown as shaded regions.
In general, subfields are slightly better predictors of journal’s citations than fields. This is true for all subfields, regardless of the field they belong to, which in consequence prevents clear separation of fields based on this criteria. Nevertheless, the order of fields by predictiveness of their subfields is roughly the same as for the predictiveness of fields themselves (c.f. \[fig:field\_imps\] in \[sec:pred-field\]).
![Predictivenesses measured by $\mu$ of the top 16 fields, for classification into subfields, for all available years. The values are the averages of overlapping time windows, additionally smoothed by 10-year sliding average. Each panel contains a groups of four fields in the order of decreasing $\mu$ after 1960. Total span of values is drawn as shaded region in the background. []{data-label="fig:field_imps_sf"}](field_imps_grid-isi_subfields.pdf)
Formulas for connectivity patterns of merged blocks {#app:block_merge}
===================================================
![Schematic representation of citation flows in the merge of two blocks. []{data-label="fig:block_merge"}](block_merge_schema.pdf)
Each level in a hierarchy takes the blocks from the level below it as nodes of the network that it models. In this process, the properties of the small blocks ($\bar{s}_{int}$, $\bar{s}_{in}$, and $\bar{s}_{out}$) are propagated in non-trivial way into the properties of the merged block.
Here we consider the properties of a block that is formed when two blocks at the lower level are merged (see \[fig:block\_merge\]). Internal flow of the merged block ($S_{int}$) contains all flows inside a dashed rectangle on \[fig:block\_merge\], while in- and out- flows ($S_{in}$, $S_{out}$) are sums of flows of the constituent blocks: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{int} &= s^1_{int}+s^2_{int}+s_{12}+s_{21}, \\
S_{in} &= s'^1_{in}+s'^2_{in}, \\
S_{out} &= s'^1_{out}+s'^2_{out}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:S_def}$$ Normalized flows of the merged block are obtained by dividing the absolute flows by the total flows of the block exactly as also described in \[eq:s\_def\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{S}_{int} &= S_{int}/S_{tot}, \\
\bar{S}_{in} &= S_{in}/S_{tot}, \\
\bar{S}_{out} &= S_{out}/S_{tot}.
\end{aligned}
\qquad \text{where} \quad S_{tot}=S_{int}+S_{in}+S_{out}.
\label{eq:Sbar_def}$$ Expressing the normalized flows of the merged block with the normalized flows of the constituent blocks, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{S}_{int} &= \frac{s^1_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^1_{int}
+ \frac{s^2_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^2_{int}
+ \frac{s_{12}+s_{21}}{S_{tot}}, \\
\bar{S}_{in} &= \frac{s^1_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^1_{in}
+ \frac{s^2_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^2_{in}
- \frac{s_{12}+s_{21}}{S_{tot}}, \\
\bar{S}_{out} &= \frac{s^1_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^1_{out}
+ \frac{s^2_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^2_{out}
- \frac{s_{12}+s_{21}}{S_{tot}}, \\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Smerged_def}$$ where $$s^b_{tot}=s^b_{int}+s^b_{in}+s^b_{out}+s_{12}+s_{21}, \quad \text{for} \; b \in \{1,2\}.$$ The three formulas from \[eq:Smerged\_def\] have the same form: $$\bar{S}_{f} = \frac{s^1_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^1_{f}
+ \frac{s^2_{tot}}{S_{tot}}\bar{s}^2_{f}
\pm \frac{s_{12}+s_{21}}{S_{tot}}
= w_1 \bar{s}^1_f + w_2 \bar{s}^2_f \pm w_{12}.
\label{eq:Sf}$$ where $w_1$, $w_2$, are the fractions of flows pertinent to blocks 1 and 2, and $w_{12}$ is the fraction of flow that goes between blocks 1 and 2, out of total flow $S_{tot}$.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: The assumption about blocks being disjoint sets of nodes can be relaxed [@Peixoto_model_2014].
[^5]: One can view the system of flows and blocks as a weighted network. In the literature of weighted complex networks [@Barrat2004], weighted sum of a node’s links is called *strength*, and for the directed networks it can be in-, out- and internal strength: $s_{in}$, $s_{out}$ and $s_{int}$.
[^6]: For this reason some authors have in similar analyses excluded these journals altogether [@Zhang2010]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The primary aim of the paper is the study of Sobolev spaces in the context of Gelfand pairs. The article commences with providing a historical overview and motivation for the researched subject together with a summary of the current state of the literature. What follows is a general outline of harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs, starting with a concept of positive-semidefinite functions, through spherical functions and spherical transform and concluding with the Hausdorff-Young inequality. The main part of the paper introduces the notion of Sobolev spaces on Gelfand pairs and studies the properties of these spaces. It turns out that Sobolev embedding theorems and Rellich-Kondrachov theorem still hold true in this generalized context (if certain technical caveats are taken into consideration).'
author:
- Mateusz Krukowski
title: Sobolev spaces on Gelfand pairs
---
**Keywords :** Gelfand pairs, spherical transform, Hausdorff-Young inequality, Sobolev spaces, Sobolev embedding theorems, Rellich-Kondrachov theorem, bosonic string equation\
\
**AMS Mathematics Subject Classification :** 43A15, 43A32, 43A35, 43A40, 43A90
Introduction
============
It is difficult to imagine a mathematician working in a field of differential equations, who has not heard of Sobolev spaces. These spaces are named after Sergei Sobolev ($1908-1989$), although they were known before the rise of the Russian mathematician to academic stardom. In 1977 Gaetano Fichera wrote (comp. [@Graffi]): “These spaces, at least in the particular case $p=2$, were known since the very beginning of this century, to the Italian mathematicians Beppo Levi and Guido Fubini who investigated the Dirichlet minimum principle for elliptic equations.” According to Fichera, at the beginning of the fifties, a group of French mathematicians decided to dub the spaces in question and they came up with the name “Beppo Levi spaces”. Such a choice, however, was frowned up by Beppo Levi ($1875-1961$) himself, so the name had to be changed. Eventually, the spaces were named after Sergei Sobolev and the rest is history...
Today, Sobolev spaces are the subject of countless papers, articles and monographs. It is a futile effort to try to list them all and thus we restrict ourselves to just a handful of selected examples. Among the most popular (in the author’s personal opinion) are Brezis’ “Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations” (comp. [@Brezis]) or Leoni’s “A First Course in Sobolev spaces” (comp. [@Leoni]). These are by no means the only worth-reading monographs $-$ we should also mention Adams’ and Fournier’s “Sobolev spaces” (comp. [@AdamsFournier]), Françoise and Gilbert Demengel’s “Functional Spaces for the Theory of Elliptic Partial Differential Equations” (comp. [@Demengels]), Evans’ “Partial Differential Equations” (comp. [@Evans]), Necas’ “Direct Methods in the Theory of Elliptic Equations” (comp. [@Necas]), Tartar’s “An Introduction to Sobolev Spaces and Interpolation Spaces” (comp. [@Tartar]) and many more.
Although more than 70 years have passed since the birth of Sobolev spaces, they still remain an active field of research. Mathematicians study Sobolev spaces on time scales (comp. [@AgarwalOterEspinarPereraVivero; @FengSuYao; @LiZhou; @AhmadBaigRahmanSaleem]) as well as the Sobolev spaces with variable exponent (comp. [@EdmundsRakosnik1; @EdmundsRakosnik2; @KovacikRakosnik; @MihailescuRadulescu; @SamkoVakulov]). Plenty of papers is devoted to fractional Sobolev spaces (comp. [@BahrouniRadulescu; @MazyaShaposhnikova; @NezzaPalatucciValdinoci; @Strichartz; @Swanson]). Even at the author’s alma mater, Łódź University of Technology, there is a research group studying Sobolev’s legacy (comp. [@BeldzinskiGalewski1; @BeldzinskiGalewski2; @BeldzinskiGalewski3]).
The current paper is was primarily inspired by the works of Przemysław Górka, Tomasz Kostrzewa and Enrique Reyes, particularly [@GorkaKostrzewaReyes], [@GorkaKostrzewaReyes2] and [@GorkaReyes]. In their articles, they defined and studied Sobolev spaces on locally compact *abelian* groups. It turned out that much of the classical theory, when the domain is $[0,1]$ or ${\mathbb{R}}$, can be recovered in the setting of locally compact abelian groups. It is of crucial importance that the tools that Górka, Kostrzewa and Reyes used in their work come from the field of abstract harmonic analysis. This is vital, because as a general rule of thumb “harmonic analysis on locally compact abelian groups can be generalized to harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs” (naturally there are notable exceptions to that “rule”). This is our starting point and, at the same time, one of the main ideas permeating the whole paper.
Chapter \[chapter:HarmonicanalysisGelfandpairs\] serves the purpose of laying out the preliminaries of harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs. Our exposition mainly follows (but is not restricted to) van Dijk’s “Introduction to Harmonic Analysis and Generalized Gelfand pairs” (comp. [@Dijk]) and Wolf’s “Harmonic Analysis on Commutative Spaces” (comp. [@Wolf]). We recap the basic properties of positive-semidefinite and spherical functions and summarize the notion of Gelfand pairs. We proceed with a brief description of the counterpart of Fourier transform in the context of Gelfand pairs, namely the spherical transform. We invoke the celebrated Plancherel theorem, which can be viewed as a kind of bridge between the functions on group $G$ and functions on the dual object of $G$. A significant amount of space is devoted to Hausdorff-Young inequality (which follows from Riesz-Thorin interpolation) and its inverse - we even go to some lengths to provide a not-so-well-known proof of the latter.
Chapter \[chapter:Sobolevspaces\] aspires to be the main part of the paper. It focuses on the investigation of Sobolev spaces on Gelfand pairs. Theorems \[embedding\], \[embeddingcontinuous\] and \[Sobolevembeddingtheorem\] generalize the acclaimed Sobolev embedding theorems. It is safe to say that Theorem \[RellichKondrachov\] is the climax of the paper. It is the counterpart of the eminent Rellich-Kondrachov theorem from the classical theory of Sobolev spaces.
Differential equations with infinitely many derivatives has been an active field of research since at least late 30’s of the twentieth century. In 1936 Robert Daniel Carmichael (one of the inventors of the Carmichael numbers) published two papers (comp. [@Carmichael1] and [@Carmichael2]) in which he thoroughly explained the theory of linear differential equations of infinite order. Nearly 20 years later (in 1953), Lennart Carleson (comp. [@Carleson]) wrote: “The theory of infinite differential equations with constant coefficients is quite complete as far as analytic solutions are concerned.” However, as the mathematician himself admitted, “no general theory for non-analytic solutions seems to have been developped”. Carleson went on to expand on Carmichael’s legacy studying the equation $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\ a_ku^{(k)}(x) = 0$$
without much worry about the application of his theory outside the realm of mathematics (this is not meant to be a derogatory remark).
In [@CarlssonPradoReyes], Carlsson, Prado and Reyes study As far as the notation is concerned ${\mathbb{R}}_+ = [0,\infty).$
Harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs {#chapter:HarmonicanalysisGelfandpairs}
==================================
The current chapter serves as a rather brief overview of the harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs. We commence with the concept of positive-semidefinite functions, explaining their basic properties in . Subsequently we introduce the notion of spherical functions and define the spherical transform, whose theory bears a striking resemblance to the theory of the Fourier transform for locally compact abelian groups. We discuss a counterpart of the Plancherel theorem (Theorem \[Planchereltheorem\]) as well as the inverse spherical transform. The closing part of the chapter is centred around the Hausdorff-Young inequality (Theorem \[HausdorffYoung\]) and its inverse (Theorem \[inverseHausdorffYoung\]), which are applied in the sequel.
Positive-semidefinite functions, spherical functions and Gelfand pairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, let us emphasize that from this point onward, we work under the assumption that
*$G$ is a locally compact (Hausdorff) group.*
Later on, we will add more assumptions on $G$, but it will *never* cease to be at least a locally compact group. Now, without further ado, we introduce the concept of *positive-semidefinite functions* (in the definition below, and throughout the whole paper $\dagger$ stands for the Hermitian transpose):
(comp. Definition 32.1 in [@HewittRoss2], p. 253 or Definition 8.4.1 in [@Wolf], p. 165)\
A function $\phi\colon G\longrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}$ is called positive-semidefinite if $$\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
z_1\\
z_2\\
\vdots\\
z_N
\end{array}\right)^{\dagger}\cdot
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi\left(x_1^{-1}x_1\right) & \phi\left(x_1^{-1}x_2\right) & \ldots & \phi\left(x_1^{-1}x_N\right)\\
\phi\left(x_2^{-1}x_1\right) & \phi\left(x_2^{-1}x_2\right) & & \phi\left(x_2^{-1}x_N\right)\\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots\\
\phi\left(x_N^{-1}x_1\right) & \phi\left(x_N^{-1}x_2\right) & \ldots & \phi\left(x_N^{-1}x_N\right)\\
\end{array}\right)
\cdot
\left(\begin{array}{c}
z_1\\
z_2\\
\vdots\\
z_N
\end{array}\right) \geqslant 0,
\label{positivesemidefinitematrix}\end{gathered}$$
for every $N\in{\mathbb{N}},\ (x_n)_{n=1}^N\subset G$ and $(z_n)_{n=1}^N \subset {\mathbb{C}}^N$.
For a fixed sequence of elements $(x_n)_{n=1}^N\subset G$, the condition (\[positivesemidefinitematrix\]) is known as the positive-semidefiniteness of the matrix $$\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi\left(x_1^{-1}x_1\right) & \phi\left(x_1^{-1}x_2\right) & \ldots & \phi\left(x_1^{-1}x_N\right)\\
\phi\left(x_2^{-1}x_1\right) & \phi\left(x_2^{-1}x_2\right) & & \phi\left(x_2^{-1}x_N\right)\\
\vdots & & \ddots & \vdots\\
\phi\left(x_N^{-1}x_1\right) & \phi\left(x_N^{-1}x_2\right) & \ldots & \phi\left(x_N^{-1}x_N\right)\\
\end{array}\right).
\label{thismatrixissemidefinite}\end{gathered}$$
To reiterate, a function $\phi$ is positive-semidefinite if all such matrices, regardless of the size $N$ and the sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^N\subset G$, are positive-semidefinite. We can also express condition (\[positivesemidefinitematrix\]) more explicitly: a function $\phi$ satisfies (\[positivesemidefinitematrix\]) if for every $N\in{\mathbb{N}},\ (x_n)_{n=1}^N\subset G$ and $(z_n)_{n=1}^N\subset {\mathbb{C}}$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{m=1}^N\ \phi\left(x_n^{-1}x_m\right)\cdot \overline{z_n}\cdot z_m \geqslant 0.
\label{positivesemidefiniteequivalent}\end{gathered}$$
It will shortly become apparent that positive-semidefinite functions play a crucial role in our understanding of harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs. We should therefore become acquainted with the properties of these functions. To this end we invoke the following result:
(comp. Lemma 5.1.8 in [@Dijk], p. 54, Theorem 32.4 in [@HewittRoss2] or Proposition 8.4.2 in [@Wolf], p. 165)\
If $\phi\colon G\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ is a positive-semidefinite function, then
1. $\phi(e)$ is a real and nonnegative number,
2. $\phi\left(x^{-1}\right) = \overline{\phi(x)}$ for every $x\in G$,
3. $|\phi(x)| \leqslant \phi(e)$ for every $x\in G$,
4. $\phi$ is continuous.
\[propertiesofpositivesemidefinite\]
To make further progress we take a compact subgroup $K$ of the locally compact (Hausdorff) group $G$ (we shall repeat this assumption ad nauseam) and consider the *double coset space* (comp. [@Bechtell], ): $${K\backslash G/K}:= \big\{KgK\ :\ g\in G\big\}.$$
Let $\pi\colon G\longrightarrow {K\backslash G/K}$ be the projection defined by $\pi(g) := KgK.$ If
- $C_c(G)$ is the space of all continuous functions on $G$ with compact support, and
- $C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ is the space of all continuous functions on ${K\backslash G/K}$ with compact support
then every function $F\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ determines a function $F\circ \pi\colon G\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ belonging to the set of all *bi$-K-$invariant* continuous functions on $G$ with compact support: $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg\{f\in C_c(G)\ :\ \forall_{\substack{k_1,k_2\in K\\ x\in G}}\ f(k_1xk_2) = f(x)\bigg\}.
\label{biKinvariantfunctions}\end{gathered}$$
Furthermore, the map $F\mapsto F\circ \pi$ is a bijection, and thus we identify $C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ with the set (\[biKinvariantfunctions\]). An analogous reasoning works for the space $C({K\backslash G/K})$ of continuous functions, the space $C_0({K\backslash G/K})$ of continuous functions which vanish at infinity and the space $L^1({K\backslash G/K})$ of integrable functions. If it turns out that $L^1({K\backslash G/K})$ is a commutative convolution algebra, the pair $(G,K)$ is called a *Gelfand pair*.
The simplest instance of a Gelfand pair is $(G,\{e\})$ where $G$ is a locally compact *abelian* group. A less trivial example is $(E(n),SO(n)),$ where $SO(n)$ is the special orthogonal group and $E(n)$ is the group of Euclidean motions on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ ($E(n)$ is in fact a semi-direct product of the translation group $T(n)$ and the orthogonal group $O(n)$). Other instances of Gelfand pairs include:
- $(GL(n,{\mathbb{R}}),O(n)),$ where $GL(n,{\mathbb{R}})$ is the general linear group on ${\mathbb{R}}^n,$
- $(GL(n,{\mathbb{C}}),U(n)),$ where $U(n)$ is the unitary group,
- $(O(n+k),O(n)\times O(k)),$
- $(SO(n+k),SO(n)\times SO(k)),$
- $(U(n+k),U(n)\times U(k)),$
- $(SU(n+k),SU(n)\times SU(k)),$ where $SU(n)$ is the special unitary group.
Given a Gelfand pair $(G,K)$, every function $\chi\colon C_c({K\backslash G/K})\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ satisfying $$\forall_{f,g\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})}\ \chi(f\star g) = \chi(f)\cdot \chi(g),$$
where $\star$ denotes the convolution in $C_c({K\backslash G/K}),$ is called a *character*. Furthermore, every continuous, bi$-K-$invariant function $\phi\colon G\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ for which $$\forall_{f\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})}\ \chi_{\phi}(f) := \int_G\ f(x)\cdot \phi(x)\ dx$$
is a nontrivial character, is called a *spherical function*. These functions admit the following characterization:
(comp. Propositions 6.1.5 and 6.1.6 in [@Dijk], p. 77, Proposition 2.2 in [@Helgason], p. 400 or Theorem 8.2.6 in [@Wolf], p. 157)\
The following conditions are equivalent:
- $\phi\colon G\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ is a spherical function.
- $\phi\colon G\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ is a nonzero, continuous function such that $$\forall_{x,y\in G}\ \int_K\ \phi(xky)\ dk =\phi(x)\cdot \phi(y),$$
where $dk$ is the normalized Haar measure on $K$.
- $\phi\colon G\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ is a continuous, bi$-K-$invariant function with $\phi(e) = 1$ and for every $f\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ there exists a complex number $$\lambda_f = \int_G\ f(x)\cdot \phi\left(x^{-1}\right)\ dx$$
such that $f\star \phi = \lambda_f\cdot\phi.$
\[characterizationofsphericalfunctions\]
Spherical transform
-------------------
The previous section concluded with a characterization of spherical functions. Currently, our objective is to employ these functions to describe the spherical transform (and its inverse), which is a counterpart of the prominent Fourier transform on locally compact abelian groups. To this end, we introduce the following notation:
- ${\mathcal{S}}(G,K)$ denotes the set of all spherical functions on the Gelfand pair $(G,K),$
- ${\mathcal{S}}^b(G,K)$ denotes the set of all *bounded* spherical functions on $(G,K),$
- ${\mathcal{S}}^+(G,K)$ denotes the set of all *positive-semidefinite* spherical functions on $(G,K).$
Let us remark that due to Lemma \[propertiesofpositivesemidefinite\], positive-semidefinite functions are automatically bounded, so ${\mathcal{S}}^+(G,K)\subset {\mathcal{S}}^b(G,K).$ Furthermore, since the Gelfand pair $(G,K)$ is usually understood from the context, we frequently simplify the notation ${\mathcal{S}}(G,K),\ {\mathcal{S}}^b(G,K)$ and ${\mathcal{S}}^+(G,K)$ to ${\mathcal{S}},\ {\mathcal{S}}^b$ and ${\mathcal{S}}^+,$ respectively.
(comp. Definition 6.4.3 in [@Dijk], p. 83 or Definition 9.2.1 in [@Wolf], p. 184)\
For every $f\in L^1({K\backslash G/K})$ the function $\widehat{f}\colon {\mathcal{S}}^b \longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ given by $$\widehat{f}(\phi) := \int_G f(x)\cdot \phi\left(x^{-1}\right)\ dx$$
is called a spherical transform.
As in [@Wolf], p. 185 we topologize ${\mathcal{S}}^b$ (which is a maximal ideal space for the commutative Banach algebra $L^1({K\backslash G/K})$) with the weak topology from the family of maps $\big\{\widehat{f}\ :\ f\in L^1({K\backslash G/K})\big\}$ - this turns ${\mathcal{S}}^b$ into a locally compact Hausdorff space. In the sequel we will focus on the subspace ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ of ${\mathcal{S}}^b$, with the induced topology. It is remarkable that the induced weak topology on ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ coincides with the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets of $G$ (comp. Proposition 6.4.2 in [@Dijk], p. 83 or Theorem 3.31 in [@Folland], p. 82).
Let us define the function $\Gamma(f) := \widehat{f}$ for every $f\in L^1({K\backslash G/K}).$ Since every spherical transform $\widehat{f}$ is a continuous function which vanishes at infinity (comp. Corollary 9.1.14 or Corollary 9.2.10 in [@Wolf]), we have $$\Gamma\colon L^1({K\backslash G/K}) \longrightarrow C_0({\mathcal{S}}^b).$$
This is a counterpart of the classical Riemann-Lebesgue lemma, a classical result in the theory of Fourier transform (comp. Lemma 3.3.7 in [@Deitmar], p. 47 or Theorem 1.7 in [@Katznelson], p. 136). Furthermore, we define $${\mathcal{X}}_1 := B({K\backslash G/K})\cap L^1({K\backslash G/K}),$$
where $B({K\backslash G/K})$ is the set of all linear combinations of positive-semidefinite and bi$-K-$invariant functions. Theorem 9.4.1 in [@Wolf], p. 191 asserts the existence of a measure $\widehat{\mu}$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ such that for every $f\in {\mathcal{X}}$ we have $\widehat{f}\in L^1({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu})$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\forall_{x\in G}\ f(x) = \int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+} \widehat{f}(\phi)\cdot \phi(x)\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi).
\label{inversesphericaltransform}\end{gathered}$$
In other words $\Gamma$ is a bijection between ${\mathcal{X}}\subset L^1({K\backslash G/K})$ and the image $\Gamma({\mathcal{X}})\subset L^1({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu}).$ This insight is vital while proving the counterpart of the Plancherel formula:
(comp. Theorem 6.4.6 in [@Dijk], p. 85 or Theorem 9.5.1 in [@Wolf], p. 193)\
If $f\in L^1({K\backslash G/K}) \cap L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ then $\widehat{f}\in L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu})$ and $\|f\|_2 = \|\widehat{f}\|_2.$ \[Planchereltheorem\]
As in the classical case (comp. Theorem 3.5.2 in [@Deitmar], p. 53), by Theorem 1.7 in [@ReedSimon], p. 9 we can extend $\Gamma$ (a linear and bounded operator defined on a dense set $L^1({K\backslash G/K})\cap L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ in $L^2({K\backslash G/K})$) to an isometric isomorphism between $L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ and $L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu}).$ In order to simplify the notation, we still denote this extension by $\Gamma.$ The map $\Gamma^{-1}$ is called the *inverse spherical transform* and we often write $\widecheck{F} := \Gamma^{-1}(F)$ for $F\in L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu}).$
As a corollary to Plancherel theorem (Theorem \[Planchereltheorem\]) we have the following result:
(Corollary 9.5.2 in [@Wolf], p. 194)\
If $f,g \in L^2({K\backslash G/K})$, then $$\langle f|g \rangle_{L^2({K\backslash G/K})} = \langle \widehat{f}|\widehat{g} \rangle_{L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu})}.$$ \[corollaryofPlancherel\]
In the sequel we abbreviate both inner products $\langle \cdot|\cdot \rangle_{L^2({K\backslash G/K})}$ and $\langle \cdot|\cdot \rangle_{L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu})}$ to $\langle \cdot|\cdot \rangle_2$. The distinction between the two should be obvious from the context.
Hausdorff-Young inequality and its inverse
------------------------------------------
The final section of the current chapter opens with a renowned *Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem*:
(comp. Theorem 6.27 in [@FollandRealAnalysis], p. 200)\
Let $(X,\Sigma_X,\mu_X)$ and $(Y,\Sigma_Y,\mu_Y)$ be measure spaces and let $p_0,p_1,q_0,q_1\in [1,\infty]$. If $q_0=q_1 = \infty,$ suppose also that $\mu_Y$ is semifinite. For $0 < t < 1$, define $p_t$ and $q_t$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{p_t} := \frac{1-t}{p_0} + \frac{t}{p_1} \hspace{0.4cm}\text{and}\hspace{0.4cm} \frac{1}{q_t} := \frac{1-t}{q_0} + \frac{t}{q_1}.\end{gathered}$$
If $T$ is a linear map from $L^{p_0}(X,\mu_X) + L^{p_1}(X,\mu_X)$ to $L^{q_0}(X,\mu_Y) + L^{q_1}(X,\mu_Y)$ such that there exist constants $M_0, M_1 >0$ with $$\begin{split}
\|Tf\|_{q_0} &\leqslant M_0\cdot \|f\|_{p_0} \hspace{0.4cm}\text{for every } f\in L^{p_0}(X,\mu_X),\text{ and}\\
\|Tf\|_{q_1} &\leqslant M_1\cdot \|f\|_{p_1} \hspace{0.4cm}\text{for every } f\in L^{p_1}(X,\mu_X),
\end{split}$$
then $$\begin{gathered}
\|Tf\|_{q_t} \leqslant M_0^{1-t}M_1^t\cdot \|f\|_{p_t}\hspace{0.4cm}\text{for every } f\in L^{p_t}(X,\mu_X),\ t\in (0,1).\end{gathered}$$ \[RieszThorin\]
Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem is a rather advanced tool and one of its corollaries is the aforementioned *Hausdorff-Young inequality*:
(comp. Theorem 31.20 in [@HewittRoss2], p. 226 or [@Wolf], p. 200)\
If $p\in [1,2]$ then for every $f\in L^p({K\backslash G/K})$ the inequality $\|\widehat{f}\|_{p'}\leqslant \|f\|_p$ holds ($p'$ stands for the Hölder conjugate of $p$). \[HausdorffYoung\]
In the sequel, we will also need the *inverse Hausdorff-Young inequality*, which we present below. We take the liberty of providing a rather short proof as it is far less known than the proof of the “classical” Hausdorff-Young inequality.
(comp. Theorem 31.24 in [@HewittRoss2], p. 229 or [@Wolf], p. 200)\
If $p\in (1,2]$ then for every $f\in L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ the inequality $\|f\|_{p'}\leqslant \|\widehat{f}\|_p$ holds. \[inverseHausdorffYoung\]
Firstly, if $\|\widehat{f}\|_p = \infty$ then we are immediately done. Thus without loss of generality, we suppose that $\widehat{f} \in L^p({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu}).$
We start off with an observation that for every function $g \in L^2({K\backslash G/K})\cap L^p({K\backslash G/K})$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\left|\int_G\ g(x)\cdot\overline{f(x)}\ dx\right| = \left|\langle g|f \rangle_2\right| \stackrel{\text{Corollary } \ref{corollaryofPlancherel}}{=} \left|\langle \widehat{g}|\widehat{f} \rangle_2\right| \stackrel{\text{H\"older ineq.}}{\leqslant} \|\widehat{g}\|_{p'}\cdot \|\widehat{f}\|_p \stackrel{\text{Theorem } \ref{HausdorffYoung}}{\leqslant} \|g\|_p \cdot \|\widehat{f}\|_p.\end{gathered}$$
Consequently, the map $g\mapsto \int_G\ g(x)\cdot \overline{f(x)}\ dx$ is a linear and bounded functional on $L^2({K\backslash G/K})\cap L^p({K\backslash G/K})$. Since $L^2({K\backslash G/K})\cap L^p({K\backslash G/K})$ is dense in $L^p({K\backslash G/K})$ we can extend this map to a linear and bounded functional $\Phi\colon L^p({K\backslash G/K})\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\|\Phi\|\leqslant \|\widehat{f}\|_p.$ By Riesz representation theorem (comp. [@Brezis], Theorem 4.11, p. 97) there exists a function $h\in L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K})$ such that $$\forall_{g\in L^p({K\backslash G/K})}\ \Phi(g) = \int_G\ g(x)\cdot h(x)\ dx \hspace{0.4cm}\text{and}\hspace{0.4cm} \|h\|_{p'} = \|\Phi\|.$$
It follows that $\overline{f}\equiv h$ almost everywhere. Lastly, we have $$\|f\|_{p'} = \|h\|_{p'} = \|\Phi\| \leqslant \|\widehat{f}\|_p,$$
which concludes the proof.
Sobolev spaces {#chapter:Sobolevspaces}
==============
After the revision of harmonic analysis on Gelfand pairs in the previous chapter, we are in position to define Sobolev spaces on Gelfand pair $(G,K)$. Although Sobolev spaces are frequently introduced via the notion of a weak derivative, the expression “differentiation on a group” may be meaningless, so we must resort to a different approach than suggested in [@Brezis], p. 202 or [@RenardyRogers], p. 204 (to be fair, the latter discusses the characterization of Sobolev spaces via the Fourier transform a couple of pages further). We pursue a path inspired by the works of Górka, Kostrzewa, Reyes (comp. [@GorkaKostrzewaReyes; @GorkaKostrzewaReyes2; @GorkaReyes]) as well as Grafakos (comp. [@Grafakos], p. 13), Malliavin (comp. [@Malliavin], p. 142) or Triebel (comp. [@Triebel], p. 3).
For a measurable function $\gamma\colon {\mathcal{S}}^+\longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ and $s\in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, the set $$\begin{gathered}
H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K}) := \bigg\{f\in L^2({K\backslash G/K})\ :\ \int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s\cdot |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi) < \infty\bigg\}
\label{sobspace}\end{gathered}$$
is called a Sobolev space. \[Sobolevspacedefinition\]
Let us immediately explain the reason why the above definition encompasses the definitions encountered in the literature:
- A Sobolev space (with weight $\gamma$) on ${\mathbb{R}}$ can be defined as $$\begin{gathered}
H^s_{\gamma}({\mathbb{R}}) = \bigg\{f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})\ :\ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\ \left(1+\gamma(y)^2\right)^s\cdot |\widehat{f}(y)|^2\ dy < \infty\bigg\}.
\label{sobolevonreals}\end{gathered}$$
If $\gamma(y)= |y|^p,\ p\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$ and $s=1$, then (\[sobolevonreals\]) is exactly the Definition 7.14 on page 208 in [@RenardyRogers]. A similar approach is presented in [@Taylor] on page 271. This is perfectly compatible with Definition \[Sobolevspacedefinition\]: if $G = {\mathbb{R}}$ and $K = \{0\}$, then (comp. [@Dijk], p. 77) we have ${\mathcal{S}}= \left\{x\mapsto e^{\lambda x}\ :\ \lambda \in{\mathbb{C}}\right\}.$ Furthermore, if $\phi(x) = e^{\lambda x}$ is an element of ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ then (\[positivesemidefiniteequivalent\]) implies (for $N=2,\ z_1 = 1,\ z_2 = i$) that $$2 + i\left(e^{\lambda(x_2-x_1)} - e^{-\lambda (x_2-x_1)}\right) \geqslant 0.$$
This is possible only if $\text{Re}(\lambda) = 0,$ which means that ${\mathcal{S}}^+ \subset \left\{x\mapsto e^{iyx}\ :\ y\in{\mathbb{R}}\right\}$. Moreover, for every $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $(x_n)_{n=1}^N\subset {\mathbb{R}},\ (z_n)_{n=1}^N\subset {\mathbb{C}}$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{m=1}^N\ e^{iy(x_m-x_n)}\cdot\overline{z_n}\cdot z_m = \left(\sum_{n=1}^N\ e^{iyx_n}\cdot z_n\right)\cdot \overline{\left(\sum_{n=1}^N\ e^{iyx_n}\cdot z_n\right)} \geqslant 0,\end{gathered}$$
so we conclude that ${\mathcal{S}}^+ = \left\{x\mapsto e^{iyx}\ :\ y\in{\mathbb{R}}\right\}.$ In other words, ${\mathcal{S}}^+ = \widehat{{\mathbb{R}}} \cong {\mathbb{R}}$ (comp. [@Deitmar], p. 101-102) so (\[sobspace\]) infallibly reconstructs (\[sobolevonreals\]).
- The reasoning from the first case can be generalized as follows: if $G$ is a locally compact abelian group and $K =\{e\}$, then by Theorem 5.3.3, p. 61 and Theorem 6.2.5, p. 81 in [@Dijk] we conclude that ${\mathcal{S}}^+ = \widehat{G}.$ Consequently, (\[sobspace\]) reads $$H^s_{\gamma}(G) = \bigg\{f\in L^2(G)\ :\ \int_{\widehat{G}}\ \left(1+\gamma(y)^2\right)^s\cdot |\widehat{f}(y)|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(y) < \infty\bigg\},$$
which is precisely the definition of Górka and Kostrzewa (comp. [@GorkaKostrzewaReyes; @GorkaKostrzewaReyes2; @GorkaReyes]).
Having justified the way we chose to define the Sobolev spaces on a Gelfand pair $(G,K)$ we take a moment to dwell on the space $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K}).$ It is obviously a linear subspace of $L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ and for every function $f\in H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ we can define $$\|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}} := \left(\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s\cdot |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\ d\nu(\phi)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
We briefly argue that it is in fact a norm, which turns $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ into a Banach space.
Obviously, $\|0\|_{H^s_{\gamma}} = 0$ so let $f \in H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ be such that $\|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}} = 0$. This implies that $|\widehat{f}(\phi)| = 0$ for every $\phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+.$ By Theorem \[Planchereltheorem\] we conclude that $\|f\|_2 = 0,$ which means $f = 0$ almost everywhere.
It is trivial to see that $\|\alpha f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}} = |\alpha|\cdot \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}$ for every $f\in H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ and $\alpha\in{\mathbb{C}}$. Lastly, $\|\cdot\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}$ obeys the triangle inequality due to the classical Minkowski inequality (comp. Theorem 6.5 in [@FollandRealAnalysis], p. 183). In summary, $\|\cdot\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}$ is a norm in $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$.
As far as the completeness of $(H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K}),\|\cdot\|_{H^s_{\gamma}})$ is concerned, we could try to prove it in a tedious manner “from scratch”. However, in order to save time let us resort to a cunning trick which makes the problem significantly easier: by Theorem \[Planchereltheorem\] we know that the space $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ is isometrically isomorphic (via the spherical transform) to the space $L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\nu)$ of square-integrable functions on ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ with respect to the measure $d\nu = (1+\gamma^2)^{\frac{s}{2}} d\widehat{\mu}.$ Since $L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\nu)$ is complete, then so is $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$. We conclude that $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ is a Banach space.
Sobolev embedding theorems {#chapter:sobolevembeddingtheorems}
--------------------------
Our next big topic is the embedding theorems. In general, we say (comp. Definition 7.15 in [@RenardyRogers], p. 209) that a Banach space $X$ is continuously embedded in a Banach space $Y$ if $X\subset Y$ and there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\forall_{u\in X}\ \|u\|_Y \leqslant C\cdot\|u\|_X.$$
We denote this situation by $X\hookrightarrow Y$.
The question that permeates the current section is: “In what Banach spaces can be embed the Sobolev spaces $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ defined previously?” This is by far not a trivial task, as is confirmed by Chapter 4 in [@AdamsFournier], Theorem 8.8 in [@Brezis], p. 212, Chapter 2 in [@Demengels], Chapter 5.6 in [@Evans], Chapters 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 in [@RenardyRogers] or Chapter 2.4 in [@Ziemer].
For every $f\in H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ we have $\|f\|_2 \leqslant \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}.$ \[embedding\]
For every function $f\in H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_2 \stackrel{\text{Theorem}\ \ref{Planchereltheorem}}{=} \|\widehat{f}\|_2 = \left(\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leqslant \left(\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s\cdot |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} = \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}},\end{gathered}$$
which concludes the proof.
To put it differently, Theorem \[embedding\] says that the Sobolev space $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ is *continuously embedded* in $L^2({K\backslash G/K}),$ i.e. $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})\hookrightarrow L^2({K\backslash G/K}).$ Our next results embeds (under certain circumstances) the Sobolev space $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ in the space of continuous functions:
If $$\left(1+\gamma^2\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}} \in L^2({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu})$$
then $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})\hookrightarrow C({K\backslash G/K}),$ i.e. $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ embeds continuously in $C({K\backslash G/K}).$ \[embeddingcontinuous\]
Fix $x_*\in G$ and ${\varepsilon}> 0$. Since ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ is equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets, then (by the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem) ${\mathcal{S}}^+$ is equicontinuous: there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $x_*$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\forall_{\substack{x\in U\\ \phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+}}\ |\phi(x) - \phi(x_*)| < {\varepsilon}.
\label{equicontinuitySpher}\end{gathered}$$
Consequently, for every function $f\in H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ and $x\in U$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
|f(x) - f(x_*)| = \left|\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \widehat{f}(\phi)\cdot \big(\phi(x) - \phi(x_*)\big)\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right| \leqslant \sup_{\phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\phi(x)-\phi(x_*)|\cdot \int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\widehat{f}(\phi)|\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi) \\
\stackrel{\text{Cauchy-Schwarz ineq.}}{\leqslant} \sup_{\phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\phi(x) - \phi(x_*)|\cdot \left(\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s\cdot |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \left(\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^{-s}\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
\leqslant \sup_{\phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\phi(x) - \phi(x_*)|\cdot \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \|\left(1+\gamma^2
\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}}\|_2 \stackrel{(\ref{equicontinuitySpher})}{\leqslant} {\varepsilon}\cdot \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \|\left(1+\gamma^2
\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}}\|_2,\end{gathered}$$
which proves that $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})\subset C({K\backslash G/K}).$ Finally, a similar estimate to the one above leads to $$\begin{gathered}
|f(x)| \leqslant \sup_{\phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\phi(x)|\cdot \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \|\left(1+\gamma^2
\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}}\|_2 \stackrel{\text{Lemma}\ \ref{propertiesofpositivesemidefinite}}{\leqslant} \sup_{\phi\in {\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \phi(e)\cdot \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \|\left(1+\gamma^2\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}}\|_2 \leqslant \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \|\left(1+\gamma^2\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}}\|_2, \end{gathered}$$
where the last inequality stems from the fact that $\phi(e) = 1$ for every spherical function $\phi.$ This concludes the proof.
Finally, we prove that (under certain assumptions) Sobolev space $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ embeds continuously in $L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K}).$ Let us recall that $p'$ is the Hölder conjugate of $p$.
Let $\alpha > s >0$ and let $p := \frac{2\alpha}{\alpha + s}.$ If $$\left(1+\gamma^2\right)^{-1}\in L^{\alpha}({\mathcal{S}}^+,d\widehat{\mu}),$$
then $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})\hookrightarrow L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K}).$ \[Sobolevembeddingtheorem\]
Since $p\in (1,2]$ then by Theorem \[inverseHausdorffYoung\] we know that for every $f\in L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ we have $\|f\|_{p'} \leqslant \|\widehat{f}\|_p$. Furthermore, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\|\widehat{f}\|_p = \left(\int_G\ |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^p\cdot \frac{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^{\frac{sp}{2}}}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^{\frac{sp}{2}}}\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \stackrel{\text{H\"{o}lder ineq.}}{\leqslant} \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \left(\int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ (1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^{-\frac{sp}{2-p}}\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi)\right)^{\frac{2-p}{2p}}.\end{gathered}$$
Since $\alpha = \frac{sp}{2-p}$ we finally obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{p'} \leqslant \|\widehat{f}\|_p \leqslant \|f\|_{H^s_{\gamma}}\cdot \|\left(1+\gamma^2\right)^{-1}\|_{\alpha}^{\frac{s}{2}},\end{gathered}$$
which concludes the proof.
Rellich-Kondrachov theorem
--------------------------
Having discussed the embedding theorems in the previous section, we proceed with the next topic, namely the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem. This is one of the central results in the classical theory of Sobolev spaces and appears in virtually any text on the subject: Theorem 6.3 in [@AdamsFournier], p. 168, Theorem 1 in [@Evans], p. 272, Theorem 11.10 in [@Leoni], p. 320, Theorem 6.1 in [@Necas], p. 102 or Theorem 2.5.1 in [@Ziemer], p. 62.
The main theorem in this section, the counterpart of Rellich-Kondrachov theorem for Gelfand pairs, is Theorem \[RellichKondrachov\]. Before we dig into the proof of this result we demonstrate three auxilary lemmas (Lemma \[auxilarylemma1\], \[auxilarylemma2\] and \[fnetaconvergesfeta\]). We should also emphasize the fact that Lemma \[fnetaconvergesfeta\] and (as a consequence) Theorem \[RellichKondrachov\] require the group $G$ to be compact while previous lemmas work without that assumption.
Let $f\in H_{\gamma}^s({K\backslash G/K}).$ If $y\in G$ then $$\int_G\ |f\left(xy^{-1}\right) - f(x)|^2\ dx \leqslant \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|^2}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^s}\right)\cdot \|f\|_{H_{\gamma}^s}^2.$$ \[auxilarylemma1\]
We fix $y\in G$ and, for a moment, we suppose that $f\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$. If the map $R_y\colon L^2({K\backslash G/K})\longrightarrow L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ is given by $R_yf(x) := f\left(xy^{-1}\right),$ then $$\begin{split}
\forall_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \widehat{R_yf}(\phi) &= \int_G\ R_yf(x)\cdot \phi\left(x^{-1}\right)\ dx = \int_G\ f\left(xy^{-1}\right)\cdot\phi\left(x^{-1}\right)\ dx \\
&\stackrel{x\mapsto xy}{=} \int_G\ f(x)\cdot \phi\left(y^{-1}x^{-1}\right)\ dx \stackrel{x\mapsto x^{-1}}{=} \int_G\ f(x)\cdot \phi\left(y^{-1}x^{-1}\right)\ dx \\
&= \phi\star f\left(y^{-1}\right) = f\star \phi\left(y^{-1}\right) \stackrel{\text{Theorem } \ref{characterizationofsphericalfunctions}}{=} \widehat{f}(\phi)\cdot \phi\left(y^{-1}\right) .
\end{split}
\label{sphericaltransformofLyf}$$
By Theorem \[Planchereltheorem\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_G\ |f\left(xy^{-1}\right) - f(x)|^2\ dx = \int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \left|\widehat{R_yf}(\phi) - \widehat{f}(\phi)\right|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi) \stackrel{(\ref{sphericaltransformofLyf})}{=} \int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\cdot \left|\phi\left(y^{-1}\right) - 1\right|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi) \\
\stackrel{\text{Lemma } \ref{propertiesofpositivesemidefinite}}{=} \int_{{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\cdot \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s\cdot \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|^2}{\left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s}\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi) \leqslant \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|^2}{\left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\right)^s}\right)\cdot \|f\|_{H_{\gamma}^s}^2.\end{gathered}$$
To conclude the proof it suffices to note that $C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ is dense in $H_{\gamma}^s({K\backslash G/K}).$
Prior to Lemma \[auxilarylemma2\] we revisit a very popular Minkowski’s integral inequality:
(comp. Theorem 6.19 in [@FollandRealAnalysis], p. 194 or )\
Let $X,Y$ be $\sigma-$finite measure spaces, $1\leqslant p < \infty$ and let $F:X\times Y \longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ be a measurable function. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\left(\int_X \left(\int_Y\ |F(x,y)|\ dy\right)^p\ dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \leqslant \int_Y \left(\int_X\ |F(x,y)|^p\ dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\ dy.
\label{Minkineq}\end{gathered}$$
In the lemma below, $\wedge$ stands for the logical “and”, while $\vee$ stands for the logical “or”.
Let $f\in H_{\gamma}^s({K\backslash G/K})$. If $\eta \in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ then $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\star\eta - f\|_2 \leqslant \sup_{y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)}\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^\frac{s}{2}}\right)\cdot \|f\|_{H_{\gamma}^s}.\end{gathered}$$ \[auxilarylemma2\]
At first, we choose $f_B$ to be a Borel-measurable function such that $f = f_B$ almost everywhere. Since $G$ is a Tychonoff space (as a locally compact group), then there exists $\eta\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ such that
- $\eta(e)\neq 0,\ \eta \geqslant 0,$ and
- $\int_G\ \eta(y)\ dy = 1.$
For every $x\in G$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
|f\star\eta(x)-f(x)|^2 = \left|\int_G\ f\left(xy^{-1}\right)\cdot \eta(y)\ dy - f(x)\cdot \int_G\ \eta(y)\ dy\right|^2 = \left|\int_G\ \big(f\left(xy^{-1}\right) - f(x)\big)\cdot \eta(y)\ dy\right|^2.\end{gathered}$$
We define $$F(x,y) := \big(f_B\left(xy^{-1}\right) - f_B(x)\big)\cdot \eta(y),$$
which is a Borel function as a composition of Borel functions: $$(x,y)\mapsto (x,y,y)\mapsto (x,y^{-1},y)\mapsto (x,xy^{-1},\eta(y))\mapsto (f_B(x),f_B\left(xy^{-1}\right),\eta(y))\mapsto \big(f_B\left(xy^{-1}\right) - f_B(x)\big)\cdot \eta(y).$$
Since $f_B$ and $\eta$ are both in $L^2({K\backslash G/K}),$ then ${\text{supp}}(f_B)$ and ${\text{supp}}(\eta)$ are $\sigma-$compact (comp. Corollary 1.3.5 in [@Deitmar], p. 10). Consequently, also the sets $$\left({\text{supp}}(f_B) \cdot{\text{supp}}(\eta)\right)\times {\text{supp}}(\eta) \hspace{0.4cm}\text{and}\hspace{0.4cm} {\text{supp}}(f_B) \times {\text{supp}}(\eta)$$
are $\sigma-$compact. Next, we follow a series of logical implications: $$\begin{gathered}
(x,y)\in \{F\neq 0\} \ \Longrightarrow \ \bigg(f_B\left(xy^{-1}\right)-f_B(x)\neq 0 \hspace{0.4cm}\wedge\hspace{0.4cm} \eta(y) \neq 0\bigg)\\
\Longrightarrow\ \bigg(\left(xy^{-1}\in{\text{supp}}(f_B) \hspace{0.4cm}\vee \hspace{0.4cm} x\in{\text{supp}}(f_B) \right)\hspace{0.4cm}\wedge \hspace{0.4cm} y \in{\text{supp}}(\eta) \bigg)\\
\Longrightarrow\ \bigg(\left(xy^{-1}\in{\text{supp}}(f_B) \hspace{0.4cm}\wedge \hspace{0.4cm} y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)\right) \hspace{0.4cm}\vee \hspace{0.4cm} \left(x\in{\text{supp}}(f_B) \hspace{0.4cm}\wedge \hspace{0.4cm} y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)\right) \bigg)\\
\Longrightarrow\ \bigg((x,y)\in \left({\text{supp}}(f_B) \cdot{\text{supp}}(\eta)\right)\times {\text{supp}}(\eta) \hspace{0.4cm}\vee \hspace{0.4cm} (x,y)\in{\text{supp}}(f_B)\times {\text{supp}}(\eta)\bigg).\end{gathered}$$
We conclude that $\{F\neq 0\}$ is $\sigma-$compact.
Finally, we are in position to apply Minkowski’s integral inequality: $$\begin{split}
\|f\star\eta - f\|_2 &= \|f_B\star\eta - f_B\|_2 = \left(\int_G\ \bigg|\int_G\ \big(f_B\left(xy^{-1}\right)-f_B(x)\big)\cdot \eta(y)\ dy\bigg|^2\ dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\stackrel{(\ref{Minkineq})}{\leqslant} \int_G\ \left( \int_G\ |f_B\left(xy^{-1}\right)-f_B(x)|^2\cdot |\eta(y)|^2\ dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \ dy \\
&= \int_G\ \|R_yf_B-f_B\|_2\cdot |\eta(y)| \ dy \stackrel{\text{Lemma } \ref{auxilarylemma1}}{\leqslant} \left(\int_G\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|^2}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^s}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot |\eta(y)|\ dy\right) \cdot \|f_B\|_{H_{\gamma}^s}\\
&= \sup_{y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)}\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^\frac{s}{2}}\right)\cdot \|f_B\|_{H_{\gamma}^s} = \sup_{y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)}\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^\frac{s}{2}}\right)\cdot \|f\|_{H_{\gamma}^s},
\end{split}$$
which ends the proof.
Up to this point, $(G,K)$ was an arbitrary Gelfand pair with $G$ a locally compact Hausdorff group and $K$ its compact subgroup. Now we impose a further restriction, namely:
*we assume that $G$ is a compact group.*
For brevity we will write that $(G,K)$ is a compact Gelfand pair, meaning that $G$ is compact. This assumption somewhat simplifies the “dual object” of $(G,K)$. In summary, if $G$ is compact then ${\mathcal{S}}(G,K) = {\mathcal{S}}^b(G,K) = {\mathcal{S}}^+(G,K)$ (comp. Theorem 9.10.1 in [@Wolf], p. 204) and this is a compact space due to Theorem 9.1.13 in [@Wolf], p. 183 and the fact that $L^1({K\backslash G/K})$ has a unit element.
Let $(G,K)$ be a compact Gelfand pair and let $p,q\in(1,\infty).$ If $(f_n)\subset L^p({K\backslash G/K})$ is a weakly convergent sequence (with limit function $f$), then for every $\eta\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ the sequence $(f_n\star\eta)$ converges (strongly) to $f\star\eta$ in $L^q({K\backslash G/K})$. \[fnetaconvergesfeta\]
Firstly, we fix a function $\eta\in C_c({K\backslash G/K}).$ The sequence $(f_n)$ is a weakly convergent, so it is bounded in $L^p({K\backslash G/K})$, i.e. there exists $M>0$ such that $\|f_n\|_p\leqslant M$ for every $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ (comp. Proposition 3.5 in [@Brezis], p. 58). Furthermore, by definition of weak convergence, for every $x\in G$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
f_n\star\eta(x) = \int_G\ f_n\left(xy^{-1}\right)\cdot \eta(y)\ dy \stackrel{y\mapsto yx}{=} \int_G\ f_n\left(y^{-1}\right)\cdot \eta(yx)\ dy \stackrel{y\mapsto y^{-1}}{=} \int_G\ f_n(y)\cdot \eta\left(y^{-1}x\right)\ dy\\
\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow} \int_G\ f(y)\cdot \eta\left(y^{-1}x\right)\ dy \stackrel{y\mapsto y^{-1}}{=}\int_G\ f\left(y^{-1}\right)\cdot \eta(yx)\ dy\stackrel{y\mapsto yx^{-1}}{=} \int_G\ f_n\left(xy^{-1}\right)\cdot \eta(y)\ dy = f\star\eta(x).\end{gathered}$$
In other words, the sequence $(f_n\star\eta)$ converges pointwise to $f\star\eta.$
Last but not least, for every $x\in G$ we have $$\begin{split}
|f_n\star\eta(x) - f\star\eta(x)| &= \left|\int_G\ \left(f_n\left(xy^{-1}\right) - f\left(xy^{-1}\right)\right)\cdot \eta(y)\ dy\right| \stackrel{y\mapsto yx}{=} \left|\int_G\ \left(f_n\left(y^{-1}\right) - f\left(y^{-1}\right)\right)\cdot \eta(yx)\ dy\right|\\
&\stackrel{y\mapsto y^{-1}}{=} \left|\int_G\ \left(f_n(y) - f(y)\right)\cdot \eta\left(y^{-1}x\right)\ dy\right| \stackrel{\text{H\"{o}lder ineq.}}{\leqslant} \|f_n - f\|_p\cdot \left(\int_G\ \left|\eta\left(y^{-1}x\right)\right|^{p'}\ dy\right)^{\frac{1}{p'}} \\
&\stackrel{y\mapsto xy}{\leqslant} 2M\cdot \left(\int_G\ \left|\eta\left(y^{-1}\right)\right|^{p'}\ dy\right)^{\frac{1}{p'}} \stackrel{y\mapsto y^{-1}}{=} 2M\cdot \|\eta\|_{p'}.
\end{split}$$
Since $G$ is compact, then $2M\cdot \|\eta\|_{p'}$ is an integrable (with arbitrary power) dominating function for $|f_n\star\eta - f\star\eta|$. Finally, applying the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem (comp. Theorem 4.2 in [@Brezis], p. 90) we obtain $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\ \|f_n\star\eta - f\star\eta\|_q = 0,$$
which concludes the proof.
We are almost ready to prove Rellich-Kondrachov theorem for Gelfand pairs. One last, missing piece of the puzzle is Vitali convergence theorem:
(comp. Theorem 7.13 in [@Bartle], p. 76)\
Let $(f_n)$ be a sequence in $L^p(X,\mu_X),$ where $1\leqslant p < \infty.$ The sequence $(f_n)$ converges to a function $f \in L^p(X,\mu_X)$ if and only if:
1. $(f_n)$ converges to $f$ in measure,
2. for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a measurable set $A_{{\varepsilon}}$ with $\mu_X(A_{{\varepsilon}}) < \infty$ and such that $$\forall_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\ \int_{G\backslash A_{{\varepsilon}}}\ |f_n(x)|^p\ dx < {\varepsilon}^p,$$
3. for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that for every measurable set $A$ with $\mu_X(A)<\delta$ we have $$\forall_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\ \int_A\ |f_n(x)|^p\ dx < {\varepsilon}^p.$$
\[Vitaliconvergencetheorem\]
At last, we gathered all the required tools to prove the culminating result of the current section, namely Rellich-Kondrachov theorem for compact Gelfand pairs. One last piece of terminology prior to the theorem itself: we say (comp. Definition 7.25 in [@RenardyRogers], p. 211) that a Banach space $X$ is *compactly embedded* in a Banach space $Y$ (which we denote $X\stackrel{c}{\hookrightarrow} Y$) if it is continuously embedded in $Y$ and if the embedding is a compact map (it maps bounded sets in $X$ to relatively compact sets in $Y$).
Let $(G,K)$ be a compact Gelfand pair, $\alpha > s >0$ and let $p := \frac{2\alpha}{\alpha + s}.$ If $$(1+\gamma^2)^{-1}\in L^{\alpha}({\mathcal{S}}^+,\widehat{\mu}),$$
and $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{y\rightarrow e}\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^\frac{s}{2}}\right) = 0,
\label{limitcondition}\end{gathered}$$
then $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})\stackrel{c}{\hookrightarrow} L^q({K\backslash G/K})$ for every $q \in[1,p']$. In other words, $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ embeds compactly in $L^q({K\backslash G/K}).$ \[RellichKondrachov\]
Firstly we fix $q \in[1,p'].$ By Theorem \[Sobolevembeddingtheorem\] we already know that $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ is continuously embedded in $L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K}).$ Since $G$ is compact then $L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K})\hookrightarrow L^q({K\backslash G/K})$ and, as a consequence, $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ embedds continuously in $L^q({K\backslash G/K}).$
It remains to prove that the embedding is compact. By definition we need to check that every bounded set in $H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ is mapped to a relatively compact set in $L^q({K\backslash G/K}).$ Since we are dealing with metric (even Banach!) spaces, it suffices to prove that every bounded sequence $(f_n)\subset H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ has a convergent subsequence in $L^q({K\backslash G/K})$. In other words, instead of checking topological compactness we check the equivalent (in this case) sequential compactness.
We observe that (due to continuous embedding) a bounded sequence $(f_n)\subset H^s_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ is also bounded in $L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K}).$ Consequently, we can choose a weakly convergent subsequence of $(f_n) -$ for notational convenience and clarity we still denote this convergent subsequence by $(f_n)$. Let $f\in L^{p'}({K\backslash G/K})$ be the weak limit of $(f_n).$
Fix ${\varepsilon}> 0$ and let $\eta\in C_c({K\backslash G/K})$ be such that $\|f\star \eta - f\|_q < {\varepsilon}$ (comp. Proposition 2.42 in [@Folland], p. 53) and $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)}\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^\frac{s}{2}}\right)\cdot M < {\varepsilon},
\label{wechooseeta}\end{gathered}$$
where $M>0$ is a constant $H_{\gamma}^s({K\backslash G/K})-$bound of the sequence $(f_n)$. The latter condition can be satisfied due to (\[limitcondition\]). For such a choice of $\eta$ we have $$\begin{split}
\|f_n - f\|_2 &\leqslant \|f_n - f_n\star\eta\|_2 + \|f_n\star\eta - f\star\eta\|_2 + \|f\star\eta - f\|_2\\
&\stackrel{\text{Lemma } \ref{auxilarylemma2}}{\leqslant} \sup_{y\in{\text{supp}}(\eta)}\ \left(\sup_{\phi\in{\mathcal{S}}^+}\ \frac{\left|\phi(y) - 1\right|}{(1+\gamma(\phi)^2)^\frac{s}{2}}\right)\cdot \|f_n\|_{H^s_{\gamma}} + \|f_n\star\eta - f\star\eta\|_2 + {\varepsilon}\\
&\stackrel{(\ref{wechooseeta})}{\leqslant} 2{\varepsilon}+ \|f_n\star\eta - f\star\eta\|_2,
\end{split}$$
and since $\|f_n\star\eta - f\star\eta\|_2 \longrightarrow 0$ by Theorem \[fnetaconvergesfeta\], we conclude that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\ \|f_n - f\|_2\leqslant 2{\varepsilon}.$ Since ${\varepsilon}>0$ was chosen arbitrarily then $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\ \|f_n - f\|_2 = 0.$
Since $f_n\rightarrow f$ in $L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ then the sequence $(f_n)$ also converges to $f$ in measure (comp. [@Royden], p. 95). Furthermore, $G$ is compact so the second condition in Vitali convergence theorem is automatically satisfied. Last but not least, the sequence $(f_n)$ is uniformly $L^q({K\backslash G/K})-$integrable, so the third condition of Vitali convergence theorem is satisfied. We conclude that $(f_n)$ converges to $f$ in $L^q({K\backslash G/K}).$
Bosonic string equation {#chapter:Bosonicstringequation}
=======================
It is high time we presented an application of the rather abstract theory developed thus far. We focus our attention on the *generalized euclidean bosonic string equation* $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta \exp\left(-c\Delta\right) u = F(u),
\label{bosonicstringequation}\end{gathered}$$
where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplacian, $F$ is some (possibly nonlinear) operator and $c>0$ is a fixed constant. Before we discern what this equation really means and how to interpret its constituents, let us emphasize the role of the bosonic string equation in contemporary physics.
Motivation and heuristics
-------------------------
In the introductory section we have already caught a fleeting glimpse of the vast research area entitled “infinite differential equations”. In what follows we focus on selected articles which encompass the physical aspects of differential equations with an infinite number of derivatives.
For instance, in 1953 The necessity of studying differential equations with infinitely many derivatives comes from several branches of modern physics such as string theory, gravitation and cosmology.
Equation (\[bosonicstringequation\]) is oftentimes referred to as the equation with an infinite number of derivatives. A thorough exposition of this topic was published in 2008 by Neil Barnaby and Niky Karmancan (comp. [@BarnabyKarman]). In the same year, three physicists: Gianluca Calcagni, Michele Montobbio and Giuseppe Nardelli studied a twin equation of (\[bosonicstringequation\]) with Laplacian replaced with d’Alambertian (comp. [@CalcagniMontobbioNardelli]). They managed to formulate both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian description of the localized systems (with quantization of the scalar fields being one of many byproducts).
At this point, we feel that our interest in the bosonic string equation is somewhat motivated. We return to the task of describing the consituent of (\[bosonicstringequation\]). For convenience, we denote $$\psi(x):= x\cdot e^{-cx} = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\ \frac{\psi^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\cdot x^k,$$
where we used the Maclaurin series expansion. For a moment suppose that $u\in C^{\infty}\left({\mathbb{R}}^N\right),$ where $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then $\Delta$ is understood “classically” as $$\Delta := \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_1^2} + \ldots + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_N^2}$$
and it is reasonable to define $$\begin{gathered}
\Psi(u) := \Delta \exp\left(-c\Delta\right)u = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\ \frac{\psi^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\cdot \Delta^nu.
\label{definitionofPsi}\end{gathered}$$
Unfortunately, the series on the right hand side may not converge (if $u$ grows very fast), but since our current discussion is heuristic, we are not particularly concerned with that issue. Furthermore, we (informally) apply the Fourier transform to both sides of (\[definitionofPsi\]) obtaining $$\begin{gathered}
\widehat{\Psi(u)}(\xi) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\psi^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\cdot \widehat{\Delta^ku}(\xi) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{\psi^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\cdot \left(-(2\pi)^2\cdot|\xi|^2\right)^k\cdot \widehat{u}(\xi)\\
= \psi\left(-(2\pi)^2\cdot |\xi|^2\right)\cdot \widehat{u}(\xi) = -(2\pi)^2\cdot|\xi|^2\cdot e^{c\cdot (2\pi)^2\cdot|\xi|^2}\cdot \widehat{u}(\xi).\end{gathered}$$
We conclude that $\Psi(u)$ is the inverse Fourier transform of the map $$\xi \mapsto -(2\pi)^2\cdot|\xi|^2\cdot \exp\left(c(2\pi)^2\cdot|\xi|^2\right)\cdot \widehat{u}(\xi).$$
At this stage, we are ready to leave heuristics behind and return to formal mathematics.
Let us emphasize once again that until the end of the paper, we assume that
*$(G,K)$ is a compact Gelfand pair.*
For a fixed constant $c>0$ and a measurable function $\gamma\colon{\mathcal{S}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ the set $$B^c_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K}) := \bigg\{f\in L^2({K\backslash G/K})\ :\ \int_{{\mathcal{S}}}\ \left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\cdot e^{c\gamma(\phi)^2}\right)\cdot |\widehat{f}(\phi)|^2\ d\widehat{\mu}(\phi) < \infty\bigg\}$$
is called a bosonic space.
For every $v\in L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ there exists a unique $u_v\in B^c_{\gamma}({K\backslash G/K})$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\left(\Delta \exp\left(-c\Delta\right) - Id\right)u = v.
\label{auxiliaryequation}\end{gathered}$$
Moreover, we have $$\|u_v\|_{B^c_{\gamma}} = \|v\|_2.$$
Observe that given a function $v\in L^2({K\backslash G/K})$ it suffices to put $$u_v := - \Gamma^{-1}\left(\frac{\Gamma(v)}{1+\gamma(\phi)^2\cdot \exp\left(c\gamma(\phi)^2\right)}\right)$$
to obtain a solution to equation (\[auxiliaryequation\]).
Furthermore, suppose that $u_1$ and $u_2$ are two solutions of the equation (\[auxiliaryequation\]). Then we have the function $u_1-u_2$ is a solution to the equation $$\left(\Delta \exp\left(-c\Delta\right) - Id\right)u = 0.$$
Applying the spherical transform we have $$\left(1+\gamma(\phi)^2\cdot \exp\left(c\gamma(\phi)^2\right)\right)\cdot \widehat{(u_1-u_2)}(\phi) = 0,$$
and we immediately obtain $u_1 = u_2.$ This concludes the proof.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[9]{} Adams R. A., Fournier J. J. F. : *Sobolev spaces*, Academic press, New York, 2003 Agarwal R. P., Otero-Espinar V., Perera K., Vivero D.R. : *Basic properties of Sobolev’s spaces on time scales*, Adv. Differ. Equ., Article number: 038121 (2006) Ahmad N., Baig H. A., Rahman G., Saleem M. S. : *Sobolev’s embedding on time scales*, J. Inequal. Appl., Vol. 1, Article number: 134 (2018) Bahrouni A., Rădulescu V. D. : *On a new fractional Sobolev space and applications to nonlocal variational problems with variable exponent*, Discrete Cont. Dyn.-S, Vol. 11, No. 3, p. 379-389 (2018) Bandaliyev R. A., Hasanov S. G. : *On denseness of $C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and compactness in $L^{p(x)}$ for* , Mosc. Math. J., Vol 1, No. 18, p. 1-13 (2018) Barnaby N., Karman N. : *Dynamics with infinitely many derivatives: the initial value problem*, J. High Energy Phys., Vol. 2008 (2008) Bartle R. G. : *The Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure*, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York, 1995 Bechtell H. : *The theory of groups*, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, London, 1971 Bełdziński M., Galewski M. : *Global diffeomorphism theorem applied to the solvability ofdiscrete and continuous boundary value problems*, J. Differ. Equ. Appl., Vol. 24, No. 2 (2017) Bełdziński M., Galewski M. : *On unique solvability of a Dirichlet problem with nonlinearity depending on the derivative*, Opusc. Math., Vol. 39, No. 2, p. 131-144 (2019) Bełdziński M., Galewski M. : *On the Existence and Uniqueness of Dirichlet Problems on a Positive Half-Line*, Minimax Theory its Appl., Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 55-69 (2019) Brezis H. : *Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations*, Springer, New York, 2011 Calcagni G., Montobbio M., Nardelli G. : *Localization of nonlocal theories*, Phys. Lett. B, Vol. 662, No. 3, p. 285-289 (2008) Carmichael, R. D. : *Linear differential equations of infinite order*, Bull. AMS, Vol. 42, p. 193-218 (1936) Carmichael, R. D. : *On non-homogeneous linear differential equations of infinite order with constant coefficients*, Am. J. Math., Vol. 58, No. 3, p. 473-486 (1936) Carleson, L. : *On infinite differential equations with constant coefficients*, I. Math. Scand., Vol. 1, p. 31-38 (1953) Carlsson M., Prado H., Reyes E. G. : *Differential Equations with Infinitely Many Derivatives and the Borel Transform*, Ann. Henri Poincar’e, Vol. 17, p. 2049-2074 (2016) Deitmar A. : *A First Course in Harmonic Analysis*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005 Deitmar A., Echterhoff S. : *Principles of Harmonic Analysis*, Springer, New York, 2009 Demengel F., Demengel G. : *Functional Spaces for the Theory of Elliptic Partial Differential Equations*, Springer-Verlag, London, 2012 van Dijk G. : *Introduction to Harmonic Analysis and Generalized Gelfand Pairs*, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2009 Edmunds D. E., Rákosník J. : *Density of smooth functions in $W^{k,p(x)}(\Omega)$*, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, Vol. 437, No. 1899, p. 229-236 (1992) Edmunds D. E., Rákosník J. : *Sobolev embeddings with variable exponent*, Stud. Math., Vol. 143, No. 3, p. 267-293 (2000) Evans L. C. : *Partial Differential Equations*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998 Feng Z., Su Y. H., Yao J. : *Sobolev spaces on time scales and applications to semilinear Dirichlet problem*, Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ., Vol. 12, No. 3, p.241-263 (2015) Folland G. B. : *A Course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis*, CRC Press, London, 1995 Folland G. B. : *Real Analysis: Modern techniques and their applications*, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1999 Górka P., Kostrzewa T., Reyes E. G. : *The Rellich lemma on compact abelian groups and equations of infinite order*, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., Vol. 10, No. 2 (2013) Górka P., Kostrzewa T., Reyes E. G. : *Sobolev Spaces on Locally Compact Abelian Groups: Compact Embeddings and Local Spaces*, J. Funct. Space, Vol. 2014, Article number: 404738 (2014) Górka P., Reyes E. G. : *Sobolev spaces on locally compact abelian groups and the bosonic string equation*, J. Aust. Math. Soc., Vol. 98, No. 1, p. 39-53 (2015) Grafakos L. : *Modern Fourier analysis*, Springer, New York, 2009 Graffi D. (editor) : *Materials with memory*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2011 Helgason S. : *Groups and Geometric Analysis. Integral Geometry, Invariant Differential Operators, and Spherical Functions*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2002 Hewitt E., Ross K. A. : *Abstract Harmonic Analysis II*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970 Katznelson Y. : *An introduction to harmonic analysis*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004 Kováčik, Rákosník J. : *On spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and $W^{k,p(x)}$*, Czechoslovak Math. J., Vol. 41, No. 4, p. 592-618 (1991) Leoni G. : *A First Course in Sobolev Spaces*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2009 Li Y., Zhou J. : *Sobolev’s spaces on time scales and its applications to a class of second order Hamiltonian systems on time scales*, Nonlinear Anal., Real World Appl., Vol. 73, No. 5, p. 1375-1388 (2010) Malliavin P. (with Airault H., Kay L., Letac G.) : *Integration and Probability*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995 Maz’ya V., Shaposhnikova T. : *On the Bourgain, Brezis, and Mironescu theorem concerning limiting embeddings of fractional Sobolev spaces*, J. Funct. Anal., Vol. 195, No. 2, p. 230-238 (2002) Mihăilescu M., Rădulescu V. : *On a nonhomogeneous quasilinear eigenvalue problem in Sobolev spaces with variable exponent*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 135, p. 2929-2937 (2007) Natanson I. P. : *Theory of functions of a real variable*, Dover Publications, New York, 2016 Nečas J. : *Direct Methods in the Theory of Elliptic Equations*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2012 Nezza E., Palatucci G., Valdinoci E. : *Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces*, Bull. Sci. Math., Vol. 136, No. 5, p. 521-573 (2012) Pego R. L. : *Compactness in $L^2$ and the Fourier transform*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 95, No. 2, p. 252-254 (1985) Rastelli L. : *Open string fields and D-branes*, Fortschr. Phys., Vol. 52, p. 302-337 (2004) Reed M., Simon B. : *Methods of modern mathematical physics*, Academic Press, San Diego, 1980 Renardy M., Rogers R. C. : *An Introduction to Partial differential equations*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004 Royden H. : *Real analysis*, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1988 Samko S., Vakulov B. : *Weighted Sobolev theorem with variable exponent for spatial and spherical potential operators*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., Vol. 310, No. 1, p. 229-246 (2005) Stein E. : *Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970 Stein E., Shakarchi R. : *Real analysis: measure theory, integration and Hilbert spaces*, Princeton University Press, Princeton 2005 Strichartz R. S. : *Multipliers on fractional Sobolev spaces*, J. Math. Mech., Vol. 16, No. 9, p. 1031-1060 (1967) Swanson D. : *Pointwise inequalities and approximation in fractional Sobolev spaces*, Stud. Math., Vol. 149, p. 147-174 (2002) Tartar L. : *An Introduction to Sobolev Spaces and Interpolation Spaces*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007 Taylor M. E. : *Partial differential equations*, Springer, New York, 1996 Triebel H. : *Theory of Functions Spaces III*, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006 Weil A. : *L’intégration dans les groupes topologiques et ses applications*, Hermann, Paris, 1965 Wolf J. A. : *Harmonic Analysis on Commutative Spaces*, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2007 Ziemer W. P. : *Weakly Differentiable Functions: Sobolev Spaces and Functions of Bounded Variation*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'No unmeasured confounding is often assumed in estimating treatment effects in observational data when using approaches such as propensity scores and inverse probability weighting. However, in many such studies due to the limitation of the databases, collected confounders are not exhaustive, and it is crucial to examine the extent to which the resulting estimate is sensitive to the unmeasured confounders. We consider this problem for survival and competing risks data. Due to the complexity of models for such data, we adapt the simulated potential confounders approach of Carnegie [*et al.*]{} (2016), which provides a general tool for sensitivity analysis due to unmeasured confounding. More specifically, we specify one sensitivity parameter to quantify the association between an unmeasured confounder and the treatment assignment, and another set of parameters to quantify the association between the confounder and the time-to-event outcomes. By varying the magnitudes of the sensitivity parameters, we estimate the treatment effect of interest using the stochastic EM and the EM algorithms. We demonstrate the performance of our methods on simulated data, and apply them to a comparative effectiveness study in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).'
author:
- Rong Huang
- Ronghui Xu
- 'Parambir S. Dulai'
bibliography:
- 'propensity.bib'
title: Sensitivity Analysis of Treatment Effect to Unmeasured Confounding in Observational Studies with Survival and Competing Risks Outcomes
---
[ ***Keywords*** Causal inference; Cox model; Expectation-Maximization algorithm; inverse probability weighting (IPW); proportional hazards regression; regression adjustment; simulated confounder; stochastic EM. ]{}
Introduction
============
When estimating the effect of a treatment or exposure on an outcome of interest, the gold-standard approach is to conduct randomized control trials (RCT). In this setting, the potential outcomes are independent of treatment assignment, then the inference is straightforward. However, in many cases, RCT is not feasible and the inference has to be drawn from observational studies. One of the major challenges in inferring causality from observational studies is that the treatment selection mechanism is unknown and we have to rely on some untestable assumptions. One widely used assumption is that there is no unobserved confounding, which means that the treatment assignment and the outcome are independent conditional on the observed pre-treatment covariates. In the potential outcome framework and under this assumption, there are several methods to adjust for the pre-treatment covariates via the propensity, including matching, stratification, outcomes regression and inverse probability weighting (IPW).[@RosenbaumRubin83; @RosenbaumOS; @Austin11; @austin2014use; @d1998propensity]
Instead of believing that the no-unobserved-confounding assumption is satisfied, sensitivity analysis offers an approach to assess the extent to which the inference is robust to potential unmeasured confounders. [@RosenbaumOS] Robins [*et al.*]{}[@robins2000sensitivity] argued that sensitivity analysis should be conducted to examine how the inference varies if any untestable assumption is violated. For example, an early sensitivity analysis was conducted in Cornfield [*et al.*]{}, [@cornfield1959smoking] who concluded that the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer could be explained away only if there existed a hidden bias associated with cigarette smoking that was at least as strong as the association between cigarette use and lung cancer. Rosenbaum[@RosenbaumOS] contains a nice introduction describing the idea based on association between the unobserved confounder and the treatment and between the unobserved confounder and the outcome. Analytical approaches have been developed for simpler outcomes such as binary.[@liu2013introduction] Li [*et al.*]{}[@li2011propensity] and Shen [*et al.*]{}[@shen2011sensitivity] considered sensitivity analysis methods for inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators using propensity scores that were gaining popularity in practice.[@AustinStuart15] Our motivation came from studies in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is an umbrella term for two conditions, ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD), that are characterized by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. [@katz2011facts] While randomized clinical trials exist, these RCTs only represent 30% of patients seen and cared for in routine practice. Furthermore, there are a growing number of treatment options, and head-to-head comparisons are entirely lacking due to difficulty in performing these RCTs and the rapid growth in treatment options. In order to compare the effectiveness between Vedolizumab and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapies for UC and CD patients, data were collected between May 2014 and December 2017 from a North American based consortium registry,[@narula2018vedolizumab; @dulai2016real] which is a multi-center collaborative research group where outcomes are pooled for consecutive UC and CD patients treated with biologics. Our primary endpoint is time to clinical remission. Although data collection was rather exhaustive and accounted for most known measurable confounders, treatment selection for IBD is known to be preference sensitive and influenced by patient and provider perceptions, experiences, and understandings of potential benefit and risk based on the data available to them, all of which are unmeasurable. We aim to assess to what extent our inference from the data is affected by potentially unmeasured confounding.
Time to clinical remission is a survival endpoint; however, patients need time to achieve this endpoint. Wide variability exists across centers, patients, and providers, for their preference to proceed with surgery while awaiting response to therapy. Therefore, surgery presents a competing risk to clinical remission, in that surgery prevents the event of achieving clinical remission. In Lukin [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_UC] and Bohm [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_CD] the authors considered propensity score methods with IPW as the primary approach to account for the observed covariates. However, it is possible that there might be confounders not captured by the observed covariates. To carry out sensitivity analysis for this type of complex outcomes, we found the simulated unobserved confounder approach[@carnegie2016assessing] to be useful, since the analytical approaches seem difficult to derive.
Under the simulated unobserved confounder setting we may consider two types of sensitivity parameters, one describing the association between the unmeasured confounder and the treatment assignment and the other describing the association between the unmeasured confounder and the outcome. The interpretation of these parameters is relatively straightforward. To determine a plausible range of these sensitivity parameters, we take into consideration the maximum observed association between a measured confounder and the treatment assignment or the outcome, as well as the typical consideration of the strength of association such as the odds ratio or hazard ratio for (say) a binary predictor, as we will see later in the paper. We organize our paper as follows. We describe our models in [Section \[sec:models\]]{}, including both the survival models and the competing risks models. We consider estimation in [Section \[sec:algo\]]{}, using both the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithms and a stochastic EM algorithm. In [Section \[sec:simulation\]]{}, we demonstrate the performance of our algorithms via simulations. We apply our methods to the IBD data in [Section \[sec:IBD\]]{}. Finally, we conclude with discussion in [Section \[sec:discussion\]]{}.
Models {#sec:models}
======
Survival outcome
----------------
Denote $T^0$ a time-to-event outcome, $Z$ a binary treatment assignment, and $X$ a vector of covariates. Due to possible right censoring, we observe $T=\min(T^0, C)$ and $\delta=I(T^0 \leq C)$, where $C$ is the censoring time random variable, and $I(\cdot)$ the indicator function. We consider $U$ which represents the portion of unmeasured confounder(s) that is independent of $X$, and will simply refer to $U$ as the unmeasured confounder for the rest of the paper. We assume $U$ to be binary for ease of implementation, although other distributions are possible and will be discussed later. Given $Z$, $X$ and $U$, the hazard rate of $T^0$ is modeled using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression:[@cox1972regression] $$\label{model:surv}
\lambda (t| Z, X, U) = \lambda_{0} (t) \exp(\tau Z + \beta' X+ \zeta U).$$ In addition, we assume that given $X$ and $U$, $Z$ follows a generalized linear model; for illustration purposes we assume a probit link below, although logistic would be an obvious alternative: $$\label{model:ps}
P( Z=1 |X,U ) = \Phi(X' \beta^z + \zeta^z U),$$ where $\Phi$ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function (CDF). In the above $(\zeta^z, \zeta)$ are sensitivity parameters, which quantify the relationships between the unobserved confounder and the treatment assignment and the outcome, respectively. Finally, we assume that $U \sim$ Bernoulli$(\pi)$, and we set $\pi=0.5$.
Our goal is to simulate $U$ given the observed $T$, $\delta$, $Z$ and $X$. We note that if the parameters in the above are known, then $$\label{conU}
U|T,\delta, Z,X \sim \mbox{Bernoulli} \left(\frac{\pi^{T, \delta, Z, X, U=1}}{\pi^{T, \delta, Z, X}} \right),$$ where $\pi^{T, \delta, Z, X, U=u}$ is the joint likelihood of $(T, \delta, Z, U=u)$ given $X$ for $u=0, 1$, and $\pi^{T, \delta, Z, X} = \pi^{T, \delta, Z, X, U=1} + \pi^{T, \delta, Z, X, U=0}$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jointlik}
\pi^{T,\delta, Z,X,U} &=& \pi^U (1-\pi)^{1-U} \left\{\Phi(X' \beta^z + \zeta^z U) \right\}^Z \left\{1-\Phi(X' \beta^z + \zeta^z U) \right\}^{1-Z} \nonumber \\
&&\cdot \left\{ \lambda_{0} (T) e^{ \tau Z + \beta' X + \zeta U} \right\}^\delta \exp \left\{ - \Lambda_{0} (T) \cdot e^{ \tau Z + \beta' X + \zeta U} \right\}.
$$
Competing risks
---------------
In the presence of competing risks, when an event occurs it may be one of $m$ distinct types of failures indexed by $j = 1, 2, \cdots, m$. Denote $T^1, \cdots, T^m$ the potential time-to-event outcomes for the $m$ types, and as before $Z$ a binary treatment assignment, and $X$ a vector of covariates. We observe $T=\min(T^1, \cdots, T^m, C)$, where $C$ is the censoring time random variable, $\delta=I(\min(T^1, \cdots, T^m) \leq C)$ and $J$ the type of failure if not censored. Again, we consider an unmeasured binary confounder $U$ that is independent of $X$. The cause-specific hazard function[@kalbfleisch2011statistical] for the $j$-th failure type is $ \lambda_j (t| Z,X,U) = \lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \mathbb{P}(t \le T < t+\Delta t, J = j|T \ge t, Z,X,U) / {\Delta t}$. We consider the proportional cause-specific hazards model (PCSH) $$\label{model:comprisk}
\lambda_j (t| Z,X,U) = \lambda_{j0} (t) \exp( \tau_j Z + \beta'_j X+ \zeta_j U), \quad j = 1,2, \cdots, m.$$ As before we also assume that given $X$ and $U$, $Z$ follows a generalized linear model with a probit link. Then parallel to we have $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^{T,\delta, J,Z,X,U} &= \pi^U (1-\pi)^{1-U} \left\{\Phi(X' \beta^z + \zeta^zU) \right\}^Z \left\{1-\Phi(X' \beta^z + \zeta^zU) \right\}^{1-Z} \nonumber \\
&\cdot \prod_{j=1}^m \left\{ \lambda_{j0} (T) e^{ \tau_j Z + \beta_j' X+ \zeta_j U} \right\}^{I(\delta=1, J=j)} \exp \left\{- \Lambda_{j0} (T) \cdot e^{\tau_j Z + \beta_j' X+ \zeta_j U} \right\},
$$ where [$I(\delta=1, J=j)$]{} indicates whether subject had the event $j$. The posterior probability of $U$ is then obtained similar to . In general, if there are $m$ distinct types of failures, then there would be $m+1$ sensitivity parameters, $\zeta^z, \zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_m$.
Estimation {#sec:algo}
==========
In order to simulation $U$ given the observed data, we first need to estimate the unknown parameters. Conditional on the unobserved $U$ as well as $Z$ and $X$, the likelihood function of the survival outcome without competing risks is $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 &= \prod_{i=1}^n \lambda (t_i| z_i, x_i, u_i)^{\delta_i} \exp \{-\Lambda (t_i| z_i, x_i, u_i) \} \nonumber\\
&= \prod_{i=1}^n \left\{ \lambda_{0} (t_i) e^{\tau z_i + \beta' x_i+ \zeta u_i} \right\}^{\delta_i} \exp \left\{-\Lambda_{0} (t_i) e^{\tau z_i + \beta' x_i+ \zeta u_i} \right\}, \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the likelihood function of the competing risks outcome given $(Z, X, U)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comp_lik}
L_1 &=& \prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{j=1}^m \lambda_j (t_i| z_i, x_i, u_i)^{\delta_{ij}} \exp \{-\Lambda_j (t_i| z_i, x_i, u_i)\} \nonumber\\
&=& \prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{j=1}^m \left\{ \lambda_{j0} (t_i) e^{ \tau_j z_i + \beta'_j x_i+ \zeta_j u_i} \right\}^{\delta_{ij}} \exp \left\{-\Lambda_{j0} (t_i) e^{ \tau_j z_i + \beta'_j x_i+ \zeta_j u_i} \right\}, \end{aligned}$$ [where $\delta_{ij} := I(\delta_i=1, J_i=j)$ indicates whether subject $i$ had event $j$. ]{}
The EM algorithm
----------------
The EM algorithm[@dempster1977maximum] is a commonly used approach to handle missing data, in this case $U$, in the likelihood function. Let $\theta$ denote the unknown parameters, and $y_i$ the survival outcome for subject $i$. The EM algorithm iterates between the E-steps and the M-steps that are described below, where in the notation the covariate $x_i$ is suppressed which is always being conditioned upon. The initial values can be set using the parameter estimates from the regression models ignoring $U$. We note that the sensitivity parameters, as well as $\pi=0.5$, are known.
### E-step {#e-step .unnumbered}
In the E-step we compute the conditional expectation of the log-likelihood of the complete data $(y_i,z_i, u_i)$ given the observed data and the current parameter value $\tilde \theta$. For the survival outcome without competing risks, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q}
\mathcal{Q}(\theta) &= \mathbb{E}[l(\theta;\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})|\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\tilde \theta] \nonumber\\
&= \mathbb{E}[l_1(\beta, \tau, \lambda_{0};\mathbf{y}|\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})|\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\tilde \theta] + \mathbb{E}[l_2(\beta^z;\mathbf{z}|\mathbf{u})|\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\tilde \theta] + \mathbb{E}[l_3(\mathbf{u})|\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\tilde \theta]\\
&:= \mathcal{Q}_1(\beta, \tau, \lambda_{0}) + \mathcal{Q}_2 (\beta^z) + \mathcal{Q}_3, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q1}
\mathcal{Q}_1(\beta, \tau, \lambda_{0}) &= \sum_{i=1}^n \left[ \delta_{i} \{ \log \lambda_{0} (t_i) + \beta' x_i+ \zeta \mathbb{E}[u_i|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta] + \tau z_i \} \right. \nonumber\\
& \left. \quad -\Lambda_{0} (t_i) \exp \left\{ \beta' x_i+ \log \mathbb{E}[e^{\zeta u_i}|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta] + \tau z_i \right\} \right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{Q2}
\mathcal{Q}_2 (\beta^z) = \sum_{i=1}^n \{z_i\mathbb{E}[\log (\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i))|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta] + (1-z_i) \mathbb{E}[\log (1-\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i))|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta]\},$$ $$\label{Q3}
\mathcal{Q}_3 = \sum_{i=1}^n \{\log \pi \mathbb{E}[u_i|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta] + \log (1-\pi) \mathbb{E}[1-u_i|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta] \}.$$ We note that $\mathcal{Q}_3$ is in fact not used in the M-step since it does not involve unknown parameters. As described earlier, given the observed data, $U$ follows Bernoulli $(\tilde \pi_i)$ as in where $ \tilde \pi_i $ is calculated based on the current parameter value $\tilde \theta$. So for any function $h(u_i)$ in and , we have $\mathbb{E}[h(u_i)|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta]
= h(1) \tilde \pi_i + h(0) (1-\tilde \pi_i)$. For competing risks outcome, from we see that the likelihood function is a product of $m$ likelihoods, one for each type of event with its own type specific parameters. The corresponding $\mathcal{Q}_1$ function is then a sum of $\mathcal{Q}_{1j}(\beta_j, \tau_j, \lambda_{j0})$’s, each having the same form as $\mathcal{Q}_1(\beta, \tau, \lambda_{0})$ above but with parameters $ \beta_j, \tau_j, \lambda_{j0} $ and data for the event type $j$ instead.
### M-step {#m-step .unnumbered}
From (\[Q\]) it is clear that in the M-step we can update $(\beta, \tau, \lambda_{0})$ and $\beta^z$ separately. In order to maximize $\mathcal{Q}_1$, we note that it has the same form as the log-likelihood in a Cox regression model with known offset $\log \mathbb{E}[e^{\zeta u_i}|y_i, z_i, \tilde \theta]$, just like the Cox model with random effects.[@vaida2000proportional] For competing risks again because $\mathcal{Q}_1$ is a sum of $\mathcal{Q}_{1j}(\beta_j, \tau_j, \lambda_{j0})$’s for $j=1, ..., m$, each set of parameters $ \beta_j, \tau_j, \lambda_{j0} $ is updated separately using the Cox model software with offsets, the same way as a single survival outcome.
To maximize $\mathcal{Q}_2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_2 (\beta^z) &= \sum_{i=1}^n \left(z_i \left[\log \{\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z)\}\tilde \pi_i + \log \{\Phi(x_i' \beta^z)\} (1-\tilde \pi_i) \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& \left. \quad + (1-z_i) \left[\log \{1-\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z)\}\tilde \pi_i + \log \{1-\Phi(x_i' \beta^z)\}(1-\tilde \pi_i) \right]\right). \end{aligned}$$ This function can be maximized using the R function ‘[optim]{}’.
### Variance estimation {#variance-estimation .unnumbered}
As in typical nonparametric maximum likelihood inference under semiparametric models, the variance-covariance matrix of $\hat \theta$ is estimated by the inverse of a discrete observed information matrix $I(\hat \theta)$ following the EM algorithm, which is given by Louis’ formula [@louis1982finding] based on missing information principle: $$\label{info}
I(\theta) = \mathbb{E}[-\ddot{l}(\theta;\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})|\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\theta] - \mathbb{E}[s(\theta;\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})s(\theta;\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})'|\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\theta],$$ where $\ddot{l}$ and $s$ denote the second and first derivatives of $l$ with respect to $\theta$. The components of $\ddot{l}$ and $s$ are given in the Appendix.
The Stochastic EM algorithm
---------------------------
Instead of the EM algorithm described above, the stochastic EM algorithm was used in Carnegie [*et al.*]{} [@carnegie2016assessing], we think primarily due to its ease of implementation for practitioners as well as intuitive appeal. It is similar to a Monte Carlo EM (MCEM) but in the E-steps only a single $U$ is drawn from the conditional distribution of $U$ given the observed data, so that in the M-steps the parameters are updated using that single sample of $U$ as if it were observed. A typical MCEM would otherwise draw many samples of $U$ in order to approximate the conditional expectations in the E-steps. The E- and M-steps are as described above for the models that we consider in this paper, for both survival and competing risks outcomes. At the convergence of the stochastic EM algorithm, in order to obtain a more accurate estimate the E- and M-steps are repeated $K$ times, and the final estimate of the treatment effect on the survival outcome is $\hat \tau = \sum_{k=1}^K \hat \tau_{k} /K$, with the corresponding standard error $$\label{mi_var}
\hat \sigma_{\hat \tau} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \hat \sigma^2_{\hat \tau_{k}} + \frac{1}{K-1} \sum_{k=1}^K (\hat \tau_{k} - \hat \tau )^2},$$ where $ \hat \sigma^2_{\hat \tau_{k}} $ is estimated variance of $ \hat \tau_{k} $ pretending that the singly sampled $U_k$ is observed. For competing risks we have similarly for type $j$ event $\hat \tau_j = \sum_{k=1}^K \hat \tau_{jk} /K$, and the corresponding standard error is obtained using with $ \hat \tau_{k} $ replaced by $ \hat \tau_{jk} $ and $\hat \tau$ replaced by $\hat \tau_j$. Nielsen [*et al.*]{}[@nielsen2000stochastic] studied the asymptotic behavior of the stochastic EM algorithm, and showed that under certain assumptions it is root-$n$ consistent but not fully efficient. We show in our data analysis that it can be naturally adapted to the IPW approach and obtain inferential results in sensitivity analysis.
Simulations {#sec:simulation}
===========
We conducted simulation studies to investigate the performance of the EM as well as the stochastic EM algorithms, as compared to the estimation of the treatment effect using the true confounder $U$ with the given sensitivity parameters. For both survival and competing risks outcomes, we set sample size $n=1,000$, $U \sim$ Bernoulli(0.5), and two independent covariates $X_1 \sim N(0,1)$, $X_2 \sim N(1,1)$ with $ \beta^z = (0.25, -0.25)' $ in . The number of EM or stochastic EM steps was set to 20 (see [Figure \[fig:EM\]]{} and related discussion below), and true sensitivity parameter values were used in fitting the models. The final estimates from the stochastic EM were obtained by averaging over $K=40$ estimates to reduce the variability. For each case we show the results of 200 simulation runs.
Survival outcome
----------------
To simulate survival outcomes under model , we set $\lambda_{0}(t) =1$, $\beta = (0.5, -1)'$ and $\tau = 1$. In addition, we set censoring times $C\sim$ Uniform(1, 2) which led to between 25$\sim$60% censoring, depending on the combinations of the parameter values.
We run simulations over each combination of $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ and $\zeta \in \{-2, -1, 0, 1, 2\}$. The results of the simulation are reported in [Table \[tab:tau\]]{} and [Figure \[fig:tau\]]{}. From [Figure \[fig:tau\]]{} it is clear that ignoring $U$ led to bias in the estimated treatment effect as long as $\zeta\neq 0$; this bias also increases with the magnitude of $\zeta$ as well as the magnitude of $\zeta^z$. On the other hand, both the stochastic EM and the EM algorithm gave good estimates of the treatment effect compared with the estimates using the true $U$’s. Closer comparison of the results in [Table \[tab:tau\]]{} shows that the EM algorithm gave more accurate estimates than the stochastic EM algorithm, both in terms of generally less bias and smaller variances.
Competing risks outcomes
------------------------
To simulate competing risks outcomes, we followed the approach designed in Beyersmann [*et al.*]{} [@beyersmann2009simulating]. We assumed that $m=2$, the baseline hazard functions for type 1 and type 2 failures to be $\lambda_{10}(t) = \lambda_{20}(t) = 1$, and $\beta_1 = (0.5, -1)'$, $\tau_1 = 1$, $\beta_2 = (-0.5, 0.2)'$, $\tau_2 = -1$ in model . We then simulated the survival times with all-causes hazard $\lambda = \lambda_1 + \lambda_2$, and the cause $J$ was generated from Bernoulli trials with $P(J = 1|Z,X,U) = {\lambda_1}/{(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)}$. We also set censoring times $C\sim$ Uniform(0.3, 0.7). Similarly as the survival model, we first ran simulations over each combination of $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ and $\zeta_1 =\zeta_2 \in \{-2, -1, 0, 1, 2\}$. This gave about 20$\sim$60% censoring, depending on the combinations of the parameter values, and about equal numbers of type 1 and type 2 events. In a second scenario, we fixed $\zeta_1 =1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \{-2, -1, 0, 1, 2\}$ as before, which gave about 20$\sim$40% censoring, and type 1/2 event rates between 40/20% and 30/50%, again depending on the combinations of the parameter values. The results of experiments are reported in [Table \[tab:tau1\]]{} ([Figure \[fig:tau1\]]{}) - [Table \[tab:tau2\_1\]]{} ([Figure \[fig:tau2\_1\]]{}). All results show that for each type of failure, the estimated treatment effect by either the stochastic EM or the EM recovered the true treatment effect quite well, while ignoring $U$ induced a substantial bias. In particular, [Table \[tab:tau1\_1\]]{} and [Figure \[fig:tau1\_1\]]{} show that varying $\zeta_2$ had a noticeable impact on the estimation of $\tau_1$, i.e. unobserved confounding for type 2 failure had a noticeable impact on the estimation of the treatment effect on type 1 failure.
Finally, we take a closer look at the EM and the stochastic EM algorithm in a single run in [Figure \[fig:EM\]]{}. It is seen that the EM sequence displays a much smoother line than the stochastic EM sequence; and even at convergence, the stochastic EM sequence has quite some fluctuation compared to the EM sequence.
Sensitivity analysis of the IBD data {#sec:IBD}
====================================
Ulcerative colitis data
-----------------------
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is one type of IBD that occurs in the large intestine (colon) and the rectum, which is characterized clinically by bloody diarrhea and urgency. We are interested in comparing the effectiveness between Vedolizumab and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy for UC patients. The data was collected between May 2014 and December 2017 from the North American based consortium registry.[@narula2018vedolizumab] In brief, a total of 719 (453 treated with Vedolizumab, 266 with TNF-antagonist) UC patients with a median follow-up of 12 months were included. We focus on the treatment effect of vedolizumab ($Z=1$) versus TNF-antagonist ($Z=0$) on clinical remission, which is defined as resolution of diarrhea, rectal bleeding and urgency. In the Vedolizumab group, 187 patients had clinical remission and no one had surgery, while in the TNF-antagonist group, 100 patients had clinical remission and 3 patients had surgery. Since there were only 3 competing events of surgery, too few to fit any model, we had to simply treat surgery as independent censoring and applied our approach under the survival models (i.e. without competing risks) to approximate the treatment effect of Vedolizumab.
In Lukin [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_UC] the propensity score for each subject $i$, denoted ${\mbox{PS}}_i$, was calculated using the R package ‘twang’[@mccaffrey2004propensity] based on pre-treatment variables, including age, disease extent, clinical disease severity, UC related hospitalization within the preceding 1-year, prior TNF-antagonist exposure, baseline steroid dependency or refractoriness, concomitant steroid use, and concomitant immunomodulator use. Though the above potential confounders were considered, it is unknown if all confounders have been included. Hence, sensitivity analysis is necessary for this data.
To be consistent with Lukin [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_UC], here we consider a single covariate $X_i = \Phi^{-1}({\mbox{PS}}_i)$ in our models, as this quantity is more likely to be normally distributed than ${\mbox{PS}}_i$. We then assume that there is an unmeasured confounder $U \sim$ Bernoulli(0.5). To determine the range for the sensitivity parameters, we take into consideration the observed association between a measured confounder and the treatment assignment or the outcome, in this case all less than one in absolute value in terms of log odds ratio or log hazard ratio. In addition, a probit coefficient on a binary variable ($U$) is likely to lie in $[-2,2]$ in practice as suggested in Carnegie [*et al.*]{} [@carnegie2016assessing]. Similarly under the Cox PH model, the log hazard ratio of $\pm 2$ is very substantial for a binary variable. Therefore, we focused on $\zeta^z \in [-2,2]$ and $\zeta \in [-2,2]$. The EM and stochastic EM algorithms were then applied as described in [Section \[sec:algo\]]{}. The estimates from the stochastic EM were obtained by averaging over $K=100$ estimates. The sensitivity analysis results are reported in [Table \[tab:UCout1\]]{} and [Figure \[fig:UC\]]{} panels (a) and (b).
In the models without unmeasured confounding ($\zeta^z = \zeta = 0$), the estimates were $\hat \beta^z$ (SE) = 1.1002 (0.0926), $\hat \beta$ (SE) = -0.3250 (0.0994), and $\hat \tau$ (SE) = 0.5756 (0.1423), where ‘SE’ stands for standard error. We note that $\hat \beta^z$ would have been exactly one if, instead of ‘twang’, probit regression had been used to fit the propensity score model. In addition, the estimated treatment effect $\hat \tau$ here was obtained by regression adjustment, compared to the IPW estimate of Lukin.[*et al.*]{}[@dulai_UC] (see sensitivity analysis for IPW below also). Nonetheless, the estimated treatment effects are qualitatively consistent: Vedolizumab treated patients were more likely to achieve clinical remission compared to TNF-antagonist therapy, with hazard ratio (HR) = 1.7783 based on regression adjustment.
[Figure \[fig:UC\]]{}(a) and (b) show that over a wide range of sensitivity parameters, the EM and the stochastic EM gave very similar results. In the plots, the blue contours show the sensitivity parameter values corresponding to the estimated treatment effect $\hat \tau$, and the red curves correspond to where the absolute value of the $t-$statistic $|t| = |\hat \tau / \hat \sigma_{\hat \tau}| = 1.96$. Hence, any combination of $(\zeta^z, \zeta)$ in the region between two red curves in the upper right or lower left quadrant leads to a non-significant estimated treatment effect at 0.05 level two-sided. Note that except for very small random fluctuation in the stochastic EM results, the contours and curves are symmetric about the origin $(\zeta^z, \zeta) = (0,0)$, where the estimated $\hat \tau = 0.5756$ is marked.
From the plots we see that in order to drive the estimated treatment effect to zero, $(\zeta^z, \zeta)$ will need to be close to (1.5, 1) or (1, 1.5), for example, compared to $\hat \beta^z$ = 1.1002, $\hat \beta = -0.3250$ in model above; such a very strong association between $U$ and the survival outcome seems unlikely. We also noted earlier that the observed association between a measured confounder and the outcome were all less than one in absolute value in terms of log hazard ratio (the largest being just under 0.6 in absolute value). Similarly the red curves in [Figure \[fig:UC\]]{} show that in order to drive the estimate to be non-significant at 0.05 level, $(\zeta^z, \zeta)$ will need to be close to (1, 0.8), for example.
Finally, as IPW with ${\mbox{PS}}_i$ was the main statistical approach used in Lukin [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_UC] to estimate the treatment effect, we also carried out sensitivity analysis for this approach. We implemented this by combining the stochastic EM with IPW as follows. At convergence of the algorithm we simulated $U_i$ and estimated the propensity score $\mathbb{P}(Z=1|X, U)$ by regressing $Z_i$ on $X_i = \Phi^{-1}({\mbox{PS}}_i)$ and the simulated $U_i$, $i=1, ...n$. Stabilized weights were obtained and further trimmed to be within (0.1, 10) if necessary. The IPW approach was then applied. The final estimates were also obtained by averaging over $K=100$ estimates, with the corresponding standard errors obtained using where $ \hat \sigma^2_{\hat \tau_{k}} $ was the sandwich variance estimator following the IPW. The results are also reported in [Table \[tab:UCout1\]]{} and [Figure \[fig:UC\]]{}(c). It is seen that unlike the regression adjustment results above, where the estimated treatment effect remained the same as long as $\zeta=0$, here instead the estimated treatment effect remained the same as long as $\zeta^z=0$. We also note much larger standard errors when $|\zeta^z|$ is large, perhaps understandable as the treatment groups become more imbalanced. However, similar to the regression adjustment results above, in order to drive the estimated treatment effect to zero, $(\zeta^z, \zeta)$ will need to be close to (1.5, 1) or (1, 1.5). On the other hand, the estimated treatment effect may become non-significant at 0.05 level if $(\zeta^z, \zeta) = (0.5, 1)$ or $(\zeta^z, \zeta) = (0.8, 0.5)$.
Crohn’s disease data
--------------------
Crohn’s disease (CD) is another type of IBD that can cause inflammation along anywhere of the digestive tract. We are again interested in comparing the effectiveness between Vedolizumab and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist therapy for CD patients. The data was collected between May 2014 and December 2017 from the North American based consortium registry. [@dulai2016real] A total of 1,242 patients were included (655 treated with Vedolizumab, 587 with TNF-antagonist therapy). The primary interest is the treatment effect of Vedolizumab ($Z=1$) versus (TNF)-antagonist ($Z=0$) on clinical remission, which is defined as complete resolution of CD-related symptoms. In the Vedolizumab group, 196 patients had clinical remission and 9 had surgery, while in the TNF-antagonist group, 255 patients had clinical remission and 18 patients had surgery. Due to the presence of competing events, We applied our approach under the competing risks models to estimate the treatment effect of Vedolizumab.
In Bohm [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_CD], the propensity score for each subject $i$, denoted ${\mbox{PS}}_i$, was calculated using the R package ‘twang’[@mccaffrey2004propensity] based on pre-treatment variables, including prior TNF-antagonist exposure and number of prior TNF-antagonists exposed, disease extent, history of fistulizing disease, prior bowel surgery, disease phentyope, clinical disease severity, CD related hospitalization within the preceding 1-year, baseline steroid dependency or refractoriness, concomitant steroid use, or concomitant immunomodulator use. It is unclear if all confounders have been included, though. Hence, sensitivity analysis is also necessary for this data.
To be consistent with Bohm [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_CD], we consider a single covariate $X_i = \Phi^{-1}({\mbox{PS}}_i)$ in our models and assume an the unmeasured confounder $U \sim$ Bernoulli(0.5). The range for the sensitivity parameters is determined similarly as the UC data. We focus on $\zeta^z \in [-2,2]$ and $\zeta_1 \in [-2,2]$, and $\zeta_2 \in \{-2,0,2\}$. The EM and stochastic EM algorithms were then applied as described in [Section \[sec:algo\]]{}. The estimates from the stochastic EM were obtained by averaging over $K=100$ estimates. The sensitivity analysis results are reported in [Table \[tab:CDout1\_neg2\]]{}, [Table \[tab:CDout1\_0\]]{}, [Table \[tab:CDout1\_pos2\]]{} and [Figure \[fig:CD\]]{} panels (a) and (b).
In the models without unmeasured confounding ($\zeta^z = \zeta_1 = \zeta_2 = 0$), the estimate of $\beta^z$ as defined in model is $\hat \beta^z$ (SE) = 1.0631 (0.0513), the estimates of $\beta_j$ $(j=1,2)$ as defined in model are $\hat \beta_1$ (SE) = $-0.1664$ (0.0562) and $\hat \beta_2$ (SE) = $-$0.2601 (0.2401), and the estimates of $\tau_j$ $(j=1,2)$ are $\hat \tau_1$ (SE) = 0.0605 (0.1318) and $\hat \tau_2$ (SE) = $-$0.0537 (0.5705). If probit regression had been used to fit the propensity score model, $\hat \beta^z$ would have been exactly one. In addition, the estimated treatment effects $\hat \tau_j$ $(j=1,2)$ here were obtained by regression adjustment, compared to the IPW estimate of Bohm [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_CD]. Nonetheless, the estimated treatment effects are consistent: there was no significant difference in time to clinical remission between Vedolizumab and TNF-antagonist treated patients, with hazard ratio (HR) = 1.0624 based on regression adjustment.
Note that by our algorithms, $\zeta_2$ affects $\hat \tau_1$ only through the conditional probability of $U$ as shown in . In this data, as the number of surgery is relatively small compared to the number of clinical remission, the effect of $\zeta_2$ on $\hat \tau_1$ is subtle ([Table \[tab:CDout1\_neg2\]]{}, [Table \[tab:CDout1\_0\]]{}, [Table \[tab:CDout1\_pos2\]]{}). This is, of course, not necessarily true when the number of the competing risk events is comparable to the number of events of interest.
[Figure \[fig:CD\]]{} (a) and (b) show that when $\zeta_2 = 0$, over a wide range of $(\zeta^z, \zeta_1)$, the EM and the stochastic EM gave similar results. In the plots, the blue contours show the values of $(\zeta^z, \zeta_1)$ corresponding to the estimated treatment effect $\hat \tau_1$, and the red curves correspond to where the absolute value of the $t-$statistic $|t| = |\hat \tau_i / \hat \sigma_{\hat \tau_1}| = 1.96$. Hence, any combination of $(\zeta^z, \zeta_1)$ in the region surrounded by four red curves leads to a non-significant estimated treatment effect at level 0.05 two-sided. Except for very small random fluctuation in the stochastic EM results, the contours and curves are symmetric about the origin $(\zeta^z, \zeta_1) = (0,0)$, where the estimated $\hat \tau_1 = 0.0605$ is marked. In order to drive the estimated treatment effect to being significant, given $\zeta_2 = 0$, $(\zeta^z, \zeta_1)$ will need to be close to (1,1) or ($-$0.8, 0.8), for example, compared to $\hat \beta^z$ = 1.0631 and $\hat \beta_1$ = $-$0.1664 above; such a strong association between $U$ and the outcome seems unlikely in practice.
Finally, as IPW with ${\mbox{PS}}_i$ was the main statistical approach used in Bohm [*et al.*]{}[@dulai_CD] to estimate the treatment effect, we also carried out sensitivity analysis for this approach by combing the stochastic EM with IPW as under the survival models. The final estimates were also obtained by averaging over $K=100$ estimates. The results are reported in [Table \[tab:CDout1\_neg2\]]{}, [Table \[tab:CDout1\_0\]]{}, [Table \[tab:CDout1\_pos2\]]{} and [Figure \[fig:CD\]]{}(c). Similar to the regression adjustment results, in order to drive the estimated treatment effect to significant, given $\zeta_2 = 0$, $(\zeta^z, \zeta_1)$ will need to be close to (1, 1) or (-1, 1.5), which seems unlikely in practice.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper we developed approaches to perform sensitivity analysis of the estimated treatment effect with regard to unobserved confounding in observational studies with survival or competing risks outcomes. The approaches we developed are based on models for survival or competing risks outcomes, which allow simulating the unobserved confounder given the observed data. The sensitivity parameters reflect the association between the unobserved confounder and the outcomes, as well as the association between the unobserved confounder and the treatment assignments. The interpretation of these sensitivity parameters is straightforward, which leads to relative ease in choosing plausible ranges for them. Simulation studies show that both the EM and the stochastic EM algorithm are able to recover the true treatment effect if the correct sensitivity parameter values are used. The EM algorithm is clearly optimal in theory,[@nielsen2000stochastic] although the stochastic EM allows easy incorporation of IPW approaches for estimating treatment effects, which are commonly used in practice and as we have illustrated in our data analysis.
For the distribution of the unobserved confounder we used binary 0, 1 with probability 0.5 each, which were recommended and used throughout the book by Rosenbaum.[@RosenbaumOS] It is also possible to incorporate normally distributed $U$, such as in Shen [*et al.*]{}[@shen2011sensitivity] and Xu [*et al.*]{},[@xu:etal19] in which case the probit link in model allows closed-form marginal propensity scores given $X$ after integrating out $U$. The $ \mathcal{Q}_1$ part of the EM algorithm would be similar to that under the proportional hazards mixed-effects model (PHMM) and Monte Carlo approximation would be needed in the E-steps.[@vaida2000proportional]
Carnegie [*et al.*]{} [@carnegie2016assessing] discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using parametric versus nonparametric approaches in sensitivity analysis. Parametric approaches are typically needed in order to simulate the unobserved confounder; in survival analysis however, the outcome models are often semiparametric, allow flexibility in modeling in particular the nuisance parameters. On the other hand, nonparametric bounds might be considered under minimal assumptions in place of sensitivity analysis.[@richardson2014nonparametric] However, such bounds can be very difficult to derive for complex outcomes like what we consider here in the presence of right censoring, which is unlike in Shen [*et al.*]{}[@shen2011sensitivity] where it is possible to derive these bounds for binary or continuous outcomes without censoring. Also evident in Shen [*et al.*]{}[@shen2011sensitivity] is that parametric settings are often needed in order to aid in the interpretation of the sensitivity parameters in the corresponding nonparametric settings, and extensive simulations have to be conducted in order to determine sensible ranges for these sensitivity parameters.[@xu:etal19]
.2in
**Acknowledgement**
This work was partially supported by National Institutes of Health, Grant UL1TR001442 of CTSA funding.
.3in
APPENDIX
In the following we write out the components of $\ddot{l}$ and $s$ for competing risks with $j=1, ..., m$. For a single survival outcome without competing risks, we should simply take $m=1$ and the corresponding parameters are the same as without the subscript $j$.
The components of $s$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \beta_j} &= \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \{\delta_{ij} - \Lambda_{j0}(t_i) \exp(\tau_j z_i + \beta_j'x_i + \zeta_j u_i )\}\\
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \tau_j} &= \sum_{i=1}^n z_i \{\delta_{ij} - \Lambda_{j0}(t_i) \exp(\tau_j z_i + \beta_j'x_i + \zeta_j u_i )\} \\
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \lambda_{j0}(t_i)} &= \frac{1}{\lambda_{j0}(t_i)} - \sum_{t_k \ge t_i} \exp(\tau_j z_k + \beta_j'x_k + \zeta_j u_k)\\
\frac{\partial l}{\partial \beta^z} &= \sum_{i=1}^n \big \{z_i \frac{\phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i)}{\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i)} - (1-z_i) \frac{\phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i)}{1-\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i)}\big\}x_i\end{aligned}$$ for $j=1,\cdots, m$. For the second derivatives, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \beta_j^2} &= - \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^{\otimes 2} \Lambda_{j0}(t_i) \exp( \tau_j z_i + \beta_j' x_i + \zeta_j u_i)\\
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \tau_j^2} &= - \sum_{i=1}^n z_i \Lambda_{j0}(t_i) \exp(\tau_j z_i + \beta_j'x_i + \zeta_j u_i) \\
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \lambda_{j0}(t_i)^2} &= -\frac{1}{\lambda_{j0}(t_i)^2}\\
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \beta_j \partial \tau_j} &= - \sum_{i=1}^n z_i x_i \Lambda_{j0}(t_i) \exp(\tau_j z_i + \beta_j' x_i + \zeta_j u_i)\\
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \beta_j \partial \lambda_{j0}(t_i)} &= - \sum_{t_k \ge t_i} x_k \exp(\tau_j z_k + \beta_j'x_k + \zeta_j u_k)\\
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \tau_j \partial \lambda_{j0}(t_i)} &= - \sum_{t_k \ge t_i} z_k \exp(\tau_j z_k + \beta_j'x_k + \zeta_j u_k) \\
\frac{\partial^2 l}{\partial \beta^{z2}} &= - \sum_{i=1}^n \phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i) \big \{z_i \frac{\phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i) + (x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i) \Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i) }{\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i)^2} \nonumber \\
& + (1-z_i) \frac{\phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i) - (x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i) (1-\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i)) }{(1-\Phi(x_i' \beta^z + \zeta^z u_i))^2}\big\}x_i^{\otimes 2}\end{aligned}$$ where $a^{\otimes 2} = a a'$ for a vector $a$, $\phi$ is the probability density function (pdf) of the standard normal distribution, and all other off-diagonal elements are zeros. The computation of the first term in is similar to the computation in the E-step for different functions $h(u_i)$. To calculate the second term in , we sample $U$ from Bernoulli$(\tilde \pi)$ for 1,000 times after convergence of the EM, and take the average of $s(\theta;\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})s(\theta;\mathbf{y},\mathbf{z},\mathbf{u})'$ over the sampled $U$’s.
![Distributions of the estimated treatment effect ($\hat \tau$) for the simulated survival data. $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ on the horizontal label and $\zeta \in \{-2,-1, 0,1,2\}$ on the vertical label. Each boxplot displays $\hat \tau$ from 200 simulations. []{data-label="fig:tau"}](figures/tau_surv.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![Distributions of the estimated treatment effect on type 1 failures for the simulated competing risks data. $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ on the horizontal label and $\zeta_1 = \zeta_2 \in \{-2,-1, 0,1,2\}$ on the vertical label. Each boxplot displays $\hat \tau_1$ from 200 simulation runs.[]{data-label="fig:tau1"}](figures/tau1.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![Distributions of the estimated treatment effect on type 2 failures for the simulated competing risks data. $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ on the horizontal label and $\zeta_1 = \zeta_2 \in \{-2,-1, 0,1,2\}$ on the vertical label. Each boxplot displays $\hat \tau_2$ from 200 simulations. []{data-label="fig:tau2"}](figures/tau2.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![Distributions of the estimated treatment effect on type 1 failures for the simulated competing risks data. $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ on the horizontal label, $\zeta_1 =1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \{-2,-1, 0,1,2\}$ on the vertical label. Each boxplot displays $\hat \tau_1$ from 200 simulation runs.[]{data-label="fig:tau1_1"}](figures/tau1_1.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
![Distributions of the estimated treatment effect on type 2 failures for the simulated competing risks data. $\zeta^z \in \{0,1,2\}$ on the horizontal label, $\zeta_1 =1$ and $\zeta_2 \in \{-2,-1, 0,1,2\}$ on the vertical label. Each boxplot displays $\hat \tau_2$ from 200 simulations. []{data-label="fig:tau2_1"}](figures/tau2_1.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
\
Method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- ---------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
True $U$ 1.0171 (0.1244) 1.0108 (0.1171) 1.0033 (0.1166)
EM 1.0216 (0.1496) 1.0101 (0.1469) 1.0015 (0.1297)
Sto EM 1.0257 (0.1502) 1.0132 (0.1468) 1.0066 (0.1296)
No $U$ 0.7873 (0.1219) 0.1512 (0.1257) -0.2052 (0.1141)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0206 (0.1015) 1.0144 (0.1067) 1.0129 (0.1071)
EM 1.0203 (0.1153) 1.0121 (0.1173) 1.0104 (0.1103)
Sto EM 1.0220 (0.1157) 1.0125 (0.1172) 1.0118 (0.1105)
No $U$ 0.9310 (0.1068) 0.5664 (0.1109) 0.3524 (0.1068)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0159 (0.0868) 1.0124 (0.0996) 1.0095 (0.1035)
EM 1.0159 (0.0868) 1.0124 (0.0996) 1.0095 (0.1035)
Sto EM 1.0159 (0.0868) 1.0124 (0.0996) 1.0095 (0.1035)
No $U$ 1.0159 (0.0868) 1.0124 (0.0996) 1.0095 (0.1035)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0148 (0.0797) 1.0134 (0.0896) 1.0110 (0.1004)
EM 1.0188 (0.0891) 1.0167 (0.0977) 1.0139 (0.1072)
Sto EM 1.0195 (0.0894) 1.0183 (0.0977) 1.0164 (0.1068)
No $U$ 0.9059 (0.0802) 1.2601 (0.0878) 1.4993 (0.0971)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0133 (0.0768) 1.0164 (0.0875) 1.0154 (0.1031)
EM 1.0226 (0.1047) 1.0260 (0.1122) 1.0263 (0.1218)
Sto EM 1.0225 (0.1052) 1.0271 (0.1127) 1.0303 (0.1228)
No $U$ 0.6946 (0.0783) 1.2618 (0.0835) 1.6734 (0.0942)
: Estimated treatment effect (standard deviation) for the simulated survival data with $\tau=1$
\[tab:tau\]
method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- ---------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
True $U$ 1.0150 (0.1428) 1.0293 (0.1603) 1.0305 (0.1644)
EM 1.0154 (0.1767) 1.0357 (0.1801) 1.0354 (0.1831)
StoEM 1.0180 (0.1788) 1.0390 (0.1825) 1.0428 (0.1844)
No $U$ 0.9312 (0.1583) 0.3192 (0.1670) -0.0215 (0.1678)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0141 (0.1327) 1.0185 (0.1542) 1.0269 (0.1613)
EM 1.0141 (0.1390) 1.0186 (0.1585) 1.0280 (0.1677)
StoEM 1.0150 (0.1388) 1.0191 (0.1584) 1.0304 (0.1675)
No $U$ 0.9817 (0.1339) 0.6243 (0.1536) 0.4260 (0.1635)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0153 (0.1212) 1.0258 (0.1329) 1.0317 (0.1593)
EM 1.0153 (0.1212) 1.0258 (0.1329) 1.0317 (0.1593)
StoEM 1.0153 (0.1212) 1.0258 (0.1329) 1.0317 (0.1593)
No $U$ 1.0153 (0.1212) 1.0258 (0.1329) 1.0317 (0.1593)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0078 (0.1115) 1.0276 (0.1259) 1.0348 (0.1524)
EM 1.0088 (0.1226) 1.0251 (0.1415) 1.0320 (0.1549)
StoEM 1.0095 (0.1230) 1.0272 (0.1422) 1.0346 (0.1549)
No $U$ 0.9745 (0.1130) 1.3518 (0.1319) 1.5750 (0.1470)
\[0.8em\] True $U$ 1.0064 (0.1094) 1.0263 (0.1238) 1.0345 (0.1570)
EM 1.0022 (0.1370) 1.0174 (0.1600) 1.0266 (0.1645)
StoEM 1.0031 (0.1369) 1.0230 (0.1615) 1.0345 (0.1652)
No $U$ 0.9238 (0.1141) 1.5064 (0.1300) 1.8424 (0.1411)
: Treatment effect estimate (standard deviation) on type 1 failures for the simulated competing risks data with $\tau_1 = 1$
\[tab:tau1\]
method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
true $U$ -1.0170 (0.1974) -0.9969 (0.1829) -0.9994 (0.1707)
EM -1.0170 (0.2143) -0.9892 (0.1837) -0.9937 (0.1826)
stoEM -1.0176 (0.2163) -0.9892 (0.1845) -0.9911 (0.1822)
no $U$ -0.9893 (0.2002) -1.6139 (0.1713) -2.0409 (0.1709)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0236 (0.1702) -0.9996 (0.1484) -0.9964 (0.1469)
EM -1.0231 (0.1772) -0.9945 (0.1518) -0.9940 (0.1517)
stoEM -1.0233 (0.1774) -0.9951 (0.1518) -0.9936 (0.1515)
no $U$ -1.0109 (0.1728) -1.3505 (0.1482) -1.5975 (0.1485)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0152 (0.1472) -0.9851 (0.1189) -0.9797 (0.1238)
EM -1.0152 (0.1472) -0.9851 (0.1189) -0.9797 (0.1238)
stoEM -1.0152 (0.1472) -0.9851 (0.1189) -0.9797 (0.1238)
no $U$ -1.0152 (0.1472) -0.9851 (0.1189) -0.9797 (0.1238)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0088 (0.1316) -0.9886 (0.1019) -0.9836 (0.1097)
EM -1.0108 (0.1423) -0.9950 (0.1109) -0.9887 (0.1115)
stoEM -1.0110 (0.1434) -0.9953 (0.1117) -0.9883 (0.1114)
no $U$ -0.9776 (0.1328) -0.5956 (0.1039) -0.3335 (0.1074)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0069 (0.1281) -0.9950 (0.0976) -0.9910 (0.1069)
EM -1.0180 (0.1647) -1.0093 (0.1322) -1.0029 (0.1275)
stoEM -1.0184 (0.1662) -1.0070 (0.1338) -0.9983 (0.1282)
no $U$ -0.9075 (0.1313) -0.2871 (0.1038) 0.1522 (0.1050)
: Treatment effect estimate (standard deviation) on type 2 failures for the simulated competing risks data with $\tau_2 = -1$
\[tab:tau2\]
method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- ---------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
true $U$ 0.9971 (0.1011) 1.0187 (0.1163) 1.0271 (0.1505)
EM 0.9963 (0.1093) 1.0174 (0.1320) 1.0263 (0.1545)
stoEM 0.9971 (0.1101) 1.0189 (0.1320) 1.0282 (0.1549)
no $U$ 0.8893 (0.0998) 1.2872 (0.1214) 1.5816 (0.1468)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ 1.0020 (0.1008) 1.0212 (0.1227) 1.0292 (0.1508)
EM 1.0028 (0.1080) 1.0203 (0.1369) 1.0280 (0.1544)
stoEM 1.0034 (0.1091) 1.0214 (0.1368) 1.0299 (0.1548)
no $U$ 0.9023 (0.0992) 1.2980 (0.1264) 1.5844 (0.1465)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ 1.0033 (0.0966) 1.0271 (0.1183) 1.0326 (0.1481)
EM 1.0040 (0.1045) 1.0258 (0.1338) 1.0305 (0.1507)
stoEM 1.0050 (0.1045) 1.0275 (0.1338) 1.0325 (0.1510)
no $U$ 0.9243 (0.0965) 1.3220 (0.1244) 1.5863 (0.1431)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ 1.0078 (0.1115) 1.0276 (0.1259) 1.0348 (0.1524)
EM 1.0088 (0.1226) 1.0251 (0.1415) 1.0320 (0.1549)
stoEM 1.0095 (0.1230) 1.0272 (0.1422) 1.0346 (0.1549)
no U 0.9745 (0.1130) 1.3518 (0.1319) 1.5750 (0.1470)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ 1.0148 (0.1231) 1.0245 (0.1402) 1.0301 (0.1592)
EM 1.0135 (0.1353) 1.0195 (0.1506) 1.0255 (0.1609)
stoEM 1.0146 (0.1356) 1.0223 (0.1511) 1.0295 (0.1615)
no $U$ 1.0452 (0.1271) 1.3591 (0.1415) 1.5158 (0.1520)
: Treatment effect estimate (standard deviation) on type 1 failures for the simulated competing risks data with $\tau_1 = 1$ and $\zeta_1 = 1$ fixed.
\[tab:tau1\_1\]
method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
true $U$ -1.0113 (0.1926) -1.0100 (0.1818) -1.0107 (0.1747)
EM -1.0118 (0.2107) -0.9985 (0.1886) -1.0031 (0.1832)
stoEM -1.0142 (0.2111) -1.0001 (0.1898) -1.0002 (0.1831)
no $U$ -0.8715 (0.1996) -1.4541 (0.1786) -1.8513 (0.1766)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0224 (0.1803) -1.0066 (0.1556) -1.0082 (0.1537)
EM -1.0222 (0.1887) -0.9995 (0.1546) -1.0038 (0.1567)
stoEM -1.0227 (0.1888) -1.0001 (0.1549) -1.0035 (0.1568)
no $U$ -0.9510 (0.1841) -1.2829 (0.1511) -1.5228 (0.1547)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0170 (0.1693) -1.0010 (0.1383) -0.9957 (0.1329)
EM -1.0170 (0.1693) -1.0010 (0.1383) -0.9957 (0.1329)
stoEM -1.0170 (0.1693) -1.0010 (0.1383) -0.9957 (0.1329)
no $U$ -1.0170 (0.1693) -1.0010 (0.1383) -0.9957 (0.1329)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0088 (0.1316) -0.9886 (0.1019) -0.9836 (0.1097)
EM -1.0108 (0.1423) -0.9950 (0.1109) -0.9887 (0.1115)
stoEM -1.0110 (0.1434) -0.9953 (0.1117) -0.9883 (0.1114)
no $U$ -0.9776 (0.1328) -0.5956 (0.1039) -0.3335 (0.1074)
\[0.8em\] true $U$ -1.0054 (0.1153) -0.9918 (0.0933) -0.9876 (0.0969)
EM -1.0143 (0.1513) -1.0037 (0.1272) -0.9976 (0.1175)
stoEM -1.0139 (0.1522) -1.0026 (0.1276) -0.9927 (0.1174)
no $U$ -0.7921 (0.1136) -0.1505 (0.0981) 0.3065 (0.0977)
: Treatment effect estimate (standard deviation) on type 2 failures for the simulated competing risks data with $\tau_2 = -1$ and $\zeta_1 = 1$ fixed.
\[tab:tau2\_1\]
$\zeta$ method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 0.5$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 1.5$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- -------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -- --
EM 0.5833 (0.1825) 1.0176 (0.1780) 1.3987 (0.1731) 1.6922 (0.1690) 1.9005 (0.1677)
stoEM 0.5948 (0.1718) 1.0238 (0.1702) 1.4000 (0.1637) 1.7116 (0.1658) 1.9064 (0.1629)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.8406 (0.1691) 1.0589 (0.1866) 1.1615 (0.2019) 1.2121 (0.2125)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5954 (0.1640) 0.9119 (0.1626) 1.1886 (0.1616) 1.4033 (0.1582) 1.5570 (0.1560)
stoEM 0.5866 (0.1601) 0.9148 (0.1605) 1.1917 (0.1570) 1.4016 (0.1558) 1.5672 (0.1535)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.7763 (0.1703) 0.9701 (0.1981) 1.0716 (0.2072) 1.0961 (0.2183)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5895 (0.1523) 0.7950 (0.1520) 0.9759 (0.1506) 1.1185 (0.1495) 1.2217 (0.1485)
stoEM 0.5894 (0.1532) 0.7964 (0.1507) 0.9691 (0.1488) 1.1197 (0.1491) 1.2212 (0.1473)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.7126 (0.1704) 0.8327 (0.1985) 0.8835 (0.2207) 0.9221 (0.2387)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5798 (0.1449) 0.6811 (0.1448) 0.7711 (0.1445) 0.8431 (0.1442) 0.8956 (0.1440)
stoEM 0.5799 (0.1450) 0.6782 (0.1451) 0.7732 (0.1443) 0.8416 (0.1444) 0.8987 (0.1439)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.6210 (0.1693) 0.6862 (0.2079) 0.7287 (0.2315) 0.7246 (0.2309)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5756 (0.1424) 0.5756 (0.1424) 0.5756 (0.1424) 0.5756 (0.1424) 0.5756 (0.1424)
stoEM 0.5756 (0.1423) 0.5756 (0.1423) 0.5756 (0.1423) 0.5756 (0.1423) 0.5756 (0.1423)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.5216 (0.1700) 0.4979 (0.2088) 0.4847 (0.2391) 0.4730 (0.2506)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5798 (0.1449) 0.4777 (0.1451) 0.3852 (0.1445) 0.3105 (0.1441) 0.2561 (0.1436)
stoEM 0.5829 (0.1447) 0.4774 (0.1443) 0.3875 (0.1448) 0.3135 (0.1442) 0.2573 (0.1438)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.4196 (0.1701) 0.3132 (0.2012) 0.2540 (0.2243) 0.2408 (0.2470)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5895 (0.1524) 0.3811 (0.1516) 0.1923 (0.1508) 0.0400 (0.1490) -0.0701 (0.1477)
stoEM 0.5888 (0.1493) 0.3850 (0.1502) 0.1844 (0.1498) 0.0442 (0.1506) -0.0688 (0.1468)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.3156 (0.1675) 0.1231 (0.1971) -0.0152 (0.2264) -0.0443 (0.2486)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5954 (0.1641) 0.2767 (0.1629) -0.0105 (0.1581) -0.2419 (0.1587) -0.4084 (0.1541)
stoEM 0.5901 (0.1618) 0.2699 (0.1551) -1e-04 (0.1574) -0.2469 (0.1549) -0.4040 (0.1528)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.2280 (0.1652) -0.0649 (0.1924) -0.2371 (0.2213) -0.2932 (0.2340)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.5833 (0.1784) 0.1560 (0.1756) -0.2250 (0.1743) -0.5365 (0.1720) -0.7611 (0.1615)
stoEM 0.5927 (0.1677) 0.1459 (0.1631) -0.2268 (0.1685) -0.5524 (0.1650) -0.7519 (0.1614)
IPW 0.5241 (0.1563) 0.1434 (0.1610) -0.1950 (0.1855) -0.3996 (0.2070) -0.5294 (0.2309)
: Sensitivity analysis results on the IBD for UC patients data for outcome clinical remission
\[tab:UCout1\]
$\zeta_1$ method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 0.5$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 1.5$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- -------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -- --
EM 0.0229 (0.1535) 0.4237 (0.1546) 0.8001 (0.1588) 1.0966 (0.1551) 1.2968 (0.1509)
stoEM 0.0336 (0.1486) 0.4195 (0.1485) 0.7958 (0.1509) 1.1031 (0.1490) 1.2963 (0.1480)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.2309 (0.1501) 0.4044 (0.154) 0.4651 (0.1586) 0.4516 (0.1642)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0403 (0.1471) 0.3505 (0.1461) 0.6294 (0.1463) 0.8422 (0.1438) 0.9854 (0.1433)
stoEM 0.0394 (0.1421) 0.3488 (0.1441) 0.6279 (0.1433) 0.8475 (0.1422) 0.9856 (0.1427)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.1644 (0.1506) 0.3140 (0.1547) 0.3662 (0.1671) 0.3498 (0.1666)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0519 (0.1392) 0.2600 (0.1381) 0.4426 (0.1388) 0.5801 (0.1372) 0.6728 (0.1365)
stoEM 0.0531 (0.1371) 0.2566 (0.1379) 0.4397 (0.1375) 0.5835 (0.1365) 0.6730 (0.1363)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.1068 (0.1530) 0.1991 (0.1591) 0.2324 (0.1634) 0.1995 (0.1677)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0583 (0.1337) 0.1619 (0.1336) 0.2516 (0.1335) 0.3188 (0.1333) 0.3641 (0.1330)
stoEM 0.0567 (0.1334) 0.1580 (0.1336) 0.2528 (0.1332) 0.3202 (0.1331) 0.3636 (0.1330)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.0196 (0.1548) 0.0820 (0.1626) 0.0844 (0.1648) 0.0685 (0.1687)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319)
stoEM 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.0703 (0.1540) -0.0751 (0.1609) -0.0792 (0.1676) -0.0744 (0.1719)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0591 (0.1336) -0.0432 (0.1335) -0.1306 (0.1333) -0.1957 (0.1332) -0.2396 (0.1332)
stoEM 0.0561 (0.1331) -0.0447 (0.1334) -0.1338 (0.1332) -0.1964 (0.1336) -0.2407 (0.1332)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.1584 (0.1556) -0.2141 (0.1625) -0.2314 (0.1772) -0.2357 (0.1711)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0538 (0.1382) -0.1489 (0.1385) -0.3215 (0.1377) -0.4504 (0.1373) -0.5375 (0.1375)
stoEM 0.0584 (0.1376) -0.1464 (0.1365) -0.3160 (0.1371) -0.4584 (0.1370) -0.5373 (0.1364)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.2453 (0.1529) -0.3511 (0.1625) -0.3908 (0.1612) -0.3827 (0.1678)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0432 (0.1453) -0.2542 (0.1444) -0.5084 (0.1439) -0.7011 (0.1448) -0.8322 (0.1430)
stoEM 0.0322 (0.1441) -0.2530 (0.1421) -0.5164 (0.1417) -0.6963 (0.1414) -0.8396 (0.1421)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.3192 (0.1530) -0.4691 (0.1584) -0.5321 (0.1607) -0.5289 (0.1652)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0268 (0.1527) -0.3520 (0.1519) -0.6806 (0.1535) -0.9394 (0.1527) -1.1181 (0.1508)
stoEM 0.0280 (0.1523) -0.3612 (0.1481) -0.6909 (0.1454) -0.9496 (0.1481) -1.1195 (0.1466)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.3878 (0.1508) -0.5729 (0.1532) -0.6322 (0.1574) -0.6322 (0.1601)
: Sensitivity analysis results on the IBD for CD patients data for outcome clinical remission with $\zeta_2 = -2$
\[tab:CDout1\_neg2\]
$\zeta_1$ method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 0.5$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 1.5$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- -------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -- --
EM 0.0263 (0.1538) 0.4227 (0.1544) 0.7952 (0.1568) 1.0920 (0.1551) 1.2941 (0.1513)
stoEM 0.0363 (0.1506) 0.4126 (0.1491) 0.7955 (0.1508) 1.1013 (0.1487) 1.2955 (0.1488)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.2300 (0.1507) 0.4010 (0.1537) 0.4628 (0.1579) 0.4488 (0.1638)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0427 (0.1469) 0.3492 (0.1451) 0.6257 (0.1462) 0.8388 (0.1437) 0.9833 (0.1429)
stoEM 0.0406 (0.1420) 0.3494 (0.1419) 0.6260 (0.1422) 0.8478 (0.1427) 0.9840 (0.1426)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.1641 (0.1507) 0.3087 (0.1543) 0.3622 (0.1695) 0.3483 (0.1661)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0533 (0.1387) 0.2591 (0.1381) 0.4404 (0.1385) 0.5781 (0.1372) 0.6714 (0.1365)
stoEM 0.0534 (0.1368) 0.2558 (0.1380) 0.4382 (0.1371) 0.5801 (0.1366) 0.6717 (0.1360)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.1078 (0.1526) 0.1956 (0.1602) 0.2241 (0.1630) 0.1965 (0.1678)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0588 (0.1336) 0.1615 (0.1335) 0.2507 (0.1333) 0.3180 (0.1332) 0.3636 (0.1330)
stoEM 0.0581 (0.1332) 0.1574 (0.1334) 0.2536 (0.1332) 0.3194 (0.1332) 0.3627 (0.1329)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.0210 (0.1554) 0.0778 (0.1623) 0.0802 (0.1643) 0.0631 (0.1679)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319)
stoEM 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.0703 (0.1545) -0.0782 (0.1612) -0.0826 (0.1692) -0.0807 (0.1718)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0588 (0.1336) -0.0429 (0.1335) -0.1301 (0.1333) -0.1952 (0.1333) -0.2393 (0.1332)
stoEM 0.0561 (0.1330) -0.0425 (0.1334) -0.1327 (0.1334) -0.1966 (0.1336) -0.2400 (0.1332)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.1597 (0.1559) -0.2179 (0.1625) -0.2411 (0.1769) -0.2436 (0.1709)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0533 (0.1383) -0.1485 (0.1386) -0.3207 (0.1378) -0.4498 (0.1375) -0.5371 (0.1374)
stoEM 0.0576 (0.1377) -0.1437 (0.1364) -0.3150 (0.1370) -0.4572 (0.1369) -0.5379 (0.1363)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.2455 (0.1530) -0.3554 (0.1620) -0.3976 (0.1618) -0.3887 (0.1697)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0427 (0.1453) -0.2536 (0.1442) -0.5075 (0.1440) -0.7005 (0.1448) -0.8319 (0.1430)
stoEM 0.0301 (0.1447) -0.2555 (0.1420) -0.5189 (0.1418) -0.6974 (0.1418) -0.8379 (0.1414)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.3192 (0.1534) -0.4751 (0.1599) -0.5378 (0.1609) -0.5351 (0.1646)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0263 (0.1527) -0.3514 (0.1534) -0.6800 (0.1540) -0.9390 (0.1528) -1.1179 (0.1508)
stoEM 0.0286 (0.1512) -0.3634 (0.1482) -0.6890 (0.1467) -0.9512 (0.1484) -1.1178 (0.1472)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.3878 (0.1509) -0.5791 (0.1541) -0.6408 (0.1574) -0.6410 (0.1597)
: Sensitivity analysis results on the IBD for CD patients data for outcome clinical remission with $\zeta_2 = 0$
\[tab:CDout1\_0\]
$\zeta_1$ method $\zeta^z = 0$ $\zeta^z = 0.5$ $\zeta^z = 1$ $\zeta^z = 1.5$ $\zeta^z = 2$
----------- -------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -- --
EM 0.0268 (0.1533) 0.4254 (0.1545) 0.8006 (0.1568) 1.0991 (0.1547) 1.3010 (0.1509)
stoEM 0.0349 (0.1488) 0.4152 (0.1487) 0.8002 (0.1506) 1.1081 (0.1482) 1.3077 (0.1490)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.2313 (0.1508) 0.3976 (0.1543) 0.4547 (0.1568) 0.4415 (0.1637)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0432 (0.1466) 0.3516 (0.1457) 0.6304 (0.1463) 0.8450 (0.1435) 0.9896 (0.1427)
stoEM 0.0423 (0.1416) 0.3551 (0.1425) 0.6304 (0.1425) 0.8537 (0.1426) 0.9907 (0.1428)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.1681 (0.1512) 0.3073 (0.1551) 0.3536 (0.1686) 0.3372 (0.1649)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0538 (0.1387) 0.2610 (0.1380) 0.4440 (0.1386) 0.5828 (0.1371) 0.6764 (0.1365)
stoEM 0.0537 (0.1366) 0.2574 (0.1380) 0.4411 (0.1373) 0.5855 (0.1369) 0.6780 (0.1358)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.1106 (0.1534) 0.1943 (0.1596) 0.2151 (0.1626) 0.1871 (0.1662)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0591 (0.1335) 0.1626 (0.1334) 0.2528 (0.1333) 0.3207 (0.1332) 0.3664 (0.1330)
stoEM 0.0582 (0.1331) 0.1595 (0.1332) 0.2553 (0.1331) 0.3225 (0.1330) 0.3657 (0.1328)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) 0.0202 (0.1559) 0.0758 (0.1618) 0.0735 (0.1647) 0.0567 (0.1664)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319) 0.0605 (0.1319)
stoEM 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318) 0.0605 (0.1318)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.0688 (0.1546) -0.0797 (0.1611) -0.0907 (0.1691) -0.0893 (0.1717)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0583 (0.1337) -0.0446 (0.1337) -0.1328 (0.1333) -0.1986 (0.1333) -0.2427 (0.1332)
stoEM 0.0560 (0.1332) -0.0435 (0.1333) -0.1354 (0.1334) -0.2005 (0.1335) -0.2437 (0.1332)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.1567 (0.1567) -0.2186 (0.1616) -0.2461 (0.1781) -0.2511 (0.1700)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0519 (0.1384) -0.1523 (0.1387) -0.3270 (0.1381) -0.4571 (0.1373) -0.5440 (0.1375)
stoEM 0.0566 (0.1380) -0.1491 (0.1363) -0.3217 (0.1368) -0.4649 (0.1372) -0.5443 (0.1361)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.2458 (0.1544) -0.3561 (0.1625) -0.4040 (0.1614) -0.3972 (0.1708)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0403 (0.1464) -0.2600 (0.1451) -0.5176 (0.1445) -0.7115 (0.1441) -0.8414 (0.1429)
stoEM 0.0296 (0.1454) -0.2664 (0.1410) -0.5270 (0.1423) -0.7087 (0.1425) -0.8466 (0.1408)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.3153 (0.1538) -0.4771 (0.1599) -0.5403 (0.1616) -0.5395 (0.1634)
\[0.8em\] EM 0.0229 (0.1531) -0.3591 (0.1548) -0.6929 (0.1540) -0.9521 (0.1528) -1.1279 (0.1507)
stoEM 0.0294 (0.1544) -0.3707 (0.1471) -0.6994 (0.1474) -0.9558 (0.1466) -1.1310 (0.1484)
IPW -0.0563 (0.1496) -0.3869 (0.1511) -0.5796 (0.1543) -0.6431 (0.1585) -0.6405 (0.1590)
: Sensitivity analysis results on the IBD for CD patients data for outcome clinical remission with $\zeta_2 = 2$
\[tab:CDout1\_pos2\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an investigation of the dust-enshrouded activity in a sample of X-ray selected clusters drawn from the XMM-LSS survey in the redshift range z $\sim$ 0.05 - 1.05. By taking advantage of the contiguous mid-IR coverage of the XMM-LSS field by the Spitzer SWIRE legacy survey, we examined the distribution and number density of mid-IR bright sources out to the cluster periphery and its dependence on redshift to probe the obscured side of the Butcher-Oemler effect. Toward intermediate redshift clusters we identified surprisingly high numbers of bright 24 $\mu$m sources, whose photometric redshifts are compatible with cluster membership. The stacked surface density profile of 24 $\mu$m sources in clusters within four redshift bins gives evidence for an excess of bright mid-IR sources at redshift z $\geq$ 0.4 at cluster-centric radii $\sim$ 200 - 500 kpc. Some traces of excess appear to be present at larger radii as well.'
address:
- 'CEA Saclay, DSM/IRFU Service d’Astrophysique, Laboratoire AIM, CNRS, CEA/DSM, Université Paris Diderot, F-91191 Gif sur Yvette, France'
- 'Institute for Astronomy, Univerity of Hawaii, Honolulu, 96822 Hawaii'
author:
- 'Temporin, S.'
- 'Duc, P.-A.$^1$'
- 'Ilbert, O.'
- 'the XMM-LSS/SWIRE Collaboration'
title: 'Dust-enshrouded star formation in XMM-LSS galaxy clusters'
---
Introduction
============
Long after their collapse and the formation of the bulk of their stars, clusters of galaxies still accrete new members. Subject to collisions and the effects of the intracluster medium, the infalling galaxies loose their gas and ultimately their ability to form stars. In the local Universe,it is now established that star formation is suppressed in galaxy clusters. However, at z $\sim$ 1 a reversal trend has been recently observed, with evidence of enhancement of star formation activity within higher density environments (Elbaz et al. 2007; Marcillac et al. 2008).
At intermediate redshifts, observations with ISOCAM, onboard the ISO satellite, of a few individual galaxy clusters suggested the presence of an infrared Butcher-Oemler effect (Fadda et al. 2000; Duc et al. 2002) and revealed the presence of several particularly active galaxies with total IR luminosities well above $10^{11}$ L$_{\odot}$ (Duc et al. 2004; Coia et al. 2005). If powered by dust-enshrouded star formation, as indicated by their spectra, these Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs) would exhibit star formation rates of several tens of solar masses per year - values that were unprecedented in a cluster environment. The advent of the Spitzer Space Telescope with its wide field of view encouraged further IR studies of galaxy clusters out to the cluster periphery (Geach et al. 2006; Marcillac et al. 2007), essentially confirming an important presence of luminous IR sources in clusters at redshift z $\geq$ 0.4. A first attempt in quantifying an evolution with redshift has been done recently based on a collection of 8 massive clusters in the range z = 0.02 - 0.8, observed at 24$\mu$m with Spitzer. This study indicates an increasing fraction of mid-IR star-forming galaxies with redshift (Saintonge et al. 2008).
Here we present the first IR study based on an unbiased sample of X-ray selected clusters on a wide contiguous area of the sky covered with 24 $\mu$m Spitzer observations to probe the obscured side of the Butcher-Oemler effect (Butcher & Oemler, 1984) at intermediate redshifts, out to the cluster periphery.
The sample
==========
We considered X-ray selected clusters drawn from the first contiguous 5 deg$^2$ of the XMM Large Scale Structure (XMM-LSS) survey (Pierre et al. 2004) and belonging to the XMM-LSS C1 sample. These clusters obey precise selection criteria based on the properties of their X-ray emission (Pacaud et al. 2007; Pierre et al. 2007) and constitute an unbiased sample of groups and clusters (X-ray temperatures in the range 0.6 – 4.8 keV) that spans the redshift range z $\sim$ 0.05 – 1.05. Part of our analysis included additional C1 clusters that were identified in the – yet unpublished – second 5 deg$^2$ of the XMM-LSS. A wealth of ancillary multi-wavelength data is available for these clusters, including either $u^{\ast}g^{\prime}r^{\prime}i^{\prime}z^{\prime}$ photometry[^1] from the CFHT Legacy Survey (CFHTLS fields D1 and W1) or $g^{\prime}r^{\prime}z^{\prime}$ CFHT-Megacam photometry (from complementary observations of the northern part of the XMM-LSS field). About 9 deg$^2$ of the XMM-LSS region of the sky were covered by observations with Spitzer Space Telescope in the four IRAC bands and in the three MIPS channels as a part of the SWIRE legacy survey (Lonsdale et al. 2003). This offered us the chance to investigate the dust-enshrouded activity of galaxies out to large cluster-centric radii. Spectroscopic observations necessary to cluster confirmation and redshift determination were obtained by the XMM-LSS team during a series of dedicated spectroscopic runs at various telescopes (see Table 2 of Pacaud et al. 2007 for details). Furthermore, the XMM-LSS field includes the 02-hr field of the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS; Le Fèvre et al. 2005).
From the C1 sample we selected a subsample of 32 clusters with 24$\mu$m and optical coverage. For use as a control sample, we compiled a list of randomly selected fields in the XMM-LSS/SWIRE area, by imposing as a constraint a separation of at least 6$^{\prime}$ from any catalogued X-ray source. We selected all catalogued 24$\mu$m sources with flux F(24$\mu$m) $>$ 150 $\mu$Jy in the direction of these clusters and control fields within a radius of 10$^{\prime}$ from either the X-ray position of a cluster or the central coordinates of a control field. The only additional requirement was the presence of an optical counterpart to the 24$\mu$m sources, to reduce the contamination from spurious 24$\mu$m detections. Total infrared luminosities of the sources were derived from their 24$\mu$m fluxes following Chary & Elbaz (2001) and assuming that the sources are all located at the cluster redshift.
Surface density profiles of 24$\mu$m sources in individual clusters and control fields
======================================================================================
As a first attempt in looking for any dependence of the distribution of mid-IR sources on the environment, we examined the projected surface density of 24 $\mu$m sources as a function of cluster-centric radius toward individual clusters in our sample. Surface densities and associated Poissonian error bars were computed within 0.25 arcmin-wide annuli centered on the X-ray position of the clusters. We applied the same procedure to the control fields. Examples of profiles for a subsample of clusters and two control fields are shown in Fig. \[sd\_individual\].
![*Left and middle column* – Surface density profiles of 24$\mu$m sources computed in 0.25 arcmin-wide concentric annuli within 10$^{\prime}$ from the X-ray cluster position for a subsample of clusters at z $\sim$ 0.3 – 0.6. *Right column* – The same quantity computed for two randomly selected control fields. Error bars are Poissonian.[]{data-label="sd_individual"}](Temporin_fig1bb.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
This preliminary analysis showed some trends with radius of the projected surface densities of mid-IR sources and suggested the presence of an excess of sources in intermediate-redshift clusters at cluster-centric radii of a few hundred kpc to 1Mpc with respect to the field. However, the weakness of the signal and the high uncertainties due to the background fluctuations prompted us to build stacked density profiles by averaging the signal that stems from different clusters.
Stacked surface density profiles of 24$\mu$m sources
====================================================
![*Left.* Example of the distribution of 24$\mu$m sources within a 10$^{\prime}$ radius for a cluster at z $\sim$ 0.6. The size of circles is proportional to the total IR luminosity of the sources. *Centre.* Example of color-magnitude diagram for a cluster at z $\sim$ 0.6. Black dots and red triangles are concordant optical and 24$\mu$m sources, according to photometric redshifts. Green dots are all optical sources in the direction of the cluster. Cyan squares are optical sources with concordant spectroscopic redshift. *Right.* Stacked surface density profile of concordant optical (blue) and 24$\mu$m (red) sources – according to photometric redshifts – for a subsample of 4 clusters in the redshift bin 0.3 – 0.5. The inset shows the same radial profiles normalized to the highest peak in each distribution.[]{data-label="opt-24mu"}](Temporin_fig2bb.pdf "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![*Left.* Example of the distribution of 24$\mu$m sources within a 10$^{\prime}$ radius for a cluster at z $\sim$ 0.6. The size of circles is proportional to the total IR luminosity of the sources. *Centre.* Example of color-magnitude diagram for a cluster at z $\sim$ 0.6. Black dots and red triangles are concordant optical and 24$\mu$m sources, according to photometric redshifts. Green dots are all optical sources in the direction of the cluster. Cyan squares are optical sources with concordant spectroscopic redshift. *Right.* Stacked surface density profile of concordant optical (blue) and 24$\mu$m (red) sources – according to photometric redshifts – for a subsample of 4 clusters in the redshift bin 0.3 – 0.5. The inset shows the same radial profiles normalized to the highest peak in each distribution.[]{data-label="opt-24mu"}](Temporin_fig3bb.pdf "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![*Left.* Example of the distribution of 24$\mu$m sources within a 10$^{\prime}$ radius for a cluster at z $\sim$ 0.6. The size of circles is proportional to the total IR luminosity of the sources. *Centre.* Example of color-magnitude diagram for a cluster at z $\sim$ 0.6. Black dots and red triangles are concordant optical and 24$\mu$m sources, according to photometric redshifts. Green dots are all optical sources in the direction of the cluster. Cyan squares are optical sources with concordant spectroscopic redshift. *Right.* Stacked surface density profile of concordant optical (blue) and 24$\mu$m (red) sources – according to photometric redshifts – for a subsample of 4 clusters in the redshift bin 0.3 – 0.5. The inset shows the same radial profiles normalized to the highest peak in each distribution.[]{data-label="opt-24mu"}](Temporin_fig4bb.pdf "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
In order to investigate the dependence on redshift of the observed density of mid-IR sources in clusters, we divided our sample into 4 redshift bins, 0.05 $\leq$ z $<$ 0.3, 0.3 $\leq$ z $<$ 0.5, 0.5 $\leq$ z $<$ 0.8, and 0.8 $\leq$ z $<$ 1.1. For our stacking analysis we computed the surface density of 24$\mu$m sources within 0.1 Mpc-wide concentric annuli centred on the X-ray cluster position by combining all clusters within a given redshift bin. Thus, we obtained a surface density radial profile of mid-IR sources for each redshift bin. In the attempt to statistically account for the contamination by fore/background sources we built similar radial profiles by using our sample of control fields. The shape of the radial profiles that included contaminant foreground/background sources resulted to be strongly dependent on the redshift range and distribution of the considered fields (Temporin et al. 2008). Therefore, for correctly estimating the background, we randomly assigned redshifts to our control fields by reproducing the same redshift distribution of our cluster sample. The comparison between the stacked radial profiles for the clusters and the control fields showed the presence of a significant excess of mid-IR sources at cluster-centric radii between $\sim$ 200 kpc and $\sim$ 1 Mpc for clusters in the intermediate redshift bins.
This result was confirmed by the application of an alternative method to take into account the contamination by fore/background sources. This second method was based on a pre-selection of potential cluster members according to photometric redshifts. We used photometric redshifts obtained for the CFHTLS D1 field with the code Le\_Phare (Ilbert et al. 2006) and complemented with additional photometric redshifts derived with the same method for a portion of the W1 field. Sources were considered as candidate cluster members when their photometric redshift was compatible within errors with the available estimate of cluster redshift. We additionally considered a $\Delta$z = 0.01 to take into account the velocity dispersion of galaxies within a cluster (including the cluster periphery to which our analysis extends).
We found an unexpectedly high number ($\sim$ 20 to 100) of 24$\mu$m sources having photometric redshifts compatible with cluster membership, especially for clusters in the intermediate/higher redshift bins, out to 10$^{\prime}$ radii from the cluster centre. Out of these mid-IR sources, the number of luminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs) ranges between a few for clusters at z $\leq$ 0.3 and $\sim$ 60 – 100 for clusters at z $\geq$ 0.5. An example plot showing the distribution of mid-IR sources across an intermediate-redshift cluster is shown in Fig. \[opt-24mu\] (left hand). We note that the brightest sources tend to avoid the very centre of the cluster.
Also, in Fig. \[opt-24mu\] (centre) we show an example of color-magnitude diagram for one of the clusters in our sample. The effectiveness of the photometric redshift pre-selection in reducing the fore/background contamination is evident. Interestingly, as expected for dusty star-forming galaxies, the mid-IR sources are mainly distributed within the “blue cloud” of galaxies and in the region of the diagram between the “blue cloud” and the red sequence, the so-called “green valley”, while only a small number of them is found in the red sequence.
As expected, the stacked radial profiles of the control fields – after the photometric redshift pre-selection of sources – resulted in a flat distribution of the surface density of 24 $\mu$m sources. Conversely, the stacked cluster radial profiles showed significant peaks in the distribution, again hinting at an excess of sources at radii 200 – 500 kpc and $\sim$ 1 Mpc for the intermediate redshift bins. Lower significance peaks of density are seen also at larger radii, toward the cluster periphery. A comparison with the radial distribution of (pre-selected in photometric redshift) optical sources allowed us to exclude that the observed 24$\mu$m sources density peaks were just mirroring the general galaxy distribution in clusters. A comparison between the stacked radial distributions of optical and 24$\mu$m sources is shown in Fig. \[opt-24mu\] (right hand) for a subsample of 4 clusters in the redshift bin z = 0.3 – 0.5.
Conclusions
===========
Our statistical analysis of the distribution of 24$\mu$m sources in an unbiased sample of X-ray selected clusters drawn from the XMM-LSS survey has revealed the presence of a significant excess of mid-IR sources that are compatible with cluster membership at cluster-centric radii of 200 – 500 kpc and $\sim$ 1 Mpc in the intermediate redshift bins of our sample (z $>$ 0.3). At these redshifts, our analysis extends out to $\sim$ 3 to 4 Mpc radii from the cluster centre, as defined by the X-ray emission, and, with the adopted flux threshold F(24$\mu$m) $>$ 150 $\mu$Jy, the identified sources fall mostly in the LIRG regime. The brightest mid-IR sources tend to avoid the cluster centre. Our results are understood as a signature of the IR Butcher-Oemler effect in clusters. The detailed analysis of the whole sample is presented elsewhere (Temporin et al. 2008).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to T. Evans and M. Polletta for providing us with the latest version of the band-merged SWIRE catalogue for the XMM-LSS field. This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA contract 1407.
Butcher, H., & Oemler, A. 1984, ApJ, 285, 426 Chary, R., & Elbaz, D. 2001, ApJ, 556, 562 Coia, D., McBreen, B., Biviano, A., et al. 2005, A&A, 431, 433 Duc, P.-A., Fadda, D., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2004, in “Outskirts of Galaxy Clusters: Intense Life in the Suburbs”, IAU Coll. 195, Ed. A. Diaferio, p. 347 Duc, P.-A., Poggianti, B. M., Fadda, D., et al. 2002, A&A, 382, 60 Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33 Fadda, D., Elbaz, D., Duc, P.-A., et al. 2000, A&A, 361, 827 Geach, J. E., Smail, I., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2006 ApJ, 649, 661 Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracjen, H. J., et al. 2006 A&A, 457, 841 Le Fèvre, O., Vettolani, G., Garilli, B., et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 845 Lonsdale, C. J., Smith, H. E., Rowan-Robinson, M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 897 Marcillac, D., Rieke, G. H., Papovich, C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1156 Marcillac, D., Rigby, J. R., Rieke, G. H., & Kelly, D. M. 2007, ApJ, 654, 825 Pacaud, F., Pierre, M., Adami, C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1289 Pierre, M., Chiappetti, L., Pacaud, F., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 279 Pierre, M., Valtchanov, I., Altieri, B., et al. 2004, JCAP, 9, 11 Saintonge, A., Tran, K.-V. H., & Holden, B. P. 2008, ApJ 685, L113
[^1]: Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/Megacam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. This work is based in part on data products produced at TERAPIX and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, a collaborative project NRC and CNRS.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We cast the problem of illuminating an object in a noisy environment into a communication protocol. A probe is sent into the environment, and the presence or absence of the object constitutes a signal encoded on the probe. The probe is then measured to decode the signal. We calculate the Holevo information and bounds to the accessible information between the encoded and received signal with two different Gaussian probes—an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) state and a coherent state. We also evaluate the Gaussian discord consumed during the encoding process with the EPR probe. We find that the Holevo quantum advantage, defined as the difference between the Holevo information obtained from the EPR and coherent state probes, is approximately equal to the discord consumed. These quantities become exact in the typical illumination regime of low object reflectivity and low probe energy. Hence we show that discord is the resource responsible for the quantum advantage in Gaussian quantum illumination.'
author:
- Mark Bradshaw
- 'Syed M. Assad'
- Jing Yan Haw
- 'Si-Hui Tan'
- Ping Koy Lam
- Mile Gu
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Overarching framework between Gaussian quantum discord and Gaussian quantum illumination
---
Introduction
============
Quantum illumination is a simple target-detection scheme, first proposed by Lloyd for photonic qubits [@Lloyd1463]. It harnesses entanglement in a quantum state of light to better infer the presence or absence of a weakly reflecting object flooded by white noise. The protocol distinguished itself in displaying quantum advantage, even in regimes so noisy that no entanglement survives. It presented a remarkable deviation from the conventional view that quantum technologies are fragile, displaying advantage only in carefully engineered environments which ensure little or no loss of entanglement. Since its original inception, quantum illumination has gained significant scientific interest. Many variants have been proposed, including some that make use of Gaussian states in the continuous-variable regime [@PhysRevLett.101.253601; @SHGSC16; @PhysRevA.80.052310] and inspiring a number of different experimental realizations [@PhysRevLett.110.153603; @PhysRevLett.111.010501; @PhysRevLett.114.110506; @PhysRevLett.114.080503]. The phenomenon has also seen applications outside metrology, where quantum illumination has been harnessed to provide security against passive eavesdropping in the setting of secure communication [@PhysRevA.80.022320].
Quantum illumination challenges the conventional view that entanglement alone can explain all quantum advantage. It joins a particularly surprising class of protocols that appear to thrive in noisy, possibly entanglement-breaking environments [@PhysRevLett.81.5672; @PhysRevLett.101.200501]. What other quantum resources, then, could help us better understand its noisy resilience? Quantum discord [@0305-4470-34-35-315; @PhysRevLett.88.017901; @RevModPhys.84.1655], which quantifies correlations beyond entanglement, is considered a likely candidate. Unlike entanglement, discord is far more robust and can also survive in highly noisy conditions [@PhysRevLett.100.050502]. In fact, Weedbrook [*et al.*]{} have shown such a relation for discrete variables [@weedbrook2016discord]. Specifically, they showed that the performance advantage of quantum illumination—in terms of extra accessible information about whether an object is present—can be directly related to the amount of discord in the illumination protocol that survives after being subjected to entanglement-breaking noise. Does a similar relationship hold for continuous variables?
The aim of this work is to answer that question. We extend the framework relating discord and illumination to the continuous variable regime. This involves understanding how these relations generalize when a number of conditions specific to the discrete scenario no longer hold. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec\_framework\] we describe the illumination protocol and the quantifiers of performance. In Sec. \[sec\_discord\] we describe discord and how it relates to quantum illumination. In Sec. \[sec\_results\] we present and discuss our results, demonstrating that there is a general relationship between discord and the quantum advantage of illumination in the continuous-variable regime.
The illumination framework {#sec_framework}
==========================
![ **Diagram of illumination setup.** (a) With probability $p_0$, there is an object located in a noisy environment. The object is partially reflective (modeled as a beam splitter with reflectivity $\epsilon$). A probe is sent towards the object. The probe is mixed with the noisy environment, and reflected to the detector. (b) With probability $p_1$, an object is not present, in which case there is nothing to reflect the probe to the detector. Hence, only noise is detected. (c) An equivalent description of illumination whereby first noise is injected. Then, encoding is performed on the probe, whereby with a probability $p_0$, an identity operation is performed on the probe (after noise injection) and the environment noise, and (d) with probability $p_1$, a swap operation is performed on the probe and environment. In quantum illumination, we also have an idler initially entangled with the probe which is used to perform a joint measurement. Single-mode illumination is when there is no idler. $\rho_{\rm env}$ is the noisy environment and $\tilde{\rho}_{\rm env}$ is the environment with the mean photon number scaled by $1/(1-\epsilon)$. []{data-label="fig_swapdiagram"}](swapdiagram.pdf){width="7.4cm"}
Setup
-----
The illumination framework is described as follows: Bob wishes to determine whether an object is located in a noisy environment. He sends a quantum state, referred to as the probe, to the location. If an object is present, part of the probe will be reflected back to Bob, along with some background noise. If the object is not present, Bob receives only the background noise. Bob may have another state called the idler, which was initially correlated with the probe.
If the probe and idler are quantum correlated (have a non-zero quantum discord), the scheme is called *quantum illumination*. If there is no idler, it is called *single-mode illumination*.
A diagram of illumination is shown in Figs. \[fig\_swapdiagram\](a) and \[fig\_swapdiagram\](b). Bob performs a joint measurement on the idler and returning probe, and uses the results of the measurement to determine whether an object was present. For brevity in notation in the rest of the paper, modes A and B will label the probe and idler parts of the state, respectively.
We are interested in quantum illumination in the continuous-variable setting, where the probe and idler are Gaussian states. For single-mode illumination, Bob uses a coherent state $\rho_\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is its amplitude. For quantum illumination, Bob uses an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) state described by $\rho_{\rm EPR}=\ket{\psi_{\rm EPR}}\bra{\psi_{\rm EPR}}
$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_epr}
\ket{\psi_{\rm EPR}}&=\sqrt{1-\lambda^2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty(-\lambda)^n\ket{n}_\mathrm{A}\ket{n}_\mathrm{B} \ .\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda=\tanh(r)$, and $r$ is the squeezing parameter.
Illumination can also be recast as a communication protocol. Let us suppose that Alice is in control of the object and she would like to communicate with Bob. She can do so by encoding a binary alphabet via the control of the object, such as in the Morse code. The message she sends to Bob can be described by realizations of a random variable $X$, where if $X=0$, Alice places the object in the noisy environment, and if $X=1$, Alice removes the object. Let $p_x$ be the prior probability that $X=x$, and let $p_0=p_1$, i.e., let both hypotheses be equally likely to occur. Let $\rho^{(x)}$ denote the state received by Bob when $X=x$. Noise is injected into the probe state before Alice encodes the value of $X$. This is shown diagrammatically in Figs. \[fig\_swapdiagram\](c) and \[fig\_swapdiagram\](d). We model the object as a beam splitter with reflectivity $\epsilon$. The environment-noise state $\rho_{\rm env}$ is a thermal state with mean photon number $\bar n_{\rm env}$, where $\rho_{\rm env}(\bar{n})=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\frac{\bar{n}^n}{(\bar{n}+1)^{n+1}}\ket{n}\bra{n}$. When the object is present, the environment noise is multiplied by a factor of $1/(1-\epsilon)$ such that the mean number of noise photons arriving at the detector is the same as when the object is absent. This approach has been adopted by [@PhysRevLett.101.253601] to avoid a “shadowing effect”—so that the object is not detected by a reduction in the number of noise photons arriving at the detector. The typical illumination scenario that has greatest quantum advantage is for the regime of low object reflectivity and high noise, i.e., $\epsilon\ll 1$ and $\bar n \ll \bar n_{\rm env}$, where $\bar n$ is the mean photon number of the probe. We term this as the intense white-noise limit.
Consider Figs. \[fig\_swapdiagram\](c) and \[fig\_swapdiagram\](d). After the noise injection, the entanglement is reduced or lost all together, before any information is encoded within the probe. In fact, for all the settings studied in Sec. \[sec\_results\], the entanglement after noise injection is strictly zero. Nevertheless we see a quantum advantage. Thus, quantum entanglement itself does not give a complete picture on why illumination thrives in such noise. Our goal here is to see if discord will give us additional insight.
In the next section, we will use the communication formalism to study the amount of information that Alice can communicate to Bob under different settings. This provides a measure for assessing the performance of illumination under these settings.
Quantifiers of performance
--------------------------
We consider two quantifiers of performance of illumination: the accessible information and Holevo information.
Let $\mathcal{M} = {\{E_k\}}$ be a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) that mathematically represents a measurement. The POVM elements $E_k$ are non-negative, self-adjoint operators satisfying $\sum_k E_k = 1$, where the subscript $k$ labels the outcome of the measurement. The probability of the measurement outcome $k$ on a state $\rho^{(x)}$ is then given by $q_k^{(x)}=\Tr (\rho^{(x)} E_k)$. Let this be governed by random variable $K_{\mathcal{M}}$. In the communication setting described in the last section, the amount of information obtained by Bob after measurement of the state $\rho^{(x)}$ is given by the mutual information, $$\label{eqn_mutual_int}
I_{\rm mut}(X,K_{\mathcal{M}})
= \sum_k \sum_{x=0}^1 p_x q^{(x)}_k \log_2 (\frac{q^{(x)}_k}{q_k}),$$ where $q_k=\sum_{x=0}^1 p_x q^{(x)}_k$. The accessible information is the maximization of the mutual information over all POVMs, $$\label{eqn_accessible}
A\left(\rho^{(0)},\rho^{(1)}\right) = \max_{\mathcal{M}}I_{\rm mut}\left(X,K_{\mathcal{M}}\right).$$ The accessible information quantifies Bob’s knowledge when each $\rho^{(x)}$ from $N$ trials is measured separately using an optimal POVM. In the context of communication, illumination can be regarded as classical information exchange over a noisy channel. By the Shannon’s noisy-channel coding theorem [@6773024], Alice and Bob communicate at a rate equal to the accessible information in the limit of infinite message size $N$.
There is no known general method for calculating the accessible information exactly. Here we will make use of the upper and lower bounds found by Fuchs and Caves [@PhysRevLett.73.3047]. The lower bound, hereby referred to as the Fuch’s lower bound, is $$\begin{gathered}
I_{\rm lower}=\Tr\Big\{p_0\rho^{(0)}\log_2\left[ \mathcal{L}_{\bar\rho}(\rho^{(0)}) \right]\\
+ p_1\rho^{(1)}\log_2\left[ \mathcal{L}_{\bar\rho}(\rho^{(1)})\right] \Big\}
\label{eqn_fuchslower}\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathcal{L}$ is the lowering superoperator given by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}_{\bar\rho}(\Delta)= \sum_{\{j,k|\lambda_j+\lambda_k\neq 0\}} \bigg[ \frac{2}{\lambda_j(p_1)+\lambda_k(p_1)} \\ \times \bra{\psi_j(p_1)}\Delta\ket{\psi_j(p_1)}
\ket{\psi_j(p_1)}\bra{\psi_k(p_1)}\bigg] \ ,\end{gathered}$$ and where $\Delta=\rho^{(1)}-\rho^{(0)}$. $\lambda_i(p_1)$ and $\ket{\psi_i(p_1)}$ are the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $\bar\rho=(1-p_1)\rho^{(0)}+p_1\rho^{(1)}$. The Fuchs upper bound $I_{\rm upper}$ is found by numerically solving the differential equation, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn_fuchsupper}
\frac{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}^2 I_{\rm upper}(p_1)}{{\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}p_1^2}=
\sum_{\{ j,k|\lambda_j+\lambda_k\neq 0 \}} \bigg[ -\frac{2}{\lambda_j(p_1)+\lambda_k(p_1)} \\
\times |\bra{\psi_j(p_1)}\Delta\ket{\psi_k(p_1)}|^2 \bigg]\end{gathered}$$ subject to $$I_{\rm upper}(0)=I_{\rm upper}(1)=0.$$
The other figure of merit we consider is the Holevo information [@holevo1973bounds]. It is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn_holevo}
\chi (\rho^{(0)}, \rho^{(1)}) = S\left(\sum_{x=0}^1 p_x \rho^{(x)}\right) - \sum_{x=0}^1 p_x S(\rho^{(x)})\end{gathered}$$ where $S(\rho)$ is the von Neumann entropy of the quantum state $\rho$. The Holevo information is the maximum communication rate Bob can obtain, provided he stores all of the $N$ states and then performs a joint measurement upon all of the states. From the Holevo-Schumacher-Westmoreland theorem [@Schumacher97sendingclassical; @651037], this information rate is obtainable when $N\rightarrow \infty$.
Three cases of illumination and quantum advantage {#sec_three_cases}
-------------------------------------------------
Three cases, together with three pairs of accessible information and Holevo information, are relevant for our assessment of the illumination scheme \[Fig. \[fig\_swapdiagram\](a)\] in the communication framework. They are as follows:\
*Case 1*. Quantum illumination with joint measurement: $A_q$ and $\chi_q$ are the accessible information and Holevo information, respectively, for Bob when two-mode EPR states are used as probes and idlers for illumination. Any arbitrary joint measurement over the two modes is allowed.\
*Case 2*. Quantum illumination with local measurements: $A_c$ and $\chi_c$ are the average accessible information and Holevo information for Bob with EPR state as the probe and idler, under the restriction that Bob must perform the optimal Gaussian local measurement on mode B, followed by an arbitrary local measurement on mode A. The measurement on mode B is optimal in the sense that it maximizes the amount of accessible information or Holevo information Bob receives. In this case, Bob only takes advantage of the classical correlations of the EPR state. This enables a direct comparison to case 1, when both quantum and classical correlations are utilized.\
*Case 3*. Single-mode illumination: $A_s$ and $\chi_s$ are the accessible information and Holevo information, respectively, when Bob uses a single-mode coherent state with a fixed amplitude $\alpha$ as the illumination probe.\
The quantum advantage is defined as the difference between the performance of quantum illumination and single-mode illumination protocol. The protocols are compared for scenarios where the probe states have coinciding energy. This constraint allows for fair comparison, as it is always possible to detect the presence of an object with any fixed accuracy by using a sufficiently energetic probe. The quantum advantage in terms of accessible information is $A_q-A_s$ and the Holevo information quantum advantage is $\chi_q-\chi_s$, where each information quantity is evaluated over the probe with mean photon number $\bar n$. As we shall show in this paper, these quantum advantages can be linked to the discord consumed in the illumination protocol.
Discord and Quantum Illumination {#sec_discord}
================================
Quantum discord is a measure of the nonclassical correlations between two quantum states. It arises from the difference between quantum analogs of two distinct definitions of the classical mutual information [@0305-4470-34-35-315; @PhysRevLett.88.017901]: $$\begin{aligned}
I({\rm A}:{\rm B})&=S({\rm A})+S({\rm B})-S({\rm AB}) \\
J({\rm A}|{\rm B})&=S({\rm A})-\min_{\{\Pi_b\}}\sum p_b S({\rm A}|b)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_b$ is the POVM element corresponding to the outcome $b$, $p_b$ is the probability of that outcome, and $S({\rm A}|b)$ is the entropy of the state conditioned on the outcome $b$. The discord is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_discord}
\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B}) &= I({\rm A}:{\rm B})-J({\rm A}|{\rm B}) \nonumber \\
&= S({\rm B}) - S({\rm AB}) + \min_{\{\Pi_b\}}\sum p_b S({\rm A}|b) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the minimization is done over all possible POVMs on mode B. In the special case that the domain of this minimization is restricted to Gaussian measurements, the discord is known as the Gaussian discord [@PhysRevLett.105.020503; @PhysRevLett.105.030501]. It was recently shown that for a large class of Gaussian states, Gaussian quantum discord is equal to quantum discord [@PhysRevLett.113.140405]. Henceforth, we denote the Gaussian discord $\delta^{\rm G}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ with a superscript G.
We now consider the evolution of the discord when quantum illumination is described by Figs. \[fig\_swapdiagram\](c) and \[fig\_swapdiagram\](d). After the noise-injection step, Alice is left with state $\rho$ with which she can encode information to send to Bob. We note that this state may have no entanglement due to the noise injection [@PhysRevLett.101.253601]. Alice encodes the value of $X$ on the state by performing the operation $O_x$ on $\rho$, resulting in a state $\rho^{(x)}=O_x(\rho)$ with discord $\delta^{(x)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$.
Let us decompose the discord of $\rho$, $\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ into three components: $$\label{eq_discord_decomp}
\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B}) = \delta_{\rm loss} + \bar\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B}) + \delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$$ The first component $\delta_{\rm loss}$ is the amount of discord lost to the environment during the encoding process. This can be evaluated by first defining $$\delta_{\rm loss}^{(x)} = \delta({\rm A}|{\rm B}) - \delta^{(x)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$$ as the loss of discord for each possible value of $x$ that Alice can encode, and then taking the weighted average over the probability of encoding that $x$. This results in $$\delta_{\rm loss} = \sum_x p_x \delta_{\rm loss}^{(x)}$$ The second component $\bar\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ is the discord of $\bar\rho=p_0\rho^{(0)}+p_1\rho^{(1)}$, the state after encoding. This is the state seen by Bob who is oblivious to the value of $X$.
We term the remaining component the [*consumed discord*]{} $\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$, and represents the discord in $\rho$ that remain unaccounted for. In prior literature, it was proposed to capture the amount of discord consumed to encode the value of $X$ on the state $\rho$ [@weedbrook2016discord]. For the special case where encodings were unitary, such that $\delta_{\rm loss}^{(x)} = 0$, $\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ was related to the advantage of using coherent interactions [@Gu:2012aa]. It is also interesting to note that $\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ also coincides with the the extra discord Bob sees between $A$ and $B$, should he learn the value of $X$.
In quantum illumination, when $X=0$, Alice performs an identity operation, and thus $\delta^{(0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ and $\delta_{\rm loss}^{(0)} = 0$. When $X=1$, Alice performs a swap operation between mode A of $\rho$ with the environment noise, destroying all correlations between the two modes. All discord is lost and $\delta_{\rm loss}^{(1)}=\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B})$. Putting this together, the average discord loss is thus $\delta_{\rm loss}=p_1\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B})$. Hence the consumed discord for quantum illumination is $$\label{eqn_denc}
\delta_{\rm con}(A|B)=p_0\delta^{(0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})-\bar\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B}).$$
Method and Results {#sec_results}
==================
In Sec. \[sec\_results\_analytic\], we first derive a general result that if certain conditions are fulfilled, the discord consumed is equal to the Holevo information quantum advantage. In Sec. \[sec\_results\_info\], we numerically calculate the illumination information quantities. In Sec. \[sec\_results\_discord\], we numerically evaluate the consumed discord and compare it to the quantum advantages. Our main result is that for continuous variable quantum illumination, the consumed discord is approximately equal to the Holevo information quantum advantage.
{width="15.5cm"} {width="15.5cm"}
Analytic Result {#sec_results_analytic}
---------------
We prove the following theorem.
\[theorem1\] Let $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)}$ and $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}$ be two arbitrary two mode states. If the following conditions are met:
1. mode B is the same for both states, i.e., $\rho_{\rm B}^{(0)}=\rho_B^{(1)}$ where $\rho_{\rm B}^{(x)}=\Tr_A(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(x)})$ and where $\Tr_{\rm A}$ denotes the partial trace over subsystem A;
2. $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}$ is a product state, i.e., $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}=\rho_A^{(1)}\otimes\rho_B^{(1)}$; and
3. the Holevo information of local measurement $\chi_c$, the discord of $\bar \rho_{{\rm AB}}=p_0\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)}+p_1\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}$, and the discord of $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)}$ are achieved by the same measurement,
then $\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\chi_q-\chi_c$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_q&=\chi(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)},\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)})\\
\chi_c&=\max_{\{\Pi_b\}}\sum_b p_b \chi(\rho_{{\rm A}|b}^{(0)},\rho_{{\rm A}|b}^{(1)}),\end{aligned}$$ where $p_b$ is the probability of measuring outcome $\Pi_b$ on subsystem B, and $\rho_{{\rm A}|b}^{(x)}$ are the states of subsystem A conditioned on that outcome.
Let $\{\Pi_b\}$ be the measurement in condition 3 that simultaneously optimizes $\chi_c$, as well as the discord of states $\bar \rho_{{\rm AB}}$ and $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)}$. The measurement outcome probability is $$p_b=\Tr((\Pi_b\otimes I)\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)})=\Tr((\Pi_b\otimes I)\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}),$$ where we have used condition 1. The resulting conditional states are $$\rho^{(x)}_{{\rm A}|b}=\frac{\Tr_{\rm B}(\Pi_b\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(x)})}{p_b}.$$
Our goal is to prove $\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\chi_q-\chi_c$. Because of condition 2, $\delta^{(1)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=0$, as so the consumed discord is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B}) &= p_0\delta^{(0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})-\bar\delta({\rm A}|{\rm B}) \\
&= p_0(S(\rho_{\rm B}^{(0)})-S(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)})+\sum_b p_bS(\rho^{(0)}_{{\rm A}|b})) \\
&-S(\bar\rho_{\rm B})+S(\bar\rho_{{\rm AB}})-\sum_b p_b S(\bar\rho_{{\rm A}|b}).\end{aligned}$$ We also have that: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_q-\chi_c&=S(\bar\rho_{{\rm AB}})-p_0S(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(0)})-p_1S(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}) \\
& +\sum_bp_b (-S(\bar\rho_{{\rm A}|b})+p_0S(\rho_{{\rm A}|b}^{(0)})+p_1S(\rho_{{\rm A}|b}^{(1)})).\end{aligned}$$ This leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})-(\chi_q-\chi_c)\\
&=p_0 S(\rho_{\rm B}^{(0)}) -S(\bar\rho_{\rm B})+p_1S(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}) -\sum_bp_bp_1S(\rho_{{\rm A}|b}^{(1)}).\end{aligned}$$ From condition 1, we have that $\rho_{\rm B}^{(0)}=\rho_{\rm B}^{(1)}=\bar\rho_{\rm B}$. From condition 2, $\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)}$ is a product state, so $S(\rho_{{\rm AB}}^{(1)})=S(\rho_{\rm A}^{(1)})+S(\rho_{{\rm B}}^{(1)})$ and $\rho^{(1)}_{{\rm A}|b}=\rho^{(1)}_{\rm A}$. So this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})-(\chi_q-\chi_c)\\
&=S(\rho_{\rm B}^{(0)})(p_0-1+p_1)+S(\rho_{\rm A}^{(1)})(p_1-p_1)\\
&=0.\end{aligned}$$
In continuous-variable quantum illumination, condition 1 is satisfied since the idler is not interacting with the illumination object. Condition 2 is met by the fact that the swap operation decorrelates mode A and mode B. By restricting ourselves to Gaussian quantum discord, together with the assumption that a Gaussian heterodyne measurement is the optimal measurement for the quantities in condition 3, we have $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\chi_q-\chi_c$. This assumption is justified by numerical results in the next sections.
Accessible information and Holevo information calculations {#sec_results_info}
----------------------------------------------------------
The accessible information and Holevo information quantities $A_q$, $\chi_q$, $A_c$, $\chi_c$, $A_s$ and $\chi_s$ were calculated numerically for typical settings of quantum illumination. Due to finite computational resources, the states must be approximated to a Hilbert space with finite dimensions. Under this restriction, the highest noise mean photon number that does not result in significant error is $\bar n_{\rm env}=4$. Plots are shown in Fig. \[fig\_plot01\] of the information quantities for noise mean photon number $4$ and probe mean photon number $\bar n=(0.01,0.5)$. We will now review the information quantities for each case listed in Sec. \[sec\_three\_cases\].
*Case 1*. The Holevo information $\chi_q$ and Fuchs upper and lower bounds for the accessible information $A_q$ for quantum illumination with joint measurement are shown in Fig. \[fig\_plot01\]. The difference between the upper and lower bounds of $A_q$ is, at most, 0.7%, implying that the true accessible information is close to the Fuchs bounds. As evident in the plot, there is a substantial difference between the $\chi_q$ and $A_q$.\
*Case 2*. $\chi_c$ and $A_c$: In the previous section, we assume that a heterodyne measurement is the optimal local Gaussian measurement to make on mode B. We demonstrate in Fig. \[fig\_hetopt\] that this is true for a typical choice of parameters. Since a heterodyne measurement on mode B collapses mode A into a distribution of coherent states, $\chi_c$ and $A_c$ were calculated by integrating the information quantities of single coherent probe ($\chi_s$, $A_s$) as as function of energy. The computed upper and lower bounds for $A_c$ are equal to within six significant figures.\
*Case 3*. $\chi_s$ and $A_s$: The Holevo information $\chi_s$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig\_plot01\]. Fuchs lower and upper bounds for $A_s$ were calculated and are equal to within seven significant figures, and are indistinguishable in Fig. \[fig\_plot01\]. Unlike case 1, when using a coherent state, the Holevo and accessible information differ by a small amount, only $0.4 \%$.\
![The Holevo information obtained when an EPR state is used for illumination, but a local Gaussian measurement is first performed on mode B. The measurement consists of beam splitter with transmissivity $t$, followed by conjugate homodyne measurements on both outputs. The maximum gives $\chi_c$, which occurs up to numerical precision at $t=0.5$, which corresponds to a heterodyne measurement. Parameters are $\epsilon=0.1$, $\bar n=0.5$, and $\bar n_{\rm env}=4$. []{data-label="fig_hetopt"}](hetopt.pdf){width="8cm"}
{width="15.5cm"} {width="15.5cm"}
From Figs. \[fig\_plot01\](a)(i), \[fig\_plot01\](a)(iii), \[fig\_plot01\](b)(i), and \[fig\_plot01\](b)(iii), we see that $\chi_q$ is greater than $\chi_s$, and $A_q$ is greater than $A_s$, showing that quantum illumination with joint measurement does indeed have an advantage over single-mode illumination. In the communication context, Alice can communicate with Bob with a higher bit rate if Bob uses a probe entangled with an idler instead of a coherent state probe.
From Fig. \[fig\_plot01\], we see that the performance of a coherent state probe is approximately equal to performance of an EPR probe when a local Gaussian measurement is performed on the mode B. However, $A_s$ is slightly higher than $A_c$ (and $\chi_s$ slightly higher than $\chi_c$) because $A_s$ is a concave function of energy (see Appendix \[appendix2\]). By considering the ratio of $A_s$ and $A_c$, we find that their relative difference approaches zero in both the limits $\epsilon\to0$ and $\bar n\to0$. This indicates that there is no advantage to using an EPR state for illumination, over a coherent state probe, if a Gaussian measurement is first made on mode B of the EPR state. A local Gaussian measurement on mode B of an EPR state will cause mode A to collapse to a single-mode Gaussian state. Hence, this is equivalent to using a distribution of single-mode Gaussian states for the probe, which, under the masking of strong environmental noise, gives an approximately equal knowledge about a weakly reflecting object as using a single-mode coherent state probe.
Relating Quantum Advantage to Discord Consumed {#sec_results_discord}
----------------------------------------------
To calculate the consumed discord $\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$, we need to compute the discord of states $\rho^{(0)}$ and $\bar\rho$ when the entangled state $\rho_{\rm EPR}$ is used as probe and idler. $\rho^{(0)}$, the resulting state when Alice does nothing, is a Gaussian state whose discord is equal to the Gaussian discord, and additionally this discord is obtained when the measurement is a heterodyne measurement [@PhysRevLett.113.140405]. The state after encoding $\bar\rho$, however, is not Gaussian, and thus the same rule does not apply. Unfortunately, calculating the discord of a general state is an NP-hard problem [@1367-2630-16-3-033027], so there is no method to calculate it efficiently. Here, we simplify the problem by restricting ourselves to Gaussian discord and calculate the consumed Gaussian discord $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ instead. This is just Eq. with the discords replaced with Gaussian discords.
The Gaussian discord of state $\bar\rho$ was obtained by numerically optimizing Eq. over Gaussian measurements. It was found that the optimal point occurs when the measurement is a heterodyne measurement. The two discord values $\delta^{G (0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ and $\bar \delta^{\rm G}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ are then substituted into Eq. to obtain the consumed Gaussian discord.
Due to the optimality of the Gaussian discord of state $\rho^{(0)}$, and the fact that Gaussian discord is an upper bound for the discord for state $\bar\rho$, the consumed Gaussian discord is a lower bound of the consumed discord, i.e., $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})\le\delta_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$. A plot of the $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ compared to the information differences is shown in Fig. \[fig\_plot02\].
As discussed in Sec. \[sec\_results\_analytic\], since a heterodyne measurement on mode B optimizes $\delta^{(0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$, and numerical results show that this is the case for $\bar \delta({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ and $\chi_c$, from Theorem \[theorem1\], $\delta^{(0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\chi_q-\chi_c$. Numerical calculation of $\delta^{(0)}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ and $\chi_q-\chi_c$ agree within the precision of the calculation, further verifying the theorem.
From Fig. \[fig\_plot02\], we see that the difference in Holevo information between quantum illumination ($\chi_q-\chi_c$) and single-mode illumination ($\chi_q-\chi_s$) is $1.3\%$ for $\bar n=0.5$ and $0.005 \%$ for $\bar n=0.01$ when $\epsilon=0.3$. The percentage difference approaches zero when $\epsilon\to0$. Since $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\chi_q-\chi_c$, this leads us to the conclusion that in the limit of low reflectivity and low probe energy, $\chi_q-\chi_s$ converges to the Gaussian discord consumed. Hence, discord encoded can suitably explain the quantum advantage of quantum illumination, if quantum illumination is viewed as a communication problem with access to devices such as quantum memory.
On the other hand, $A_q-A_s$, which quantifies the performance advantage for quantum illumination in the single-copy measurement case, is more relevant from a practical point of view since this does not require the storage of quantum states [@SHGSC16]. From Fig. \[fig\_plot02\], we see that $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})$ is greater than $A_q-A_s$ and $A_q-A_c$. This discrepancy is mainly due to the difference between the Holevo information $\chi_q$ and the accessible information $A_q$ for the states involved in quantum illumination. Hence, measuring each illumination event separately does not fully harness the benefits offered by the discord. However, it is sufficient to provide some quantum advantage over single-mode illumination.
Quantum advantage versus probe energy
-------------------------------------
![ The accessible information and Holevo information quantities (top) and consumed Gaussian discord and quantum advantage (bottom) vs the mean energy of the probe. The environment-noise mean photon number is $4$ and object reflectivity $\epsilon=0.1$. []{data-label="fig_plot_energy"}](plot_energy1.pdf "fig:"){width="8.6cm"} ![ The accessible information and Holevo information quantities (top) and consumed Gaussian discord and quantum advantage (bottom) vs the mean energy of the probe. The environment-noise mean photon number is $4$ and object reflectivity $\epsilon=0.1$. []{data-label="fig_plot_energy"}](plot_energy2.pdf "fig:"){width="8.6cm"}
There is nothing special about our choice of probe energies of 0.01 and 0.5 used in the previous sections. To demonstrate this, Fig. \[fig\_plot\_energy\] shows the illumination performance, quantum advantage, and consumed Gaussian discord for probe mean photon numbers in the range 0 to 0.1, while the object reflectivity is kept constant at $0.1$. There is always a quantum advantage, and the consumed Gaussian discord is approximately equal to the quantum advantage in terms of Holevo information.
Comparison to discrete variables
--------------------------------
[17cm]{}[|X|Sc|Sc|]{} & [**DV**]{} & [**CV**]{}\
Environment noise & &\
Quantum illumination probe & &\
Accessible vs Holevo information & &\
Single-mode illumination & &\
Quantum vs single-mode illumination & &\
Single mode probe vs local measurement on idler first & &\
Consumed discord vs Holevo quantum advantage & &\
Consumed discord vs accessible info quantum advantage & &\
It is worth comparing continuous-variable (CV) illumination to discrete-variable (DV) illumination [@weedbrook2016discord]. In discrete variables, the environmental noise is often described as white noise. This scenario is not realistic in continuous variables, as it corresponds to a thermal state at infinite temperature, and thus is of unbounded energy. Using a maximally mixed environment noise for DV illumination has the consequence that all pure state probes yield the same information for single-mode illumination. This is clearly not the case for any physically relevant cases of CV illumination, where a coherent state with a high energy generally performs better than a coherent state with low energy.
The probe used for quantum illumination for DV illumination is a maximally entangled state. Again, this state in CV illumination would have unbounded energy. A maximally entangled probe and idler, and a maximally mixed environment, mean that $\rho^{(0)}$ and $\rho^{(1)}$ commute in DV illumination. Hence, the Holevo information and accessible information are equal. This is not the case for CV illumination. From Fig. \[fig\_plot01\], we see the differences between $A_q$ and $\chi_q$ can be significant, though deviations between $A_c$ and $\chi_c$ remain small. Quantum advantage, though, remains significant for both Holevo and accessible information.
In DV illumination, performing a local measurement on the idler first, followed by a local measurement on the probe, yields identical information as single-mode illumination. For CV illumination, this is only approximately true; these two quantities approach equality in the limit of low reflectivity and low probe energy.
Finally, in DV illumination, the consumed discord is exactly equal to the Holevo information quantum advantage and the accessible information quantum advantage. We found, for CV illumination, that this approximately holds for the Holevo information, but not for the accessible information. The differences between DV and CV illumination are summarized in Table \[table1\].
Conclusion {#sec_conclusion}
==========
![ One million small perturbations were made on a coherent state. This is a histogram of the Holevo information when the top 500 000 states are used in single-mode illumination. The vertical line shows the Holevo information of the coherent state. Parameters are $n_{\rm env}=4$, $\epsilon=0.5$, $\bar n=0.5$. []{data-label="fig_perturbed"}](perturbedcoherent.pdf){width="8.6cm"}
In [@weedbrook2016discord], it has been shown that quantum discord coincides exactly with quantum advantage in a DV quantum illumination. Here, we complete the picture by extending the framework to CV quantum illumination [@PhysRevLett.101.253601]. To this end, we numerically calculated the performance enhancement that quantum illumination has over single-mode illumination and compared it to the Gaussian discord of the system. We derived an analytic result showing that $\delta^{\rm G}_{\rm con}({\rm A}|{\rm B})=\chi_q-\chi_c$, provided condition 3 of Theorem \[theorem1\] is met. Our main result is that the quantum advantage in terms of Holevo information matches the consumed discord in the limit of low probe energy and low object reflectivity ($\bar n\to0$ and $\epsilon\to0$). This is in agreement with the DV counterpart, which analogously assumes a maximally entropic illumination environment.
Several remarks in relation to other works are in order. In deriving our results, we have demonstrated that a joint measurement over the returning probe and idler is necessary to exploit the surviving quantum correlation to determine the non-unitary encoding. Similar to [@Gu:2012aa], a coherent interaction is required to unlock the information encoded via unitary discord consumption. The discrepancy between the quantum advantage offered by Holevo information and accessible information is in concordance with recent findings, where the improvement of error probability of quantum illumination over single-mode illumination is limited to 3 dB (out of a maximum gain of 6 dB) for single-copy separate measurement in the intense white-noise limit [@PhysRevA.80.052310; @SHGSC16].
We note other efforts in quantifying the source of enhancement in quantum-illumination like protocols. In [@ragy2014quantifying], mutual information is used to quantify the advantage offered by an entangled source over a correlated thermal source. Gaussian discriminating strength is proposed to distinguish the absence or presence of a set of unitary operations in [@farace2014discriminating; @rigovacca2015gaussian]. The role of correlation in the improvement of channel loss detection is also established by linking discord to the performance numerically [@invernizzi2011optimal]. Meanwhile, several other cryptographic and metrological variants of illumination has been proposed and demonstrated recently [@PhysRevA.80.022320; @PhysRevLett.111.010501], in which we envisage our framework would shed light in understanding the discord’s role in their quantum enhancement.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
![ Accessible information when the probe is a squeezed coherent state with mean photon number $\bar n=0.5$, squeezing $r$ and displacement $\alpha=\sqrt{\bar n-\sinh^2(r)}$. The object has reflectivity $\epsilon=0.1$ and the mean photon number of the noise $\bar n_{\rm env}$ is $4$. The optimal squeezing is $r=0.00279$, which gives information $0.0015\%$ higher than with no squeezing. []{data-label="fig_plotsq"}](plotsq.pdf){width="8.6cm"}
We are grateful for funding from the National Research Foundation of Singapore (NRF Award No. NRF–NRFF2016–02), the John Templeton Foundation Grant No. 53914 [*“Occam’s Quantum Mechanical Razor: Can Quantum theory admit the Simplest Understanding of Reality?”*]{}, the Foundational Questions Institute, and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (Project No. CE110001027). This material is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of Singapore under NRF Award No. NRF-NRFF2013-01. S.T. acknowledges support from the AFOSR under Grant No. FA2386-15-1-4082.
![Lower bound of $A_s$ as a function of probe average photon number $\bar n=|\alpha|^2$ when the noise mean photon number $\bar n_{\rm env}=4$, and the object has reflectivity $\epsilon$ of $1/2$, $1/10$ and $1/100$ (top). The same plot with each line scaled by $1/\epsilon$ so that linearity can be compared (bottom). []{data-label="fig_plotic"}](plotIc1.pdf "fig:"){width="8.6cm"} ![Lower bound of $A_s$ as a function of probe average photon number $\bar n=|\alpha|^2$ when the noise mean photon number $\bar n_{\rm env}=4$, and the object has reflectivity $\epsilon$ of $1/2$, $1/10$ and $1/100$ (top). The same plot with each line scaled by $1/\epsilon$ so that linearity can be compared (bottom). []{data-label="fig_plotic"}](plotIc2.pdf "fig:"){width="8.6cm"}
Suboptimality of coherent state probe {#appendix1}
=====================================
A coherent state is not the optimal state to use for single-mode illumination. Small perturbations were made on a coherent state, such that the mean photon number was maintained. Figure \[fig\_perturbed\] shows a histogram of the Holevo information when the perturbed states were used in illumination. Some of the perturbed states resulted in a Holevo information greater than that achieved with the coherent state. Hence, a coherent state is not the optimal probe to use in single-mode illumination. However, we hypothesize that it is close to optimal. The problem of finding the optimal probe is too difficult to calculate, so this hypothesis is difficult to prove.
If the probe is restricted to a Gaussian state, as in Gaussian single-mode illumination, the coherent state is still not optimal. Using a squeezed coherent state with a tiny squeezing can result in increased accessible information (as can be seen in Fig. \[fig\_plotsq\]), but the improvement is negligible. Hence, a coherent state is approximately optimal for Gaussian single-mode illumination.
Calculating $\chi_c$ and $A_c$ from integration of $\chi_s$ and $A_s$ {#appendix2}
=====================================================================
From Fig. \[fig\_plotic\], we see that $A_s$ is a concave function of energy. If $A_s$ were a perfect linear function of energy, $A_c$ and $A_s$ would be equal. As can be seen from Fig. \[fig\_plotic\], $A_s$ as a function of energy becomes more linear as the $\epsilon$ approaches zero. Hence, this suggests that $A_c$ and $A_s$ become equal as $\epsilon$ approaches zero. The same applies to $\chi_c$ and $\chi_s$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
-1.6 true cm = -1.9 truecm 8.3 true in 5.8 true in plus 1000pt minus 1000pt
\#1 \#1[= to]{} § ¶ ł
CERN-TH/96-153\
hep-th/9611205\
.5in
[**$F^4$ TERMS IN $N=4$ STRING VACUA $\ ^{\dag}$**]{} 0.1in
.5in
[**C. Bachas$ \ ^{\spadesuit}$ and E. Kiritsis$ \ ^{\clubsuit}$**]{} .1in
[ $\ ^{\spadesuit}$ Centre de Physique Théorique, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, FRANCE\
email: [*[email protected]*]{}\
\
$\ ^{\clubsuit}$ Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211, Geneva 23, SWITZERLAND\
email: [*[email protected]*]{} ]{}
.15in
.4in
[**ABSTRACT** ]{}
.15in
> We discuss $F_{\mu\nu}^4$ terms in torroidal compactifications of type-I and heterotic $SO(32)$ string theory. We give a simple argument why only short BPS multiplets contribute to these terms at one loop, and verify heterotic-type-I duality to this order. Assuming exact duality, we exhibit in the heterotic calculation non-zero terms that are two-loop, three-loop and non-perturbative on the type-I side.
CERN-TH/96-153\
November 1996\
16 pt
. BPS states play a special role in theories with extended ($N\geq 2$) supersymmetry. The fact that they form multiplets which are shorter than the generic representation of the supersymmetry algebra implies relations between their mass, charges and values of moduli which are valid in the exact quantum theory. For $N\geq 4$ these relations are furthermore purely classical, and they ensure that BPS states are either stable or, at worse, marginally-unstable. Stable BPS states can thus be traced all the way to strong coupling, and their existence with appropriate multiplicities has constituted the main test of the various duality conjectures.
Another remarkable feature of BPS states is that they saturate certain one-loop terms in the effective low-energy action. This fact has been articulated clearly by Harvey and Moore [@HM] in the context of heterotic $N=2$ thresholds, though it was implicit in much of the earlier work, such as for instance refs. [@L]. BPS-saturated terms are furthermore typically related, by supersymmetry, to anomalies, and are thus expected to obey non-renormalization theorems. This makes them a precious tool for checking duality conjectures. Tseytlin [@Ts] has in particular used such $F_{\mu\nu}^4$ terms, in order to test the conjectured duality between the type-I and heterotic-string theories in ten dimensions [@W; @WP]. In this paper we will extend Tseytlin’s analysis to torroidal compactifications.
The effective gauge-field action of open-string theory is closely related to the phase-shift or velocity-dependent forces between D-branes [@D; @Lif; @GG; @Sun; @DKPS]. BPS saturation and a non-renormalization assumption of the leading $o(v^4)$ interaction are, furthermore, a crucial ingredient in the recent interesting conjecture by Banks et al [@M] concerning M-theory in the infinite-momentum frame. Despite their close relation the two calculations differ however in some significant ways. For instance in the effective-action calculation one subtracts diagrams with massless closed strings in the intermediate channels. These diagrams must be kept in the D-brane calculation, where they are regulated effectively by the world-volume dimensional reduction. Our analysis does not therefore translate into the D-brane context immediately, but it raises by analogy some interesting questions.
0.3cm
[*Supertrace formulae*]{}. BPS saturation at one loop follows from supertrace formulae [@Fer] involving powers of helicity and R-symmetry charges. These are easier to discuss in terms of generating functionals. Define for instance $$Z_{rep}(y) = str\ y^{2 \lambda} \eqno(1)$$ where the supertrace stands for a sum over bosonic minus fermionic states of the representation, and $\lambda$ is the eigenvalue of a generator of the little group: $SO(3)$ or $SO(2)$ in the massive, respectively massless case in four dimensions. For a particle of spin $j$ we have $$Z_{[j]} = \cases{& $(-)^{2j} \Bigl( { y^{2j+1}-y^{-2j-1}
\over y- 1/y } \Bigr)$ \ \ {\rm massive} \cr
&\ \cr
& $(-)^{2j} ( y^{2j}+y^{-2j})$ \ \ \ \
{\rm massless} \cr}
\eqno(2)$$ When tensoring representations the generating functionals get multiplied, $$Z_{r\otimes {\tilde r}} = Z_r Z_{\tilde r} \ . \eqno(3)$$ The supertrace of the $n$th power of helicity can be extracted from the generating functional through $$str\ \lambda^n = (y^2{d\over dy^2})^n \ Z(y)\vert_{y=1} \ .
\eqno(4)$$
Consider now $N=2$ multiplets. The supersymmetry algebra contains four fermionic charges that may act independently: two of them raise the helicity by one half unit, while the other two lower it by the same amount. For the generic massive (long) multiplet all charges act non-trivially on some “ground state” of spin $j$ and one finds $$Z_{long}^{N=2} = Z_{[j]}\ (1-y)^2(1-1/y)^2 \ \ . \eqno(5a)$$ For a massless or a short massive multiplet half of the supercharges have a trivial action so that one finds instead $$Z_{ short}^{N=2} = (2)\times Z_{[j]}\ (1-y)(1-1/y) \ \ , \eqno(5b)$$ where the factor 2 is required in the massive case, since short massive multiplets carry charge and are thus necessarily complex. Familiar examples of short massive multiplets include the monopoles ($j = 0$) and charged gauge bosons ($j={1\over 2}$) of pure N=2 Yang-Mills theories. An immediate consequence of eqs. (5) is that [*only for short (BPS) multiplets is*]{} $str\ \lambda^2 \not= 0$.
Let us turn next to the $N=4$ algebra. This has four raising and four lowering fermionic charges, all of which can act independently in a generic massive (long) representation, $$Z_{long}^{N=4} = Z_{[j]}\ (1-y)^4(1-1/y)^4 \ \ . \eqno(6a)$$ Short representations, which include all the massless as well as some massive multiplets, annihilate half the supercharges so that $$Z_{ short}^{N=4} = (2)\times Z_{[j]}\ (1-y)^2(1-1/y)^2 \ \ .
\eqno(6b)$$ This is precisely the content of a long $N=2$ representation. $N=4$ has also intermediate (or semi-long) multiplets, which annihilate one-quarter of supercharges, and for which $$Z_{semi-long}^{N=4} = 2\times Z_{[j]}\ (1-y)^3(1-1/y)^3 \ \ .
\eqno(6c)$$ The factors of two take again into account that massive short and intermediate multiplets have charge and are thus necessarily complex. It follows trivially from the above expressions that $str \lambda^2
=0$ always, $str \lambda^4 \not= 0$ only for short multiplets, and $str \lambda^6 \not= 0$ in both the short and the intermediate case.
The discussion can be extended easily to take into account R-symmetry charges. These are simply helicities in some (implicit) internal dimensions: there is a single R-charge for $N=2$, and three independent charges, corresponding to the Cartan generators of $SO(6)$, in the $N=4$ case. To get a non-zero result for short, intermediate or long multiplets in the latter case, one must insert in the supertrace at least four, six, respectively eight powers of helicity and/or R-charges.
0.3cm
[*Type-I effective action*]{}. Let us turn now to the one-loop calculation of the effective gauge-field action in type-I theory. In the background-field method the one-loop free energy in $d$ non-compact dimensions reads [@BP] $$\eqalign{
{\cal F}_I^{(1)}(B) =& -{V^{(d)} \over 8\pi} \int_0^\infty
{dt\over t}
(2\pi^2 t)^{1-{d\over 2}} \times\cr\times
& Str\ {q{\cal B}\over {\rm sinh}(\pi t\epsilon/2)}\ e^{-{\pi
t\over 2}
(M^2+ 2\lambda\epsilon)} \cr} \eqno(7)$$ where $B={\cal B}Q$ is a background magnetic field pointing in some direction $Q$ in group space, $q=q_L+q_R$ is the corresponding charge distributed between the two string endpoints, and $\epsilon$ is a non-linear function of the charges and the field that vanishes linearly with the latter $$\epsilon ({\cal B},q_L,q_R) \simeq q {\cal B} + o({\cal B}^3) \ .
\eqno(8)$$ In the weak-field limit and for low spins this is a familiar field-theory expression: it follows directly from the fact that elementary charged particles have gyromagnetic ratio 2 and a spectrum given by equally-spaced Landau levels. The effects of non-minimal coupling for an open string are captured essentially by the replacement $q {\cal B}\rightarrow \epsilon$.
The supertrace in eq. (7) runs over all charged string states. For any given supermultiplet the mass and charges are however common, so that its contribution is proportional to $$str \ e^{-\pi t \epsilon\lambda}
= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} {(\pi t\epsilon)^{2n}\over (2n)!}\
str \lambda^{2n} \ , \eqno(9)$$ where we have used the fact that odd powers of helicity trace out automatically to zero. Since the $\epsilon$-expansion is an expansion in weak-field, the various non-renormalization statements at one loop follow directly from the properties of helicity supertraces and eqs. (7,9). Thus in $N=2$ theories the first non-zero term, proportional to $ str\lambda^2$, is the one-loop gauge kinetic function: it only receives contributions from short (BPS) multiplets, as has been noted previously by using identities of $\theta$-functions [@DL; @BF]. In $N=4$ theories the gauge coupling constant is not corrected at one loop. The first non-zero term, proportional to $ str\lambda^4$ is quartic in the background field, and only receives contributions from short $N=4$ multiplets. This was noted again through $\theta$-function identities in the D-brane context in refs. [@DKPS; @GG]. The following term of order $o(F^6)$ is also determined, incidentally, by short BPS states. This is because long multiplets do not contribute to $str \lambda^6$, and there are no intermediate multiplets in the perturbative type-I spectrum.
Let us take now a closer look at the quartic term arising in N=4 (torroidal) compactifications. The only perturbative charged BPS states are the multiplets of the $SO(32)$ gauge bosons, together with all their Kaluza-Klein descendants. For these states the mass is equal to the internal momentum, so that after some straightforward algebra one finds $$\eqalign{
{\cal F}_I^{(1)}/& V^{(d)} = - { {\cal B}^4\over 2^9 \pi^4}
\int_0^\infty {dt\over t} (2\pi^2 t)^{4-{d\over 2}}
\times\cr \times
& \sum_{\rm
Chan\atop Patton}
(q_L+q_R)^4
\sum_{p\in a_L+a_R+^*\Gamma} e^{-\pi t p^2/2}
+ o({\cal B}^6) \cr} \eqno(10)$$ where $\ ^*\Gamma$ stands for the $(10-d)$-dimensional lattice of Kaluza-Klein momenta, which must be shifted from the origin in the presence of non-vanishing Wilson lines. Each end-point charge takes 32 values, but the sum runs only over antisymmetric states. For ease of notation we will from now on suppress the $o({\cal B}^6)$ terms when writing effective actions.
The above expression is strictly-speaking formal, since it diverges at the $t\rightarrow 0$ limit of integration. This is an open-string ultraviolet divergence, but can be also interpreted as coming from an on-shell dilaton or graviton that propagates between two non-vanishing tadpoles. We are interested in the effective (Wilsonian) action, so this divergence due to exchange of massless particles must be subtracted away. The right procedure is to change variables to the closed-string proper time $l$, which is related to $t$ differently for the annulus and Möbius-strip contributions, $$l = \cases{ $1/t$\ &{\rm annulus }\cr
$1/4t$\ & {\rm M\"obius strip}\cr} \eqno(11)$$ Separating the two topologies amounts to writing the sum over Chan-Patton states as an unconstrained sum over all left- and all right- endpoints, minus the diagonal. After performing also a Poisson resummation the result reads $$\eqalign{
\ \ \ \ \ {\cal F}_I^{(1)} = - { {\cal B}^4 V^{(10)} \over 2^{10} \pi^6}
\int_0^\infty dl &
\ {1\over 2}\sum_{w\in\Gamma} \times
\Bigl\{
\sum_{\vert L>,\vert R>} (q_L+q_R)^4
e^{-w^2 l/2\pi + iw\cdot(a_L+a_R)} -
\cr - & 4\times
\sum_{\vert L>=\vert R>} (2q_L)^4
e^{-2w^2 l/\pi + 2iw\cdot a_L}
\Bigr\}\cr} \eqno(12)$$ where $\Gamma$ is now the compactification lattice. Our conventions are such that $w=2\pi R m$ for a circle of radius $R$.
The divergence in the above expression comes from the $w=0$ piece, as all other terms are exponentially-small in the $l\rightarrow\infty$ region. Thanks to the factor $4$ that multiplies the Möbius-strip contribution, this divergence is proportional to $(tr B^2)^2$. It corresponds [*precisely*]{} to the tadpole $\rightarrow$ massless-propagator$\rightarrow$ tadpole diagram, that must be removed in the effective action [@BF]. Switching-off the Wilson-lines for simplicity, and changing integration variable once again for the Möbius contribution, we thus obtain our final expression $$\int {\cal L}_I^{(1)} =
- { V^{(10)} \over 2^{10} \pi^6}\ \{ 24\ tr B^4 + 3 (tr B^2)^2 \}
\times \int_0^\infty dl
\sum_{w\in\Gamma-\{0\}}
e^{-w^2 l/2\pi}
\eqno(13)$$
Since in the decompactification limit all $w\not= 0$ terms disappear, we have just shown in particular [*that the 10d effective type-I Lagrangian has no one-loop*]{} $F^4$ [*corrections*]{}. This is in agreement with 10d heterotic-type-I duality [@Ts] as we will discuss in detail in the following section. The fact that only open BPS states contribute to the amplitude is in this respect crucial: it ensures that the string-scale does not enter in the expression for ${\cal F}_I^{(1)}$, which must thus cancel entirely when passing to the effective action in ten dimensions. More generally, after compactification, the fact that ${\cal F}_I^{(1)}$ does not depend on $\alpha^\prime$ implies that all corrections to the effective Lagrangian at one loop come from integrating out the Kaluza-Klein modes of massless 10d string states.
1.0 cm
[*Heterotic-type-I duality*]{}. The predictions of this string-string duality [@W; @WP] for the effective action in 10d, have been worked out and checked against earlier calculations by Tseytlin [@Ts]. In summary, there exist two superinvariants quartic in the gauge-field strength [@Roo], which are only distinguished by the group-index contractions: $$I_1 = t_8\ tr F^2 trF^2 - {1\over 4}\epsilon_{10}\ C\ trF^2 trF^2
\ ,
\eqno(14b)$$ and $$I_2 = t_8\ tr F^4 - {1\over 4}\epsilon_{10}\ C trF^4 \ . \eqno(14a)$$ Here $C$ is the antisymmetric 2-form, $\epsilon_{10}$ the Levi-Civita tensor, and $t_8$ the covariant extension of the well-known light-cone-gauge zero-mode tensor. The parity-even part of $I_1$ appears however also independently, in the supersymmetric completion of the Chern-Simmons-modified two-derivative action. Since all these superinvariants have anomaly-cancelling pieces one may expect that they appear at one given order in the loop expansion. In heterotic $SO(32)$ theory in ten dimensions the two-derivative action comes from the sphere, $I_1$ does not appear at all, while $I_2$ appears at one loop only. Duality maps the $\sigma$-model metrics and string couplings as follows [@W]: $$\lambda^h = 1/\lambda^I \ ,\ \ G_{\mu\nu}^{h} =
G_{\mu\nu}^I/\lambda^I
\eqno(15)$$ Simple power counting then shows that the parity-even parts of $I_2$ and $I_1$ should arise in type-I theory from surfaces of Euler number, respectively, minus one (disk, projective plane) and one (disk with two holes etc). This is compatible with the absence of all quartic terms at Euler number zero, as we have concluded.
Consider now torroidal compactifications. The gauge-field-dependent one-loop free energy in heterotic $SO(32)$ theory reads [@L] $${\cal F}_h^{(1)} =
-{V^{(d)}(\lambda^I)^{4-d/2} \over
2^{10} \pi^6 }\times
\int_{ Fun}{d^2\tau \over
\tau_2^2}\;{\Gamma^{10-d,10-d}\over (2\pi^2 \tau_2)^{d/2-5}}
A(F,\bar\tau)
\eqno(16)$$ Here $\Gamma^{10-d,10-d}$ stands for the usual sum over the Lorentzian Narain lattice, which factorizes in the integrand because we assumed zero Wilson lines, and $$\eqalign{
A( F,\bar\tau )=t_8\ tr F^4
+&{1\over 2^9\cdot 3^2} \Bigl[ {E_4^3\over \eta^{24}} +
{\hat E^2_2 E_4^2\over \eta^{24}} \cr &
-2 {\hat E_2E_4E_6\over \eta^{24}} -2^7\cdot
3^2\Bigr]\ t_8 ( tr F^2)^2
\cr}
\eqno(17)$$ with $E_{2n}$ the $n$th Eisenstein series: $$E_{2}=
{12\over i \pi}\partial_{\tau}\log \eta
=1-24\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{n\, q^n\over 1-q^n}
\eqno(18a)$$ $$E_{4}=
{1 \over 2}\left(
{\vartheta}_2^8+
{\vartheta}_3^8+
{\vartheta}_4^8
\right)
=1+240\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{n^3q^n\over 1-q^n}
\eqno(18b)$$ $$E_{6}=
\frac{1}{2}
({\vartheta}_2^4 + {\vartheta}_3^4 )
({\vartheta}_3^4 + {\vartheta}_4^4 )
({\vartheta}_4^4 - {\vartheta}_2^4 )
=1-504 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{n^5q^n\over 1-q^n}
\eqno(18c)$$ The $E_{2n}$’s are modular forms of weight $4n$ except for $E_2$ which must be modified to $$\hat E_2=E_2-{3\over \pi\tau_2}
\eqno(18d)$$ The powers of $\lambda^I$ in front of expression (16) come from the fact that we used type-I normalizations for the metric: $d/2$ of these powers are due to the space-time volume, and the other four to the tensor $t_8$. As for the fact that all holomorphic dependence in the integral appears through the sum over the Lorentzian lattice, this is a result of BPS saturation [@HM]. It can be derived by an argument similar to the one for the open string, except that the background field now only couples to the helicity coming from the left (supersymmetric) sector.
The Lorentzian lattice involves a sum over both momenta and windings on the $(10-d)$-dimensional torus. Setting to zero the antisymmetric tensor background, which is a Ramond-Ramond field in type-I theory, and using again type-I normalizations for the compactification torus, we have $$\Gamma^{10-d,10-d} =
\sum_{p\in^*\Gamma\atop w\in\Gamma}
e^{-\pi\tau_2 p^2 \lambda^I/2 - \tau_2 w^2/2\pi \lambda^I + i
\tau_1 p\cdot w} \ .
\ \eqno(19)$$ Now since inside the fundamental domain, $\tau_2$ is bounded away from the origin, all terms with non-zero winding are non-perturbatively small at weak $\lambda^I$. This is consistent with the fact that winding heterotic strings are solitonic D-branes on the type-I side [@WP]. The remaining momentum lattice can be Poisson-resummed back and written as follows: $${\Gamma^{10-d,10-d}\over (2\pi^2\tau_2)^{d/2-5}}
= {V_{\Gamma}}(\lambda^I)^{d/2-5}\times
\sum_{{\tilde w}\in\Gamma}
e^{- {\tilde w}^2/2\pi \lambda^I\tau_2}
+ \ o(e^{-1/\lambda^I})
\ .\eqno(20)$$
We will now plug the above expression into eq. (16), and perform the modular integration. The ${\tilde w}=0$ term can be integrated explicitly, using the formulae $$\eqalign{&\ \ \ \
{I(0,0,0)}=\pi/3\;\;\;,\;\;\;{I(1,1,1)}=-48\pi
\cr &\ \ \ \
{I(0,3,0)}=240\pi\;\;\;,\;\;\;{I(2,2,0)}=48\pi \cr}
\eqno(21a)$$ where we defined $$I(m,n,k)=\int_{ Fun} {d^2\tau\over
\tau_2^2}\;{\hat E_2^{m}E_4^nE_6^k\over \eta^{24p}}
\eqno(21b)$$ subject to the modular-invariance condition $6p=m+2n+3k$. In what concerns the ${\tilde w}\not= 0$ terms, we may extend their integration regime to the entire strip $-{1\over 2} < \tau_1 <{1\over 2}$, modulo a non-perturbatively small error. This makes the $\tau_1$ integration straightforward, since only terms without exponential $\bar \tau$-dependence in $A(F,\bar\tau)$ survive: $$\int_{-{1\over 2}}^{1\over 2} d\tau_1 A(F,\bar\tau) =
tr F^4
+ {1\over 8} (tr F^2)^2 \times
\Bigl[ 1 -{15\over 2\pi\tau_2} + {63\over 8\pi^2\tau_2^2}
\Bigr]
\eqno(22)$$ Putting all this together, redefining $\tau_2 \equiv 1/l\lambda^I$, and doing some tedious algebra leads to our final expression for the heterotic one-loop free energy at weak type-I coupling:: $$\eqalign{
{\cal F}_h^{(1)} =
-{V^{(10)}\over 2^{10}\pi^6}\ \Biggl\{ &
t_8\; tr F^4\;
\left( {\pi\over 3\lambda^I} + \int_0^\infty dl\ {\cal K}
\right) +
\cr
+ {1\over 8}t_8 & \left( tr F^2 \right)^2 \int_0^\infty dl
\ {\cal K}\
\left(1 - {15l \over 2\pi}\lambda^I
+{63 l^2\over 8\pi^2} (\lambda^I)^2
\right)
+ o(e^{-1/\lambda^I}) \Biggr\}
\cr}
\eqno(23a)$$ where here $${\cal K} = \sum_{{\tilde w}\in\Gamma-\{0\}} e^{-{\tilde w}^2 l/2\pi}
\ . \eqno(23b)$$
The leading, $o({1/\lambda^I})$ term in this expression corresponds to the type-I disk-diagram [@Ts]. The constant piece should be compared to the sum of the Möbius-strip and annulus, given by eq. (13). These are indeed identical, if one notes that for a simple magnetic field $t_8 F^4 = 24 B^4$. The remaining terms, as well as the moduli-independent contribution of the heterotic sphere-diagram [@Ts] $${\cal F}_h^{(0)} =
{ V^{(10)}\over 2^{10}} \ \lambda^I\
t_8\; (tr F^2)^2 \eqno(24)$$ correspond to two- and three-loop diagrams on the type-I side. If we assume exact duality and no further corrections on the heterotic side, we conclude that beyond three loops there are only instanton corrections on the type-I side.
[*Afterword*]{}. The effective expansion parameter in eq. (23) is $ \alpha^\prime_h/ R^2$, where $\alpha^\prime_h = \lambda^I
\alpha^\prime_I$ is the heterotic Regge slope, and $R$ is a typical radius of the compactification torus. Stretched heterotic strings are (non-perturbative) charged BPS states on the type-I side, so it is not surprising that they should control at least part of the $F^4$ terms in ${\cal L}_{eff}$. The role of analogous degrees of freedom, as well as of the two-loop renormalization, eq. (24), in the D-brane context must be elucidated further. The study of fundamental-string scattering [@pre] may shed some different light on these issues.
**Acknowledgements**
We thank the organizers of the Spring Workshop on String Theory for the invitation. C.B. aknowledges support from EEC contract CHRX-CT93-0340, and thanks M. Green, S. Shenker, A. Tseytlin and P. Vanhove for conversations on some related issues.
[6666]{}
J. A. Harvey and G. Moore, hep-th/9510182, hep-th/9609017.
W. Lerche, B. Nilsson and A. Schellekens, Nucl. Phys. [**B289**]{} (1987) 609;\
W. Lerche, B. Nilsson, A. Schellekens and N. Warner, Nucl. Phys. [**B299**]{} (1988) 91;\
W. Lerche, Nucl. Phys. [**B308**]{} (1988) 102.
A.A. Tseytlin, hep-th/9510173 and hep-th/9512081.
E. Witten, hep-th/9503124.
J. Polchinski and E. Witten, hep-th/9510169.
C. Bachas, hep-th/9511045.
G. Lifschytz, hep-th/9604156 and hep-th/9610125.
M.B. Green and M. Gutperle, hep-th/ 9604091.
U. Danielsson, G. Ferretti, B. Sundborg, hep-th/9603081;\
D. Kabat and P. Pouliot, hep-th/9603127.
M. Douglas, D. Kabat, P. Pouliot, S. Shenker, hep-th/9608024.
T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. Shenker, L. Susskind, hep-th/9610043 .
S. Ferrara, C. Savoy and L. Girardello, Phys. lett. [**B105**]{} (1981) 363.
C. Bachas and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. [**B296**]{} (1992) 77, hep-th/9209032 and references therein.
C. Bachas and C. Fabre, hep-th/9605028.
M. Douglas and M. Li, hep-th/9604041.
M. de Roo, H. Suelmann and A. Wiedemann, Phys. Lett. [**B280**]{} (1992) 39; Nucl. Phys. [**B405**]{} (1993) 326.
C. Bachas, M. B. Green, M. Gutperle and P. Vanhove, work in progress.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The aim of this paper is to prove multiplicity of solutions for nonlocal fractional equations modeled by $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(-\Delta)^s u-\lambda u=f(x,u) & {\mbox{ in }} \Omega\\
u=0 & {\mbox{ in }} {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \Omega\,,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $s\in (0,1)$ is fixed, $(-\Delta)^s$ is the fractional Laplace operator, $\lambda$ is a real parameter, $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^n$, $n>2s$, is an open bounded set with continuous boundary and nonlinearity $f$ satisfies natural superlinear and subcritical growth assumptions. Precisely, along the paper we prove the existence of at least three non-trivial solutions for this problem in a suitable left neighborhood of any eigenvalue of $(-\Delta)^s$. At this purpose we employ a variational theorem of mixed type (one of the so-called $\nabla$-theorems).
address:
- 'Dipartimento PAU, Università ‘Mediterranea’ di Reggio Calabria, Via Melissari 24, 89124 Reggio Calabria, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Via Vanvitelli, 1 06123 Perugia, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Fondamenti (DiSBeF), Università degli Studi di Urbino ‘Carlo Bo’, Piazza della Repubblica, 13 61029 Urbino (Pesaro e Urbino) ITALY '
author:
- Giovanni Molica Bisci
- Dimitri Mugnai
- Raffaella Servadei
title: 'On multiple solutions for nonlocal fractional problems via $\nabla$-theorems'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec:introduzione}
============
Classical critical point theorems, like the Mountain Pass Theorem, the Linking Theorem or the Saddle Point Theorem (see [@ar; @puccirad; @rabinowitz; @struwe]), have been extensively used in order to construct non-trivial solutions for nonlocal equations of the type $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(-\Delta)^s u=f(x,u) & {\mbox{ in }} \Omega\\
u=0 & {\mbox{ in }} {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \Omega\,
\end{array} \right.$$ under different growth assumptions on $f$ (see, e.g., [@colorado; @barrioscoloradoservadei; @capella; @fiscella; @fsvBS; @molicaservadei; @sY; @sBNRES; @svmountain; @svlinking; @servadeivaldinociBN; @servadeivaldinociBNLOW; @servadeivaldinociCFP; @tan] and references therein, and [@cabretan] for a minimization procedure). Here, $s\in (0,1)$ is fixed and $(-\Delta)^s$ is the fractional Laplace operator, which (up to normalization factors) may be defined as $$\label{2}
-(-\Delta)^s u(x)=
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\frac{u(x+y)+u(x-y)-2u(x)}{|y|^{n+2s}}\,dy\,,
\,\,\,\,\, x\in {\mathbb R}^n\,.$$
The aim of this paper is to focus on the existence of multiple solutions for this kind of problems, in the case when $f$ is a superlinear and subcritical nonlinearity. Precisely, we will study the following problem: $$\label{problemaK}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal L_K u+\lambda u+f(x,u)=0 & {\mbox{ in }} \Omega\\
u=0 & {\mbox{ in }} {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \Omega.
\end{array} \right.$$ Here $s\in (0,1)$ is fixed, $n>2s$, $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ is an open bounded set with continuous boundary, and the non-local operator $\mathcal L_K$ is defined as $$\label{lk}
\mathcal L_Ku(x)=
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\Big(u(x+y)+u(x-y)-2u(x)\Big)K(y)\,dy\,,
\,\,\,\,\, x\in {\mathbb R}^n,$$ and $K:{\mathbb R}^n\setminus\{0\}\rightarrow(0,+\infty)$ is a function with the properties that $$\label{kernel}
{\mbox{$m K\in L^1({\mathbb R}^n)$, where $m(x)=\min \{|x|^2, 1\}$\,;}}$$ $$\label{kernelfrac}
\mbox{there exists}\,\, \theta>0\,\,
\mbox{such that}\,\, K(x)\geq \theta |x|^{-(n+2s)}\,\,
\mbox{for any}\,\, x\in {\mathbb R}^n \setminus\{0\}\,.\\$$ A model for $K$ is given by $K(x)=|x|^{-(n+2s)}$. In this case $\mathcal L_K$ is the fractional Laplace operator $-(-\Delta)^s$.
In the recent papers [@fiscellamolicaservadeiCFS; @152; @molicaMRL; @servadeiKavian] the multiplicity of solutions in the nonlocal fractional setting has been addressed by means of classical critical point theorems in the spirit of the ones cited above.
In [@marsac:sns] (see also [@MMu; @marsac]) Marino and Saccon introduced new critical point theorems, the so-called *theorems of mixed type*, or *$\nabla$-theorems*, which allow to get multiplicity results for semilinear elliptic problems (see, for instance, [@mms; @mug4; @mugnaiNODEA; @Mug; @mugpag; @OL; @fwang; @fwang2; @wzz]).
We think that a natural question is whether or not these techniques may be adapted to the fractional Laplacian setting. One can define a fractional power of the Laplacian using its spectral decomposition: indeed, in [@mugpag] the same problem considered along this paper, but for this spectral fractional Laplacian, has been considered. As in [@mugpag], the purpose of this paper is to investigate the existence of multiple weak solutions for .
A weak solution of is a solution of the following problem: $$\label{problemaKweak}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle \int_{{\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n } (u(x)-u(y))(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y))K(x-y) dx\,dy-\lambda \int_\Omega u(x)\varphi(x)\,dx}\\
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
{\displaystyle = \int_\Omega f(x,u(x))\varphi(x)dx}\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \forall\,\, \varphi \in X_0\\
\\
u\in X_0
\end{array}\right.$$ (for this see [@sv Lemma 5.6] and [@servadeivaldinociBN footnote 3]). Here $X_0$ is defined as follows: $X$ is the linear space of Lebesgue measurable functions from ${\mathbb R}^n$ to ${\mathbb R}$ such that the restriction to $\Omega$ of any function $g$ in $X$ belongs to $L^2(\Omega)$ and $$\mbox{the map}\,\,\,
(x,y)\mapsto (g(x)-g(y))\sqrt{K(x-y)}\,\,\, \mbox{is in}\,\,\,
L^2\big({\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n \setminus ({\mathcal C}\Omega\times
{\mathcal C}\Omega), dxdy\big)\,,$$ where ${\mathcal C}\Omega:={\mathbb R}^n \setminus\Omega$. Moreover, $$X_0=\{g\in X : g=0\,\, \mbox{a.e. in}\,\,
{\mathbb R}^n\setminus
\Omega\}\,.$$
As we said here above, we suppose that equation is superlinear and subcritical, that is its right-hand side $f:\Omega\times {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ verifies the following conditions: $$\label{caratheodory}
f\,\, \mbox{is a Carath\'eodory function};$$ $$\label{crescita}
\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{there exist}\,\, a_1, a_2>0\,\,\mbox{and}\,\, q\in (2, 2^*), 2^*=2n/(n-2s)\,,\,\, \mbox{such that}\\
&\qquad \qquad |f(x,t)|\le a_1+a_2|t|^{q-1}\,\, \mbox{a.e.}\,\, x\in \Omega, t\in {\mathbb R}\,;
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{a3a4}
\begin{aligned}
\mbox{there exist}\,\, & \mbox{two positive constants}\,\, a_3\,\,
\mbox{and}\,\, a_4\,\, \mbox{such that} \\
& F(x,t)\geq a_3|t|^q-a_4\,\, \mbox{a.e.}\,\, x\in \Omega, t\in {\mathbb R};
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{cond0}
{\displaystyle \lim_{|t|\to 0}\frac{f(x,t)}{|t|}=0}\,\, \mbox{uniformly in}\,\, x\in \Omega\,;$$ $$\label{mu0}
0<q F(x,t)\le tf(x,t)\,\,\mbox{a.e.}\,\, x\in \Omega, t\in {\mathbb R}\setminus\{0\},$$ where $q$ is given in and the function $F$ is the primitive of $f$ with respect to the second variable, that is $$\label{F}
{\displaystyle F(x,t):=\int_0^t f(x,\tau)d\tau}\,.$$
As a model for $f$ we can take the function $f(x,t)=a(x)|t|^{q-2}t$, with $a\in L^\infty(\Omega)$, $\inf_\Omega a>0$ and $q\in (2, 2^*)$. The exponent $2^*$ here plays the role of a fractional critical Sobolev exponent (see, e.g. [@valpal Theorem 6.5]).
As remarked in [@dmnodea2], condition is not a mere consequence of , and must be assumed [*a priori*]{}, unless $f:\bar \Omega \times {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ is continuous and holds for every $(x,t)\in \bar \Omega \times {\mathbb R}$.
The main result of the present paper can be stated as follows:
\[thmain\] Let $s\in (0,1)$, $n>2s$ and $\Omega$ be an open bounded subset of ${\mathbb R}^n$ with continuous boundary. Let $K:{\mathbb R}^n\setminus\{0\}\rightarrow(0,+\infty)$ be a function satisfying and and let $f:\Omega\times {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ be a function verifying –.
Then, for every eigenvalue $\lambda_k$ of $-\mathcal L_K$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary data, there exists a left neighborhood $\mathcal O_k$ of $\lambda_k$ such that problem admits at least three non-trivial weak solutions for all $\lambda\in \mathcal O_k$.
In the non-local framework, the simplest example we can deal with is given by the fractional Laplacian, according to the following result:
\[thlapfrac\] Let $s\in (0,1)$, $n>2s$ and $\Omega$ be an open bounded subset of ${\mathbb R}^n$ with continuous boundary. If $f:\Omega\times {\mathbb R}\to {\mathbb R}$ is a function verifying –, then the problem $$\label{problema}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(-\Delta)^s u-\lambda u=f(x,u) & {\mbox{ in }} \Omega\\
u=0 & {\mbox{ in }} {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \Omega
\end{array} \right.$$ admits at least three non-trivial weak solutions belonging to $H^s({\mathbb R}^n)$ in a suitable left neighborhood of any eigenvalue of $(-\Delta)^s$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary data.
When $s=1$, problem reduces to a standard semilinear Laplace equation: in this sense Theorem \[thlapfrac\] may be seen as the fractional version of the result in [@mugnaiNODEA Theorem 1].
We prove Theorem \[thmain\] employing variational and topological methods. Precisely, we apply a $\nabla$-theorem due to Marino and Saccon in [@marsac:sns], see Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\] below. The main difficulties in applying such a theorem are obviously related to the nonlocal nature of the problem.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:preliminary\] we collect the notation and some preliminary observations. In Section \[sec:compactness\] we discuss the compactness property of the Euler-Lagrange functional associated with the problem under consideration, while Section \[sec:geometry\] is devoted to its geometric structure. In Section \[sec:nablacondition\] we prove the $\nabla$-condition, which is one of the main ingredient of the critical point theorem we employ in order to get our multiplicity result. Finally, in Section \[sec:proofthmain\] we prove Theorem \[thmain\].
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminary}
=============
In this section we give some preliminary results.
Variational setting {#subsec:variational}
-------------------
First of all, we need some notations. In the sequel we endow the space $X_0$ with the norm defined as (see [@svmountain Lemma 6]) $$\label{norma}
\|g\|_{X_0}=\Big(\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n} |g(x)-g(y)|^2K(x-y)dx\,dy\Big)^{1/2},$$ which is obviously related to the so-called *Gagliardo norm* $$\label{gagliardonorm}
\|g\|_{H^s(\Omega)}=\|g\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+
\Big(\int_{\Omega\times
\Omega}\frac{\,\,\,|g(x)-g(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{n+2s}}\,dx\,dy\Big)^{1/2}$$ of the usual fractional Sobolev space $H^s(\Omega)$. For further details on the fractional Sobolev spaces we refer to [@adams; @valpal; @molicalibro] and to the references therein.
Problem has a variational structure: indeed, it is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the functional $\mathcal J_\lambda:X_0\to {\mathbb R}$ defined as $$\mathcal J_\lambda(u)=\frac 1 2 \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy-\frac \lambda 2 \int_\Omega |u(x)|^2\,dx-\int_\Omega F(x, u(x))dx\,.$$ Note that when functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ is Fréchet differentiable at $u\in X_0$, we have that for any $\varphi\in X_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathcal J'_\lambda(u), \varphi\rangle & = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n} \big(u(x)-u(y)\big)\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\big)K(x-y)\,dx\,dy-\lambda \int_\Omega u(x)\varphi(x)\,dx\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad -\int_\Omega f(x, u(x))\varphi(x)\,dx\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have denoted by $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ the duality between $X_0'$ and $X_0$. Thus, critical points of $\mathcal J_\lambda$ are solutions to problem . In order to find multiplicity of critical points, we will use the $\nabla$-theorem in the form of Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\] (see Section \[sec:proofthmain\]).
Estimates on the nonlinearity
-----------------------------
Here, we recall some estimates on the nonlinear term and its primitive, which will be useful in the sequel. These estimates are quite standard and do not take into account the non-local features of the problem. For a proof we refer to [@svmountain Lemma 3 and Lemma 4].
By assumptions , and we deduce that $$\label{cond22}
\begin{aligned}
& \mbox{for any}\,\, \varepsilon>0\,\, \mbox{there exists}\,\, C_{\varepsilon}>0\,\, \mbox{such that}\\
& \quad |f(x,t)|\leq 2\varepsilon |t|+qC_{\varepsilon} |t|^{q-1}\,\, \mbox{a.e.}\,\, x\in \Omega, t\in {\mathbb R}\end{aligned}$$ and so, as a consequence, $$\label{cond22F}
|F(x,t)|\leq \varepsilon\,|t|^2+C_{\varepsilon}\, |t|^{q}\,,$$ where $F$ is defined as in . This implies that functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ is Fréchet differentiable at any point $u\in X_0$.
An eigenvalue problem for $-\mathcal L_K$ {#subsec:eigenvalue}
-----------------------------------------
Along the present paper we consider the following eigenvalue problem associated to the integro-differential operator $-\mathcal L_K$: $$\label{problemaautovalori}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\mathcal L_K u=\lambda\, u & \mbox{in } \Omega\\
u=0 & \mbox{in } {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \Omega\,.
\end{array}\right.$$ We denote by $\big\{ \lambda_k\big\}_{{k\in{\mathbb N}}}$ the sequence of the eigenvalues of the problem , with $$\label{lambdacrescente}
0<\lambda_1<\lambda_2\le \dots \le \lambda_k\le \lambda_{k+1}\le \dots$$ $${\mbox{$\lambda_k\to +\infty$ as $ k\to +\infty\,,$}}$$ and by $e_k$ the eigenfunction corresponding to $\lambda_k$. Moreover, we normalize $\big\{e_k\big\}_{{k\in{\mathbb N}}}$ in such a way that this sequence provides an orthonormal basis of $L^2(\Omega)$ and an orthogonal basis of $X_0$. For a complete study of the spectrum of the integro-differential operator $-\mathcal L_K$ we refer to [@sY Proposition 2.3], [@svlinking Proposition 9 and Appendix A] and [@servadeivaldinociBNLOW Proposition 4]. In particular, we recall that all eigenfunctions are Hölder continuous up to the boundary of $\Omega$.
Finally, we say that eigenvalue $\lambda_k$, $k\geq 2$, has multiplicity $m\in {\mathbb N}$ if $$\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda_k=\dots =\lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}\,.$$ In this case the set of all the eigenvalues corresponding to $\lambda_k$ agrees with $$\mbox{span}\left\{e_k,\ldots,e_{k+m-1}\right\}\,.$$
In the following, for any $k\in {\mathbb N}$, we set $$\mathbb H_k=\mbox{span}\left\{e_{1},\ldots,e_k\right\}$$ and $$\mathbb P_k=
\left\{u\in X_{0}:\,\,\left\langle u,e_{j}\right\rangle_{X_{0}}=0\,\,\,\,\mbox{for any}\,\, j=1,\ldots,k \right\},$$ where $$\left\langle u,v\right\rangle_{X_{0}}:= \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n} \big(u(x)-u(y)\big)\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\big)K(x-y)\,dx\,dy$$ makes $X_0$ a Hilbert space, see [@svmountain Lemma 7]. In this way, the variational characterization of the eigenvalues (see [@svlinking Proposition 9]) implies that $$\label{poincarevincolata}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\geq \lambda_{k+1} \int_\Omega |u(x)|^2\,dx \ \mbox{ for all $u\in \mathbb P_k$},$$ while, using the orthogonality properties of the eigenvalues, a standard Fourier decomposition gives $$\label{antipoincare}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\leq \lambda_k \int_\Omega |u(x)|^2\,dx \ \mbox{ for all $u\in \mathbb H_k$}.$$
Gradient in $X_0$ {#secgrad}
-----------------
Being $X_0$ a Hilbert space and $\mathcal J_\lambda$ of class $C^1$, the gradient $\nabla \mathcal J_\lambda$ of $\mathcal J_\lambda$ is immediately defined as $$\label{gradJ}
\begin{aligned}
\langle \nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u),v\rangle_{X_0} :&=\langle \mathcal J'_\lambda(u), v\rangle\\
& =\langle u,v\rangle_{X_0}-\lambda \int_\Omega u(x)v(x)\,dx-\int_\Omega f(x,u(x))v(x)\,dx
\end{aligned}$$ for any $u,v\in X_0$.
Let $\nu \in [1, 2^*]$ and $\nu'$ be its conjugate, that is $1/\nu+1/\nu'=1$. Introducing the operator $\mathcal L_K^{-1}:L^{\nu'}(\Omega)\to X_0$, defined as $\mathcal L_K^{-1}g=v$ if and only if $v\in X_0$ solves $$\begin{cases}
\mathcal L_Kv=g(x) & \mbox{ in } \Omega,\\
v=0 & \mbox{ in } {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \Omega,
\end{cases}$$ it is readily seen that $$\label{grad}
\nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u)=u-\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\lambda u+f(x,u))$$ for all $u\in X_0$. Indeed, setting $w=\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\lambda u+f(x,u))$ and using the definitions of $\mathcal L_K$ and $\mathcal J_\lambda$, for any test function $\varphi\in X_0$ we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle w, \varphi \rangle_{X_0} & = \lambda \int_\Omega u(x)\varphi(x)\,dx +\int_\Omega f(x,u(x))\varphi(x)\,dx\\
& = - \langle \mathcal J_\lambda'(u), \varphi\rangle+\langle u, \varphi \rangle_{X_0}\\
& = -\langle \nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u),v\rangle_{X_0}+\langle u, \varphi \rangle_{X_0}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ that is $$w=-\nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u)+u\,,$$ which gives the assertion.
Moreover, we note that $\mathcal L_K^{-1}$ is a compact operator for all $\nu\in [1,2^*)$. Indeed, if $\{g_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$ is bounded in $L^{\nu'}(\Omega)$, standard calculations imply that $\left\{\mathcal L_K^{-1}g_n\right\}_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$ is relatively compact in $X_0$.
For further use, we also note that, again using the definition of $\mathcal L_K^{-1}$, $$\label{scarica}
\langle u, \mathcal L_K^{-1}v\rangle_{X_0}=\int_\Omega u(x)v(x)\,dx$$ for every $u,v\in X_0$.
Compactness condition {#sec:compactness}
=====================
In this section we check the validity of the *Palais–Smale condition* for functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ at any level, that is we prove that for each $c\in {\mathbb R}$ any Palais–Smale sequence for $\mathcal J_\lambda$ at level $c$ admits a subsequence which is strongly convergent in $X_0$. As usual, we say that $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}\subset X_0$ is a *Palais–Smale sequence* for $\mathcal J_\lambda$ at level $c\in {\mathbb R}$ if $$\label{Jc0}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)\to c$$ and $$\label{J'00}
\sup\Big\{ \big|\langle\,\mathcal J'_\lambda(u_j),\varphi\,\rangle \big|\,: \;
\varphi\in
X_0\,, \|\varphi\|_{X_0}=1\Big\}\to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
\[lemmaPS\] Let $\lambda>0$ and $f$ be a function satisfying conditions –.
Then, functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ satisfies the Palais–Smale condition at any level $c\in {\mathbb R}$.
Let $c\in {\mathbb R}$ and let $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ be a Palais–Smale sequence for $\mathcal J_\lambda$ at level $c$. First of all, let us prove that $$\label{ujlimitata}
\mbox{the sequence}\,\,\, \{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}} \,\,\, \mbox{is bounded in} \,\,\, X_0\,.$$ For this purpose, we note that by and for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ it easily follows that there exists $\kappa>0$ such that $$\Big|\langle \mathcal J'_\lambda(u_j), \frac{u_j}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\rangle\Big| \leq \kappa\,,$$ and $$|\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)|\leq \kappa\,,$$ so that, as a consequence of these two relations, we also have $$\label{kappaPS}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)-\frac 1 \mu \langle \mathcal J'_\lambda(u_j), u_j\rangle\leq \kappa \left(1+ \|u_j\|_{X_0}\right)\,,$$ where $\mu$ is a parameter such that $\mu\in (2, q)$.
Now, thanks to and we get $$\label{jj'0L}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)-\frac 1 \mu \langle \mathcal J_\lambda'(u_j), u_j\rangle & = \left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\Big(\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-\lambda \|u_j\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\Big)\\
& \qquad -\int_\Omega \Big(F(x, u_j(x))-\frac 1 \mu\, f(x, u_j(x)) \,u_j(x)\Big)\,dx\\
& \geq \left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\Big(\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-\lambda \|u_j\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\Big)\\
& \qquad +\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)\int_\Omega F(x, u_j(x))\,dx\\
& \geq \left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\Big(\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-\lambda \|u_j\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\Big)\\
& \qquad +a_3\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q-a_4\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)\,|\Omega|\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that for any $\varepsilon>0$ the Young inequality gives $$\label{youngPS}
\|u_j\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\leq \frac{2\varepsilon}{q}\,\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q+\frac{q-2}{q}\,\varepsilon^{-2/(q-2)}\,|\Omega|\,,$$ so that, by and , we obtain that $$\label{young2}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)-\frac 1 \mu \langle \mathcal J_\lambda'(u_j), u_j\rangle &
\geq \left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-\lambda\left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right) \frac{2\varepsilon}{q}\,\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q\\
& \qquad -\lambda\left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right) \frac{q-2}{q}\,\varepsilon^{-2/(q-2)}\,|\Omega|\\
& \qquad +a_3\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q-a_4\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)\,|\Omega|\\
& = \left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2\\
& \qquad +\Big[a_3\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)-\lambda\left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\frac{2\varepsilon}{q}\Big]\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q-C_\varepsilon\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_\varepsilon$ is a constant such that $C_\varepsilon\to +\infty$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$, being $q>\mu>2$.
Now, choosing $\varepsilon$ so small that $$a_3\left(\frac q \mu-1\right)-\lambda\left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\frac{2\varepsilon}{q}>0\,,$$ by we get $$\label{jj'20}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)-\frac 1 \mu \langle \mathcal J_\lambda'(u_j), u_j\rangle \geq \left(\frac 1 2 -\frac 1 \mu\right)\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-C_\varepsilon\,.$$
Finally, by and for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ $$\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2 \leq \kappa_*\left(1+\|u_j\|_{X_0}\right)$$ for a suitable positive constant $\kappa_*$. Hence, assertion is proved.
Now, let us finish the proof of the Palais–Smale condition for $\mathcal J_\lambda$. Since $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ is bounded in $X_0$ and $X_0$ is a reflexive space, up to a subsequence, still denoted by $u_j$, there exists $u_\infty \in X_0$ such that $$\label{convergenze0}
\begin{aligned}
& \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}\big(u_j(x)-u_j(y)\big)\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\big) K(x-y)\,dx\,dy \to \\
& \qquad \qquad
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}\big(u_\infty(x)-u_\infty(y)\big)\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\big)
K(x-y)\,dx\,dy \quad \mbox{for any}\,\, \varphi\in X_0\,,
\end{aligned}$$ while, by [@svmountain Lemma 8], up to a subsequence, $$\label{convergenze0bis}
\begin{aligned}
& u_j \to u_\infty \quad \mbox{in}\,\, L^\nu({\mathbb R}^n)\quad \mbox{for any}\,\,\nu\in [1, 2^*) \\
& u_j \to u_\infty \quad \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, {\mathbb R}^n
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Finally, by [@brezis Theorem IV.9] we know that for any $\nu\in [1, 2^*)$ there exists $\ell_\nu\in L^\nu({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $$\label{dominata20}
|u_j(x)|\leq \ell_\nu(x) \quad \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, {\mathbb R}^n\,\quad \mbox{for any}\,\,j\in {\mathbb N}\,.$$
By , , , the fact that the map $t\mapsto f(\cdot, t)$ is continuous in $t\in {\mathbb R}$ (see ) and the Dominated Convergence Theorem, we get $$\label{convf0}
\int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx \to \int_\Omega f(x, u_\infty(x))u_\infty(x)\,dx$$ and $$\label{convfu0}
\int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))u_\infty(x)\,dx \to \int_\Omega f(x, u_\infty(x))u_\infty(x)\,dx$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Furthermore, by and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
0\leftarrow \langle \mathcal J'_\lambda(u_j), u_j\rangle & = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u_j(x)-u_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy -\lambda \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^2\,dx\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad - \int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx
\end{aligned}$$ so that, by and we deduce that $$\label{convnorma10}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u_j(x)-u_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\to \lambda \int_\Omega |u_\infty(x)|^2\,dx+\int_\Omega f(x, u_\infty(x))u_\infty(x)\,dx$$ as $j\to +\infty$, while, by , (both with test function $\varphi=u_\infty$), and , we get $$\label{convnorma20}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u_\infty(x)-u_\infty(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy & = \lambda \int_\Omega |u_\infty(x)|^2\,dx\\
& \qquad \qquad +\int_\Omega f(x, u_\infty(x))u_\infty(x)\,dx\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, and give that $$\label{convnormaX00}
\|u_j\|_{X_0}\to \|u_\infty\|_{X_0}$$ as $j\to +\infty$. With this, it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_j-u_\infty\|_{X_0}^2 & = \|u_j\|_{X_0}^2 + \|u_\infty\|_{X_0}^2 -2 \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n} \big(u_j(x)-u_j(y)\big)\big(u_\infty(x)-u_\infty(y)\big) K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\\
& \to 2\|u_\infty\|_{X_0}^2-2\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u_\infty(x)-u_\infty(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy=0
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$, thanks to and . Then, the proof of Proposition \[lemmaPS\] is complete.
Geometry of the $\nabla$-theorem {#sec:geometry}
================================
In this section we check that functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ has the geometric structure required by the $\nabla$-theorem stated in Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\] (see Section \[sec:proofthmain\]). Precisely, we want to show that if there exist $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ such that $$\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$$ and $\lambda$ is sufficiently close to $\lambda_k$, then functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ agrees with the geometric framework of Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\], taking $$\begin{aligned}
& X_1:=\mathbb H_{k-1}\\
& X_2:=\mbox{span}\left\{e_k,\ldots,e_{k+m-1}\right\}\\
& X_3:=\mathbb P_{k+m-1}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
\[propgeometria\] Let $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ be such that $\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$ and let $f$ be a function satisfying conditions –.
Then, there exist $\rho, R$, with $R>\rho>0$, such that $${\displaystyle \sup_{\{u\in X_1, \|u\|_{X_0}\leq R\} \cup \{u\in X_1\oplus X_2 : \|u\|=R\}}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)<{\displaystyle \inf_{\{u\in X_2\oplus X_3 : \|u\|_{X_0}=\rho\}}\mathcal J_\lambda(u)}\,.$$
First of all, let us show that $$\label{infpositivo}
{\displaystyle \inf_{\{u\in X_2\oplus X_3 : \|u\|_{X_0}=\rho\}}\mathcal J_\lambda(u)}>0\,.$$ For this purpose, let $u$ be a function in $X_2 \oplus X_3=\mathbb P_{k-1}$. By , we get that for any $\varepsilon>0$ $$\label{infJfrac0}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u)& \geq \frac 1 2\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)dx\,dy-\frac \lambda 2\int_\Omega |u(x)|^2\,dx\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad -\varepsilon\int_\Omega |u(x)|^2dx - C_{\varepsilon}\int_\Omega |u(x)|^q\,dx\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by , we get that for any $u\in \mathbb P_{k-1}$ $$\lambda_k\,\int_\Omega |u(x)|^2\,dx \leq \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)dx\,dy\,,$$ so that this inequality and give $$\label{infJfrac0bis}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u)& \geq \frac 1 2\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_k}\right)\|u\|_{X_0}^2-\varepsilon\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2
-C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q \\
& \geq \frac 1 2\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_k}\right)\|u\|_{X_0}^2-\varepsilon|\Omega|^{(2^*-2)/2^*}
\|u\|_{L^{2^*}(\Omega)}^2 -|\Omega|^{(2^*-q)/2^*}C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{L^{2^*}(\Omega)}^q\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Here we used also the fact that $L^{2^*}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^\nu(\Omega)$ continuously, being $\Omega$ bounded and $\nu\in [2, 2^*)$ (here $\nu$ takes the values $2$ and $q$).
Using , and [@svmountain Lemma 6], we obtain that for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\label{infJfrac20}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u) & \geq \frac 1 2\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_k}\right)\|u\|_{X_0}^2-\varepsilon c|\Omega|^{(2^*-2)/2^*}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{n+2s}}\, dx\,dy \\
& \qquad -C_{\varepsilon}c^{q/2}|\Omega|^{(2^*-q)/2^*} \left( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n \times {\mathbb R}^n}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{n+2s}}\, dx\,dy\right)^{q/2}\\
& \ge \left[\frac 1 2\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_k}\right) -\frac{\varepsilon
c|\Omega|^{(2^*-2)/2^*}}{\theta}\right]\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n} |u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\\
& \qquad -\frac{C_{\varepsilon}c^{q/2}|\Omega|^{(2^*-q)/2^*}}{\theta} \left( \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n} |u(x)-u(y)|^2 K(x-y)\, dx\,dy\right)^{q/2}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a suitable universal positive constant.
Choosing $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$2\varepsilon c
|\Omega|^{(2^*-2)/2^*}<\theta\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_k}\right),$$ inequality reads as $$\mathcal J_\lambda(u) \geq \alpha \|u\|_{X_0}^2\left(1-\kappa
\|u\|_{X_0}^{q-2}\right)\,,$$ for suitable positive constants $\alpha$ and $\kappa$.
Now, let $\rho>0$ be sufficiently small, i.e. $\rho$ such that $1-\kappa\rho^{q-2}>0$. Then, for any $u\in \mathbb P_{k-1}$ such that $\|u\|_{X_0}=\rho$ we get that $$\mathcal J_\lambda(u)\geq \alpha \rho^2(1-\kappa \rho^{q-2})>0\,,$$ so that is proved.
Now, let us show that $$\label{supnegativo}
{\displaystyle \sup_{\{u\in X_1, \|u\|_{X_0}\leq R\} \cup \{u\in X_1\oplus X_2 : \|u\|=R\}}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)\leq 0\,.$$ First of all, let us take $u\in \mathbb H_{k-1}$. Then $$u(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}u_i e_i(x)\,,$$ with $u_i\in {\mathbb R}$, $i=1, \dots,
k-1$ and so, by and , we deduce that $$\label{J<01}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u) & \leq \frac{\lambda_{k-1}-\lambda}{2}\int_\Omega |u(x)|^2\,dx \leq 0\,,
\end{aligned}$$ since $\lambda_{k-1}< \lambda$.
Finally, let us consider $u\in X_1\oplus X_2=\mathbb H_k$. By we have $$\mathcal J_\lambda(u) \leq \frac 1 2\|u\|_{X_0}^2-a_3\|u\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q+a_4|\Omega|,$$ and the claim follows recalling that $q>2$ and that $\mathbb H_k$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of $X_0$. This and give .
Then, the assertion of Proposition \[propgeometria\] comes trivially from and .
$\nabla$-condition {#sec:nablacondition}
==================
One of the main ingredient of the $\nabla$-theorem (see [@marsac:sns Theorem 2.10]) we employ in order to get our multiplicity result is the so-called $\nabla$-condition introduced in [@marsac:sns Definition 2.4]. This section is devoted to the verification of this condition for functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$. For this purpose, in the sequel we denote by $$P_C:X_0\to C$$ the orthogonal projection of $X_0$ onto $C$.
Let $C$ be a closed subspace of $X_0$ and $a,b\in {\mathbb R}\cup\{-\infty, +\infty\}$. We say that functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ verifies condition $(\nabla)(\mathcal J_\lambda, C, a, b)$ if there exists $\gamma>0$ such that $$\inf\Big\{\|P_C \nabla \mathcal J_\lambda (u)\|_{X_0} : a\leq \mathcal J_\lambda(u)\leq b,\,\, dist (u, C)\leq \gamma\Big\}>0\,.$$
Roughly speaking, the condition $(\nabla)(\mathcal J_\lambda, C, a, b)$ requires that $\mathcal J_\lambda$ has no critical points $u\in C$ such that $a\leq \mathcal J_\lambda(u)\leq b$, with some uniformity. In order to prove this condition for $\mathcal J_\lambda$, we need two preliminary lemmas.
\[lemmanabla1\] Let $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ be such that $\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$ and let $f$ be a function satisfying conditions –.
Then, for any $\sigma>0$ there exists $\varepsilon_\sigma>0$ such that for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{k-1}+\sigma, \lambda_{k+m}-\sigma]$ the unique critical point $u$ of $\mathcal J_\lambda$ constrained on $\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}$ and with $\mathcal J_\lambda(u)\in [-\varepsilon_\sigma, \varepsilon_\sigma]$, is the trivial one.
We argue by contradiction and we suppose that there exists $\bar \sigma>0$, a sequence $\{\mu_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ in ${\mathbb R}$ with $$\label{lambdaj}
\mu_j\in [\lambda_{k-1}+\bar \sigma, \lambda_{k+m}-\bar \sigma]$$ and a sequence $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ such that $$\label{ujoplus}
u_j\in \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}\setminus\{0\}\,,$$ $$\label{ujvincolato}
\langle\,\mathcal J'_{\mu_j}(u_j),\varphi\,\rangle =0\qquad \mbox{for any}\,\, \varphi\in \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}\,,$$ for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$, and $$\label{ujvalorecritico}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j) & =\frac 1 2 \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u_j(x)-u_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy -\frac{\mu_j}{2} \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^2\,dx\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad- \int_\Omega F(x, u_j(x))\,dx\to 0
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Taking $\varphi=u_j$ in (this is possible thanks to ) and using , we get that for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
0 & =\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|u_j(x)-u_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy -\mu_j \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^2\,dx- \int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx\\
& = 2\mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j)+\int_\Omega \Big(2F(x, u_j(x))-f(x, u_j(x))u_j(x)\Big)\,dx\\
& \leq 2\mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j)+(2-q)\int_\Omega F(x, u_j(x))\,dx\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by this inequality, the fact that $q>2$ and again , we deduce that $$0<(q-2)\int_\Omega F(x, u_j(x))\,dx\leq 2\mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j)\to 0$$ thanks to , so that we get $$\label{Fujlimite}
\int_\Omega F(x, u_j(x))\,dx\to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Now, since holds true, for any $j\in{\mathbb N}$ there exist $v_j\in \mathbb H_{k-1}$ and $w_j\in\mathbb P_{k+m-1}$ such that $$u_j=v_j+w_j\,.$$ Letting $\varphi=v_j-w_j$ in and taking into account the orthogonality properties of $v_j$ and $w_j$, we have that for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ $$\label{split}
\begin{aligned}
0 & =\langle\mathcal J'_{\mu_j}(u_j), v_j-w_j\rangle\\
& = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|v_j(x)-v_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy- \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|w_j(x)-w_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\\
& \qquad \qquad -\mu_j \int_\Omega |v_j(x)|^2\,dx + \mu_j \int_\Omega |w_j(x)|^2\,dx- \int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))(v_j(x)-w_j(x))\,dx\,.
\end{aligned}$$ By and , gives that for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ $$\label{carvar2}
\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))(v_j(x)-w_j(x))\,dx & = \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|v_j(x)-v_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\\
& \qquad \qquad - \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}|w_j(x)-w_j(y)|^2 K(x-y)\,dx\,dy\\
& \qquad \qquad -\mu_j \int_\Omega |v_j(x)|^2\,dx + \mu_j \int_\Omega |w_j(x)|^2\,dx\\
& \leq \frac{\lambda_{k-1}-\mu_j}{\lambda_{k-1}}\|v_j\|_{X_0}^2+ \frac{\mu_j-\lambda_{k+m}}{\lambda_{k+m}}\|w_j\|_{X_0}^2\\
& \leq -\frac{\bar \sigma}{\lambda_{k-1}}\|v_j\|_{X_0}^2- \frac{\bar \sigma}{\lambda_{k+m}}\|w_j\|_{X_0}^2\\
&\leq -\frac{\bar \sigma}{\lambda_{k+m}}\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2\,,
\end{aligned}$$ thanks again to the properties of the projections $v_j$ and $w_j$ of $u_j$, respectively on $\mathbb H_{k-1}$ and on $\mathbb P_{k+m-1}$, and to .
On the other hand, by the Hölder inequality, and the fact that $X_0\hookrightarrow L^q(\Omega)$ compactly, there exists a suitable positive constant $\tilde\kappa$, independent of $j$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big|\int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))(v_j(x)-w_j(x))\,dx\Big| & \leq
\|f(\cdot, u_j(\cdot))\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}\, \|v_j-w_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}\\
& \leq \tilde\kappa \|f(\cdot, u_j(\cdot))\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}\, \|v_j-w_j\|_{X_0}\\
& = \tilde\kappa \|f(\cdot, u_j(\cdot))\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}\, \|u_j\|_{X_0}\,,\\
\end{aligned}$$ so that, by this and , we deduce that $$\tilde\kappa \|f(\cdot, u_j(\cdot))\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}\, \|u_j\|_{X_0}\geq \frac{\bar \sigma}{\lambda_{k+m}}\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2.$$ Being $u_j\not \equiv 0$ by assumption (see ), we get $$\label{f>}
\|f(\cdot, u_j(\cdot))\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}\geq \frac{\bar \sigma}{\tilde\kappa \lambda_{k+m}}\|u_j\|_{X_0}$$ for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$.
With the previous estimates, we are now ready to show that $$\label{ujboundednabla}
\mbox{the sequence}\,\, \{\|u_j\|_{X_0}\}_{j\in{\mathbb N}}\,\, \mbox{is bounded in}\,\, {\mathbb R}.$$ For this it is enough to use and , which yield for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ $$\label{fujnabla}
\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega |f(x, u_j(x))|^{q/(q-1)}\,dx & \leq \int_\Omega \left(a_1+a_2|u_j(x)|^{q-1}\right)^{q/(q-1)} \\
& \leq \tilde a_1 +\tilde a_2 \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^q\,dx\\
& \leq \tilde a_3 + \tilde a_4 \int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\,dx\,,
\end{aligned}$$ for suitable positive constants $\tilde a_i$, $i=1,\ldots, 4$. By , and we get assertion .
In view of and , we can assume that there exists $u_\infty\in \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}$ such that $$\label{convergenze0nabla}
\begin{aligned}
& \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}\big(u_j(x)-u_j(y)\big)\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\big) K(x-y)\,dx\,dy \to \\
& \qquad \qquad
\int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n}\big(u_\infty(x)-u_\infty(y)\big)\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\big)
K(x-y)\,dx\,dy \quad \mbox{for any}\,\, \varphi\in X_0\,,
\end{aligned}$$ while, by [@svmountain Lemma 8] and [@brezis Theorem IV.9], up to a subsequence, $$\label{convergenze0bisnabla}
\begin{aligned}
& u_j \to u_\infty \quad \mbox{in}\,\, L^q({\mathbb R}^n)\\
& u_j \to u_\infty \quad \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, {\mathbb R}^n
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$ and there exists $\ell\in L^q({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $$\label{dominata20nabla}
|u_j(x)|\leq \ell(x) \quad \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, {\mathbb R}^n\,\quad \mbox{for any}\,\,j\in {\mathbb N}\,.$$
Moreover, by and we get that for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $C_\varepsilon$ such that $$\label{assurdo1}
\begin{aligned}
0<\frac{\bar \sigma}{\tilde \kappa \lambda_{k+m}} & \leq \frac{\|f(\cdot, u_j(\cdot))\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\\
& \leq \frac{{\displaystyle \left(\int_\Omega \left(2\varepsilon |u_j(x)|+qC_{\varepsilon} |u_j(x)|^{q-1}\right)^{q/(q-1)}\,dx\right)^{(q-1)/q}}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\\
& \leq \frac{\left( 2^{1/(q-1)}\left((2\varepsilon)^{q/(q-1)}\|u_j\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}^{q/(q-1)}+
(qC_{\varepsilon})^{q/(q-1)}\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q\right)\right)^{(q-1)/q}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\\
& \leq \frac{2\varepsilon\|u_j\|_{L^{q/(q-1)}(\Omega)}+
qC_{\varepsilon}\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^{q-1}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\\
& \leq C\left(2\varepsilon+
qC_{\varepsilon}\|u_j\|_{X_0}^{q-2}\right)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ thanks to the continuous embedding $X_0\hookrightarrow L^\nu(\Omega)$ for any $\nu\in [1, 2^*)$, and for some universal positive constant $C$.
By , , , and the Dominated Convergence Theorem, it is easily seen that $$\label{Fdominata}
\int_\Omega F(x, u_j(x))\,dx \to \int_\Omega F(x, u_\infty(x))\,dx$$ and $$\label{fdominata}
\int_\Omega |f(x, u_j(x))|^{q/(q-1)}\,dx \to \int_\Omega |f(x, u_\infty(x))|^{q/(q-1)}\,dx$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Relation , combined with , the fact that $F(x,0)=0$ a.e. $x\in \Omega$, and , yields that $$\label{uinftynabla}
u_\infty \equiv 0\,.$$
Now, two cases can occur. If $$\label{uinfty0}
u_j \to u_\infty\equiv 0\qquad \mbox{strongly in}\,\, X_0$$ as $j\to +\infty$, then, by we get that $$0<\frac{\bar \sigma}{\tilde\kappa \lambda_{k+m}} \leq 2C\varepsilon\,,$$ which gives a contradiction, due to the fact that $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary. Otherwise, there exists $\eta>0$ such that $\|u_j\|_{X_0}\geq \eta$ for $j$ large enough. Then, by this, , , and the fact that $f(x,0)=0$ a.e. $x\in \Omega$ (by ), we get that $$\frac{\bar \sigma\eta}{\tilde\kappa \lambda_{k+m}}\leq 0\,,$$ which is a contradiction. This completes the proof of Lemma \[lemmanabla1\].
The second lemma we need in order to prove the $\nabla$-condition is the following one:
\[lemmanabla2\] Let $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ be such that $\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$, let $\lambda \in {\mathbb R}$ and $f$ be a function satisfying conditions –. Moreover, let $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ be a sequence in $X_0$ such that $$\label{condlemma1}
\{\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}\,\,\, \mbox{is bounded in}\,\,\, {\mathbb R}\,,$$ $$\label{condlemma2}
P_{\footnotesize{\rm{span}}\left\{e_k,\ldots,\,e_{k+m-1}\right\}} u_j\to 0\,\,\, \mbox{in}\,\,\, X_0$$ and $$\label{condlemma3}
P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}\nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)\to 0\,\,\, \mbox{in}\,\,\, X_0$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Then, $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ is bounded in $X_0$.
Assume by contradiction that $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ is unbounded in $X_0$; without loss of generality, we can assume that $$\label{ujtoinfty}
\|u_j\|_{X_0}\to +\infty$$ as $j\to +\infty$ and that there exists $u_\infty\in X_0$ such that $$\label{convnorm}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{u_j}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\rightharpoonup u_\infty\,\,\, \mbox{ in }X_0\\
& \frac{u_j}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}}\to u_\infty\,\,\, \mbox{ in }L^\nu(\Omega) \mbox{ for any $\nu\in[1,2^*)$}
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$ and for any $\nu\in[1,2^*)$ there exists $\ell_\nu\in L^\nu({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $$\label{dominata20nablaadd}
|u_j(x)|\leq \ell_\nu(x) \quad \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, {\mathbb R}^n\,\quad \mbox{for any}\,\,j\in {\mathbb N}\,.$$
Now, for simplicity, we set $P_{\footnotesize{\mbox{span}}\left\{e_k,\ldots,\,e_{k+m-1}\right\}}=:P$ and $P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}=:Q$, and write $$u_j=Pu_j+Qu_j\,,$$ where $Pu_j\to 0$ as $j\to\infty$ (see ). Recalling and , we have $$\label{add11}
\begin{aligned}
\langle Q\nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u_j),u_j\rangle_{X_0}&= \langle \nabla
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j),u_j\rangle_{X_0} - \langle P\nabla
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j),u_j\rangle_{X_0}\\
&=\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-\lambda \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^2\,dx
-\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))u_j(x)\, dx \\
&-\langle P\big(u_j-\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\lambda
u_j+f(x,u_j))\big), u_j\rangle_{X_0}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\langle Pu,v\rangle_{X_0}=\langle u,Pv\rangle_{X_0}$ for any $u,v\in X_0$, we have $$\label{add22}
\begin{aligned}
\langle P\big(u_j-\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\lambda
u_j+f(x,u_j))\big), u_j\rangle_{X_0} & =\|Pu_j\|^2_{X_0}-\lambda \langle Pu_j, \mathcal L_K^{-1}u_j\rangle_{X_0}\\
& \qquad -\langle Pu_j, \mathcal L_K^{-1}f(x,u_j)\rangle_{X_0},
\end{aligned}$$ while, by , we obtain $$\label{add33}
\begin{aligned}
\lambda \langle Pu_j, \mathcal L_K^{-1}u_j\rangle_{X_0}+\langle Pu_j, \mathcal L_K^{-1}f(x,u_j)\rangle_{X_0} & =\lambda \int_\Omega |Pu_j(x)|^2\,dx\\
& \qquad +\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)\,dx.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by -, we get $$\label{sec}
\begin{aligned}
\langle Q\nabla \mathcal J_\lambda(u_j),u_j\rangle_{X_0}& =2\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)+
2\int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\, dx -\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx\\
& \qquad -\|Pu_j\|_{X_0}^2 +\lambda \int_\Omega |Pu_j(x)|^2\, dx+\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)\,dx.
\end{aligned}$$
By – and we easily get that $$\label{Ffujto0}
\frac{\displaystyle{2\int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\, dx -\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx+\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)\,dx}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^q} \to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Now, let us show that $$\label{uinfty0}
u_\infty\equiv 0\,.$$ For this purpose, we firstly claim that $$\label{add44}
\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega
f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)\,dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^q} \to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Indeed, by and , we have that a.e. $x\in \Omega$ $$\begin{aligned}
|f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)| & \leq \|Pu_j\|_\infty\big(a_1+a_2|u_j(x)|^{q-1}\big)\\
&\leq \|Pu_j\|_\infty\big(a_1+a_2|\ell_q(x)|^{q-1}\big)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ while, by and the fact that all norms in $\mathbb H_{k+m-1}$ are equivalent, $$\|Pu_j\|_\infty\to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Note that $Pu_j\in L^\infty(\Omega)$, since all eigenfunctions of $\mathcal L_K$ are bounded (see [@sY Proposition 2.4]). Hence, holds.
By this and we obtain that $$0\leftarrow \frac{\displaystyle{2\int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\, dx -\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^q} \leq \frac{\displaystyle{(2-q)\int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\, dx}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^q}\leq 0\,,$$ as $j\to +\infty$, also thanks to . Hence, $$\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\,
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^q}\to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
As a consequence of this, and we have that $$\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^q\,
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^q}\to 0,$$ as $j\to +\infty$, which yields , thanks to .
Now, by and , we get $$\frac{\mathcal J_\lambda(u_j)}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}=\frac 1 2-\frac \lambda 2\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^2\,
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}-\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\,
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}\to 0,$$ which, together with (here with $\nu=2$) and , implies that $$\label{F2}
\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\,
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}\to \frac 1 2$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Hence, as a consequence of , and , there exists $C>0$ such that $$\label{q2}
\|u_j\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^q\leq C\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2 \mbox{ for every $j\in {\mathbb N}$}.$$
Now, let us show that $$\label{fPnorma2}
\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)\,dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}\to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Indeed, by and the Hölder inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\displaystyle \int_\Omega |f(x,u_j(x))Pu_j(x)|\,
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2} & \leq
\frac{\|Pu_j\|_\infty}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}\left(a_1|\Omega|+a_2\int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^{q-1}\,
dx\right)\\
& \leq \|Pu_j\|_\infty
\left[\frac{a_1|\Omega|}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}+\frac{a_2'}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^{2/q}}
\left(\frac{\displaystyle\int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^q
dx}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}\right)^{1-1/q}\right]\\
& \leq \|Pu_j\|_\infty
\left[\frac{a_1|\Omega|}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2}+\frac{a_2'C^{1-1/q}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^{2/q}}\right]\,,
\end{aligned}$$ thanks to . Thus, follows from this, and .
Finally, dividing both sides of by $\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2$, using – and we get $$\frac{\displaystyle{2\int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\, dx -\int_\Omega f(x,u_j(x))u_j(x)\,dx}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2} \to 0\,,$$ which, arguing as above, yields $$\frac{\displaystyle{2\int_\Omega F(x,u_j(x))\, dx}}{\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2} \to 0\,,$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Of course, this is in contradiction with . The proof of Lemma \[lemmanabla2\] is complete.
As a consequence of Lemma \[lemmanabla1\] and Lemma \[lemmanabla2\], we get the following result on the validity of the $\nabla$-condition for $\mathcal J_\lambda$.
\[propnabla\] Let $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ be such that $\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$ and let $f$ be a function satisfying conditions –.
Then, for any $\sigma>0$ there exists $\varepsilon_\sigma>0$ such that for any $\lambda\in [\lambda_{k-1}+\sigma, \lambda_{k+m}-\sigma]$ and for any $\varepsilon', \varepsilon''\in (0, \varepsilon_\sigma)$, with $\varepsilon'<\varepsilon''$, functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ satisfies the $(\nabla)(\mathcal J_\lambda, \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}, \varepsilon', \varepsilon'')$ condition.
Assume by contradiction that there exists $\sigma>0$ such that for every ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ there exist $\bar \lambda\in [\lambda_{k-1}+\sigma,\lambda_{k+m}-\sigma]$ and ${\varepsilon}'<{\varepsilon}''$ in $(0,{\varepsilon}_0)$ such that $$\label{notnabla}
(\nabla)(\mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}, \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}, \varepsilon', \varepsilon'')\,\,\, \mbox{does not hold}.$$ Associated to such a $\sigma$, take ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ as provided by Lemma \[lemmanabla1\].
By we can find a sequence $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ in $X_0$ such that $$\label{ujadd}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}(u_j)\in [{\varepsilon}',{\varepsilon}'']\,\,\, \mbox{for all}\,\, j\in {\mathbb N}\,,\\
& dist(u_j,\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1})\to 0\\
& P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}\nabla \mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}(u_j)\to 0\,\,\, \mbox{in}\,\, X_0
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
By Lemma \[lemmanabla2\] we know that $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ is bounded in $X_0$, and so we can assume that for some $u_\infty\in X_0$ $$\label{convujadd}
\begin{aligned}
& u_j\rightharpoonup u_\infty\,\,\, \mbox{in}\,\, X_0\\
& u_j\to u_\infty\,\,\, \mbox{in}\,\, L^\nu(\Omega)\,\,\, \mbox{for any}\,\, \nu\in[1, 2^*)\\
& u_j\to u_\infty\,\,\, \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, \Omega
\end{aligned}$$ as $j\to +\infty$ and for any $\nu\in [1, 2^*)$ there exists $\ell_\nu\in L^\nu({\mathbb R}^n)$ such that $$\label{dominata20addbis}
|u_j(x)|\leq \ell_\nu(x) \quad \mbox{a.e. in}\,\, {\mathbb R}^n\,\quad \mbox{for any}\,\,j\in {\mathbb N}\,.$$
Now, note that by we can write $$\label{add55}
\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}} \nabla \mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}(u_j) & =u_j
-P_{\footnotesize{\mbox{span}}\left\{e_k,\ldots,\,e_{k+m-1}\right\}}u_j\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad -P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\bar\lambda u_j+f(x,u_j)).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, recalling that $\mathcal L_K^{-1}:L^{q'}(\Omega)\to X_0$ is a compact operator (see Section \[secgrad\]), and that $f(x,u_j)\to f(x,u_\infty)$ in $L^{q'}(\Omega)$ by - and , we get that $$P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\bar \lambda
u_j+f(x,u_j))\to P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\bar \lambda
u_\infty+f(x,u_\infty))$$ as $j\to +\infty$ and so, taking into account , and , we deduce that $$\label{ujforte}
u_j\to P_{\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}}\mathcal L_K^{-1}(\bar \lambda
u_\infty+f(x,u_\infty))=:u_\infty\,\,\, \mbox{in}\,\, X_0$$ as $j\to +\infty$.
Furthermore, again by we have that $$\langle \nabla \mathcal J_{\bar \lambda}(u_j), \varphi \rangle_{X_0} \to 0\,\,\, \mbox{for any}\,\, \varphi \in \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}\,,$$ that is, taking into account , $$\label{ujcritico}
\langle \mathcal J'_{\bar\lambda}(u_j), \varphi\rangle= \langle u_j, \varphi\rangle_{X_0}
-\lambda \int_\Omega u_j(x)\varphi(x)\,dx-\int_\Omega f(x, u_j(x))\varphi(x)\,dx \to 0$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Thus, by , , and , we obtain that $$\langle \mathcal J'_{\bar\lambda}(u_\infty), \varphi\rangle= \langle u_\infty, \varphi\rangle_{X_0}
-\lambda \int_\Omega u_\infty(x)\varphi(x)\,dx-\int_\Omega f(x, u_\infty(x))\varphi(x)\,dx$$ for any $\varphi \in \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}$, i.e. $u_\infty$ is a critical point of $\mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}$ constrained on $\mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}$.
Hence, Lemma \[lemmanabla1\] yields that $u_\infty\equiv 0$. However, $0<{\varepsilon}'\leq \mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}(u_j)$ for every $j\in {\mathbb N}$, so that, by continuity of $\mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}$, we find $\mathcal J_{\bar\lambda}(u_\infty)>0$, which is absurd. This completes the proof of Proposition \[propnabla\].
Proof of main theorem {#sec:proofthmain}
=====================
This section is devoted to the proof of main result of the paper, concerning the existence of multiple solutions for problem . In order to get this result we apply the following abstract critical point theorem ([@marsac:sns Theorem 2.10]):
\[thmarinosaccon\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space and $X_1, X_2, X_3$ be three subspaces of $H$ such that $H=X_1\oplus X_2 \oplus X_3$ with $0<\mbox{dim}\,X_i<\infty$ for $i=1,2$. Let $\mathcal I:H\to {\mathbb R}$ be a $C^{1,1}$ functional. Let $\rho, \rho', \rho'', \rho_1$ be such that $0<\rho_1$, $0\leq \rho'<\rho<\rho''$ and $$\Delta=\{u\in X_1\oplus X_2 : \rho'\leq \|P_2u\|\leq \rho'', \|P_1u\|\leq \rho_1\}\,\,\, \mbox{and}\,\,\,T=\partial_{X_1\oplus X_2}\Delta\,,$$ where $P_i:H\to X_i$ is the orthogonal projection of $H$ onto $X_i$, $i=1,2$, and $$S_{23}(\rho)=\{u\in X_2\oplus X_3 : \|u\|=\rho\}\,\,\, \mbox{and}\,\,\,B_{23}(\rho)=\{u\in X_2\oplus X_3 : \|u\|<\rho\}\,.$$ Assume that $$a'=\sup \mathcal I(T)<\inf \mathcal I(S_{23}(\rho))=a''\,.$$ Let $a,b$ be such that $a'<a<a''$, $b>\sup \mathcal I(\Delta)$ and $$\mbox{the assumption}\,\,\, (\nabla)(\mathcal I, X_1\oplus X_3, a, b)\,\,\, \mbox{holds};$$ $$\mbox{the Palais--Smale condition holds at any level}\,\,\, c\in [a,b]\,.$$ Then, $\mathcal I$ has at least two critical points in $\mathcal I^{-1}([a,b])$.
If, furthermore, $$a_1<\inf \mathcal I(B_{23}(\rho))>-\infty$$ and the Palais–Smale condition holds at every $c\in [a_1, b]$, then $\mathcal I$ has another critical level between $a_1$ and $a'$.
First of all, we need the following result:
\[limite\] Let $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ be such that $\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$ and let $f$ satisfy –.
Then, the following relation is verified: $$\lim_{\lambda \to \lambda_k}\sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)=0.$$
First of all, note that $\mathcal J_\lambda$ attains a maximum in $\mathbb H_{k+m-1}$ by .
Now, assume by contradiction that there exist $\{\mu_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$, such that $$\label{muj}
\mu_j\to \lambda_k$$ as $j\to +\infty$, $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ in $\mathbb H_{k+m-1}$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that for any $j\in {\mathbb N}$ $$\label{sup}
\mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j)=\sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_{\mu_j} (u)\geq {\varepsilon}.$$
If $\{u_j\}_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ is bounded in $X_0$, we can assume that $u_j\to u_\infty$ in $X_0$ as $j\to +\infty$ for some $u_\infty \in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}$. Then, by , and the fact that $\mathbb H_{k+m-1}$ is finite-dimensional, we have that $$\mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j)\to \mathcal J_{\lambda_k}(u_\infty)$$ as $j\to +\infty$, and so by , and , we immediately get $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}\leq \mathcal J_{\lambda_k}(u_\infty) & =\frac{1}{2}\|u_\infty\|_{X_0}^2-\frac{\lambda_k}{2}\int_\Omega
|u_\infty(x)|^2\, dx -\int_\Omega F(x,u_\infty(x))\, dx\\
& \leq \frac 1 2 (\lambda_{k+m-1}-\lambda_k)\int_\Omega
|u_\infty(x)|^2\, dx -\int_\Omega F(x,u_\infty(x))\, dx\leq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ and a contradiction arises.
Otherwise, if $\{u_j\}_{j\in{\mathbb N}}$ is unbounded in $X_0$, we can suppose that $$\label{ujadd66}
\|u_j\|_{X_0}\to +\infty$$ as $j\to +\infty$. Therefore, and imply $$0<{\varepsilon}\leq \mathcal J_{\mu_j}(u_j)\leq \frac{1}{2}\|u_j\|_{X_0}^2-
\frac{\mu_j}{2}\int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^2\, dx-a_3\int_\Omega |u_j(x)|^q dx+a_4|\Omega|.$$ But all norms are equivalent in $\mathbb H_{k+m-1}$, so that the right hand side of the previous inequality tends to $-\infty$ as $j\to +\infty$, since $q>2$ by assumption, and holds true. Hence, a contradiction arises as well.
Now, we can prove our multiplicity result for problem . The idea consists in applying Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\] to $\mathcal J_\lambda$, in connection with a classical Linking Theorem (see [@rabinowitz Theorem 5.3]). First we prove:
\[2soluzioni\] Let $k$ and $m$ in ${\mathbb N}$ be such that $\lambda_{k-1}<\lambda<\lambda_k=\dots = \lambda_{k+m-1}<\lambda_{k+m}$ and let $f$ satisfy –.
Then, there exists a left neighborhood $\mathcal O_k$ of $\lambda_k$ such that for all $\lambda \in \mathcal O_k$, problem has two nontrivial solutions $u_i$ such that $$0<\mathcal J_\lambda(u_i)\leq \sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)$$ for $i=1,2$.
The strategy consists in applying Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\] to the functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$. For this purpose, fix $\sigma>0$ and find ${\varepsilon}_\sigma$ as in Proposition \[propnabla\]. Then, for all $\lambda\in [\lambda_{k-1}+\sigma, \lambda_{k+m}-\sigma]$ and for every ${\varepsilon}',{\varepsilon}''\in(0,{\varepsilon}_\sigma)$, functional $\mathcal J_\lambda$ satisfies the $(\nabla)(\mathcal J_\lambda, \mathbb H_{k-1}\oplus \mathbb P_{k+m-1}, \varepsilon', \varepsilon'')$ condition.
By Lemma \[limite\] there exists $\sigma_1\leq
\sigma$ such that, if $\lambda \in (\lambda_k-\sigma_1,\lambda_k)$, then $$\label{epsilonsup}
\sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)<{\varepsilon}''\,.$$ Moreover, since $\lambda<\lambda_k$, Proposition \[propgeometria\] holds true. Also, $\mathcal J_\lambda$ satisfies the Palais–Smale condition at any level, by Proposition \[lemmaPS\].
Then, by Theorem \[thmarinosaccon\], there exist two critical points $u_1,u_2$ of $\mathcal J_\lambda$ with $$\label{epsilon}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_i)\in [{\varepsilon}',{\varepsilon}'']\,,$$ $i=1,2$. In particular $u_1$ and $u_2$ are non-trivial solutions of problem such that $$0<\mathcal J_\lambda(u_i)\leq \sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)\,\,\,\,\, i=1,2\,,$$ since $\varepsilon''$ is arbitrary in and , and this ends the proof of Proposition \[2soluzioni\].
We are now ready to conclude with the
By the classical Linking Theorem (see [@rabinowitz Theorem 5.3]), for any $\lambda\in (\lambda_{k-1}, \lambda_k)$ one can prove the existence of a solution $u_3$ of problem with $$\label{stimasup}
\mathcal J_\lambda(u_3)\geq \inf_{u\in \mathbb P_{k-1},\, \|u\|=\varrho} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)\geq \beta,$$ for suitable $\varrho>0$ and $\beta>0$, see [@svlinking].
By Lemma \[limite\], we can choose $\lambda$ so close to $\lambda_k$ that $$\label{confr}
\sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_\lambda (u)< \inf_{u\in \mathbb P_{k-1},\, \|u\|=\varrho} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)\,.$$
Hence, inequalities , and Proposition \[2soluzioni\] immediately imply that $$\mathcal J_\lambda(u_i)\leq \sup_{u\in \mathbb H_{k+m-1}} \mathcal J_\lambda(u)<\mathcal J_\lambda(u_3)$$ and so $u_3\neq u_i,$ $i=1,2$. The proof of Theorem \[thmain\] is complete.
[99]{}
, [*Sobolev Spaces*]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1975.
, [*Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications*]{}, J. Funct. Anal., [**1**]{} (1973), 4, 349–381.
, [*On some critical problems for the fractional Laplacian operator*]{}, J. Differential Equations, [**252**]{} (2012), 6133–6162.
, [*A critical fractional equation with concave-convex power nonlinearities*]{}, to appear in Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire.
, Analyse fonctionelle. Théorie et applications, [*Masson*]{}, Paris (1983).
, [*Positive solutions of nonlinear problems involving the square root of the Laplacian*]{}, Adv. Math., [**224**]{} (2010), 2052–2093.
, [*Solutions of a pure critical exponent problem involving the half-Laplacian in annular-shaped domains*]{}, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal., [**10**]{} (2011), 1645–1662.
, [*Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces*]{}, Bull. Sci. Math., [**136**]{} (2012), 521–573.
, [*Saddle point solutions for non-local elliptic operators*]{}, preprint (2012).
, [*Bifurcation and multiplicity results for critical nonlocal fractional Laplacian problems*]{}, preprint, 2014, available at [http://www.math.utexas.edu/mp$\_$arc-bin/mpa?yn=14-43]{}.
, [*Asymptotically linear problems driven by the fractional Laplacian operator*]{}, to appear in Math. Methods Appl. Sci.
, *Multiplicity of solutions for semilinear variational inequalities via linking and $\nabla-$theorems*, J. Differential Equations [**228**]{} (2006), 191–225.
, *Asymptotical multiplicity and some reversed variational inequalities*, Top. Meth. Nonlin. Anal., [**20**]{} (2002), 43–62.
, *Some variational theorems of mixed type and elliptic problems with jumping nonlinearities*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci., (4) [**25**]{} (1997), 631–665.
, *Nabla theorems and multiple solutions for some noncooperative elliptic systems*, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal., [**17**]{} (2001), 213–237.
, *Sequence of weak solutions for fractional equations*, Math. Res. Lett., [**21**]{} (2014), 241–253.
, *Three weak solutions for nonlocal fractional equations*, Adv. Nonlinear Stud., [**14**]{} (2014), 591–601.
, *Variational Methods for Nonlocal Fractional Problems*, Cambridge University Press, pp.350, to appear.
, *A bifurcation result for non-local fractional equations*, Anal. Appl., [**13**]{} (2015), no. 4, 371–394.
, *Addendum to: Multiplicity of critical points in presence of a linking: application to a superlinear boundary value problem, NoDEA. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 11 (2004), no. 3, 379–391, and a comment on the generalized Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition*, Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl., [**19**]{} (2012), 299–301.
, *Four nontrivial solutions for subcritical exponential equations*, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, [**32**]{} (2008), 481–497.
, *Multiplicity of critical points in presence of a linking: application to a superlinear boundary value problem*, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., [**11**]{} (2004), 379–391.
, *On a reversed variational inequality*, Top. Meth. Nonlin. Anal., [**17**]{}(2001), 321–358 .
, *Existence and multiplicity results for the fractional Laplacian in bounded domains*, Adv. Calc. Var., to appear.
, *Existence of three nontrivial solutions for a class of superlinear elliptic equations*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**390**]{} (2012), 418–426.
, [*The impact of the mountain pass theory in nonlinear analysis: a mathematical survey*]{}, [Boll. Unione Mat. Ital.]{} Series IX, [**3**]{} (2010), 543–584.
, Minimax methods in critical point theory with applications to differential equations, [*CBMS Reg. Conf. Ser. Math.*]{} [**65**]{}, [*American Mathematical Society*]{}, Providence, RI (1986).
, [*The Yamabe equation in a non-local setting*]{}, Adv. Nonlinear Anal., [**2**]{} (2013), 235–270.
, [*Infinitely many solutions for fractional Laplace equations with subcritical nonlinearity*]{}, Contemp. Math., [**595**]{} (2013), 317–340.
, [*A critical fractional Laplace equation in the resonant case*]{}, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal., [**43**]{}, (2014), no. 1, 251–267.
, [*Lewy-Stampacchia type estimates for variational inequalities driven by (non)local operators*]{}, Rev. Mat. Iberoam., [**29**]{} (2013), 1091–1126.
, [*Mountain Pass solutions for non-local elliptic operators*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**389**]{} (2012), 887–898.
, [*Variational methods for non-local operators of elliptic type*]{}, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., [**33**]{} (2013), 2105–2137.
, [*The Brezis-Nirenberg result for the fractional Laplacian*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., [**367**]{} (2015), 67–102.
, [*A Brezis-Nirenberg result for non-local critical equations in low dimension*]{}, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal., [**12**]{} (2013), 2445–2464.
, [*Fractional Laplacian equations with critical Sobolev exponent*]{}, to appear in Rev. Mat. Complut.
, Variational methods, Applications to nonlinear partial differential equations and Hamiltonian systems, [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete*]{} 3, [*Springer Verlag*]{}, Berlin–Heidelberg (1990).
, [*The Brezis-Nirenberg type problem involving the square root of the Laplacian*]{}, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, [**36**]{} (2011), 21–41.
, *Multiple solutions for some nonlinear Schrödinger equations with indefinite linear part*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**331**]{} (2007), 1001–1022.
, *Multiple solutions for some Schrödinger equations with convex and critical nonlinearities in ${\mathbb R}^N$*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., [**342**]{} (2008), 255–276.
, *Multiplicity of solutions for a class of fourth elliptic equations*, Nonlinear Anal., [**70**]{} (2009), 4377–4385.
[^1]: The first and the third author were supported by the INdAM-GNAMPA Project 2015 [*Modelli ed equazioni non-local di tipo frazionario*]{}. The second author is a member of GNAMPA and is supported by the MIUR National Research Project [*Variational and perturbative aspects of nonlinear differential problems*]{}. The third author was supported by the MIUR National Research Project [*Variational and Topological Methods in the Study of Nonlinear Phenomena*]{} and by the ERC grant $\epsilon$ ([*Elliptic Pde’s and Symmetry of Interfaces and Layers for Odd Nonlinearities*]{}).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, the issue of model uncertainty in safety-critical control is addressed with a data-driven approach. For this purpose, we utilize the structure of an input-ouput linearization controller based on a nominal model along with a Control Barrier Function and Control Lyapunov Function based Quadratic Program (CBF-CLF-QP). Specifically, we propose a novel reinforcement learning framework which learns the model uncertainty present in the CBF and CLF constraints, as well as other control-affine dynamic constraints in the quadratic program. The trained policy is combined with the nominal model-based CBF-CLF-QP, resulting in the *Reinforcement Learning-based CBF-CLF-QP (RL-CBF-CLF-QP)*, which addresses the problem of model uncertainty in the safety constraints. The performance of the proposed method is validated by testing it on an underactuated nonlinear bipedal robot walking on randomly spaced stepping stones with one step preview, obtaining stable and safe walking under model uncertainty.'
author:
- '[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Reinforcement Learning for Safety-Critical Control under Model Uncertainty, using Control Lyapunov Functions and Control Barrier Functions'
---
Introduction
============
In this work, we address the issue of model uncertainty in safety-critical control using a data-driven machine learning approach. Our goal is to benefit from the recent successes of learning-based control in highly uncertain dynamical systems, such as in @hwangbo2019learning and @levine, yet to also account for safety in a formal way. We seek to combine the benefits of these data-driven approaches with the benefits of classical model-based control methods which have theoretical guarantees on stability and safety. Towards this end, we use Control Lyapunov Function- and Control Barrier Function-based controllers designed on nominal systems that are then trained through reinforcement learning (RL) to work on systems with uncertainty.
Related Work
------------
In the field of controls, Control Lyapunov Function (CLF)-based and Control Barrier Function (CBF)-based control methods have been shown to be successful for safety-critical control. @7079382 and @ames2013towards have shown that CLF-based quadratic programs (CLF-QP) with constraints can be solved online in order to perform locomotion and manipulation tasks. In @ames2014cbf, CBFs are incorporated with the CLF-QP, namely CBF-CLF-QP, to handle safety constraints effectively in real time.
These CLF-based and CBF-based methods heavily rely on accurate knowledge of the system model. When the model is uncertain, we must consider adaptive or robust versions. In @nguyen2015L1, an $L_1$ adaptive controller is incorporated with the CLF-QP in order to adapt to model uncertainty, and is shown to work effectively for bipedal walking. In @nguyen2016optimal, a robust version of the CBF-CLF-QP is proposed, that solves the quadratic program for the worst case effect of model uncertainty. While these methods can tackle model uncertainty to some degree, they may often fail to account for the correct magnitudes of adaptation and uncertainty.
Recently, several methods addressing the issue of model uncertainty in the control problem using a data-driven approach have been proposed. @westenbroek2019feedback proposes an RL-based method to learn the model uncertainty compensation for input-output linearization control. In @castaneda2020 the former method is extended to underactuated bipedal walking on a flat terrain. @taylor2019episodic and @taylor2019learning each addresses how to learn the uncertainty in CLF and CBF constraints respectively, using empirical risk minimization. Our methodologies most closely align with these works in that we are also using learning methods to reduce model uncertainty explicitly in input-output linearization, CLF, and CBF-based control. However, the main novelty in our approach is that we have devised a unified RL-based framework for learning model uncertainty in CLF, CBF, and other dynamic control-affine constraints altogether in a single learning process. In addition to the aforementioned papers, there are also a few approaches [@bansal2017aDOBO; @NIPS2017_6692; @fisac] that learn model uncertainty through probabilistic models such as Gaussian Processes. Although these approaches allow for an insightful analysis of the learned model or policy, they can scale poorly with state dimension.
{width="17cm"}
Contributions
-------------
In this paper, we present a novel RL-based framework which combines two key components: 1) an RL agent which learns model uncertainty in multiple general dynamic constraints including CLF and CBF constraints through training, and 2) a quadratic program that solves for the control that satisfies the safety constraints under the learned model uncertainty. We name this framework **Reinforcement Learning-based Control Barrier Function and Control Lyapunov Function Quadratic Program (RL-CBF-CLF-QP)**. After training, the RL-CBF-CLF-QP can be executed online with fast computation. The overall diagram of our framework is presented in Fig. \[fig:Main\]. Here is the summary of the contribution of our work:
1. We present an RL framework that learns model uncertainty for CLF, CBF and other control-affine dynamic constraints in a single learning process.
2. We generalize our method to high relative-degree outputs and Control Barrier Functions.
3. Our method can learn the uncertainty in the dynamics of parameterized CBFs that are not only state-dependent but also dependent on other parameters.
4. We numerically validate our method on an underactuated nonlinear hybrid system: a bipedal robot walking on stepping stones with significant model uncertainty.
Organization
------------
In Section \[sec:background\], we briefly explain the necessary background for the paper. In Section \[Sec-CLF-QP\], we discuss how we can learn model uncertainty in the CLF constraint for CLF-QP through RL. In Section \[sec:RL-CBF\], we expand this method to learn uncertainties in the CBF and general control-affine dynamic constraints, and propose the RL-CBF-CLF-QP. In Section \[SectionRL\], we discuss how the RL agent can learn aforementioned uncertainties. In Sections \[sec:application\] and \[sec:results\], we explain the results of the demonstration of RL-CBF-CLF-QP for a bipedal robot. Finally, we discuss limitations of our method in Section \[sec:discussion\] and give concluding remarks in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Input-Output Linearization
--------------------------
Consider a control affine nonlinear system $$\label{system}
\begin{aligned}
&\dot{x}=f(x)+g(x)u,\\
&y=h(x),
\end{aligned}$$ where $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the system state, $u \in \mathbb{R}^m$ the control input and $y \in \mathbb{R}^m$ the output of the system, assuming there are the same number of input and output variables. We also make the standard assumption that $f$ and $g$ are Lipschitz continuous. Then, if the vector relative degree of the outputs is *r*, we have
$$y^{(r)}=L_{f}^{r} h(x)+L_{g} L_{f}^{r-1} h(x) u, \label{eq:2}$$
where the functions $L_{f}^{r}h$ and $L_{g}L^{r-1}_fh$ are known as $r^{th}$ order Lie derivatives [@lie]. Here, $y^{(r)}$ is the vector of $r^{th}$ derivatives of each output in $y$, and indicates that no input in $u$ appears at lower than the $r^{th}$ derivative of each output. If the $m\times m$ matrix $L_{g}L^{r-1}_fh(x)$ is nonsingular $\forall$ $x\in D$, with $D\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ being a compact subset containing the origin, then we can apply a control input which renders the input-output dynamics of the system linear: $$u(x, \mu)=u^{*}(x)+\left(L_{g} L_{f}^{r-1} h(x)\right)^{-1} \mu, \label{eq:3}$$
where $u^{*}$ is the feedforward term: $$u^{*}(x)=-\left(L_{g} L_{f}^{r-1} h(x)\right)^{-1} L_{f}^{r} h(x),$$
and $\mu \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is the *auxiliary input*.
Using this control law yields the input-output linearized system $y^{(r)} = \mu$, and we can define a state transformation $\Phi : x \rightarrow (\eta, z)$, with $$\eta =[h(x)^{\top},L_{f}h(x)^{\top},...,L_{f}^{r-1} h(x)^{\top}]^{\top}$$ and $z \in Z$, where $ Z=\{ x \in \mathbb{R}^{n} |\ \eta \equiv 0\}$ is the zero-dynamics manifold. The closed-loop dynamics of the system can then be represented as a linear time-invariant system on the transverse coordinates $\eta$, and the zero-dynamics:
$$\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
\dot{\eta} & = F\eta +G\mu,\\
\dot{z} & = p(\eta,z),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\label{eq:linear-zero-dynamics}$$
where $$F=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
{0} & {I_m} & {.} & {.} & {0} \\
{0} & {0} & {I_m} & {.} & {0} \\
{.} & {.} & {.} & {} & {} \\
{0} & {.} & {.} & {.} & {I_m} \\
{0} & {.} & {.} & {.} & {0}
\end{array}\right] \text { and } G=\left[\begin{array}{l}
{0} \\
{.} \\
{.} \\
{0} \\
{I_m}
\end{array}\right],$$ with $F\in \mathbb{R}^{mr\times mr}$ and $G\in \mathbb{R}^{mr\times m}$.
Control Lyapunov Function Based Quadratic Programs {#subsec:CLF-QP}
--------------------------------------------------
In @6709752 a control method that guarantees exponential stability of the transverse dynamics $\eta$ with a rapid enough convergence rate is presented. It introduces the concept of a *rapidly exponentially stabilizing control Lyapunov function (RES-CLF)*. Specifically, a one-parameter family of continuously differentiable functions $ V_{\varepsilon} : \mathbb{R}^{mr} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is said to be an RES-CLF for system if $\exists$ $\gamma$, $c_1$, $c_2 > 0$ such that $\forall$ $0 < \varepsilon < 1$ and $\forall$ $\eta \in \mathbb{R}^{mr}$, the following holds: $$c_{1}\|\eta\|^{2} \leq V_{\varepsilon}(\eta) \leq \frac{c_{2}}{\varepsilon^2}\|\eta\|^{2},$$ $$\dot{V_\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu)+\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} V_\varepsilon(\eta) \leq 0.
\label{CLF_cond}$$
If we define a control input $\mu$ that makes $\eta$ exponentially stable, of the form $$\mu = \left[-\frac{1}{\varepsilon^r} K_r,\ ..., \ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2} K_2, \ -\frac{1}{\varepsilon} K_1\right]\eta = K\eta,$$ where $K\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times mr}$, then we can choose a quadratic CLF candidate $V_\varepsilon(\eta)=\eta^{T} P_\varepsilon \eta$, where $P_\varepsilon$ is the solution of the Lyapunov equation $A^{T}P_\varepsilon + P_\varepsilon A = -Q$, with $A$ being the closed-loop dynamics matrix $A = F+GK$ and Q any symmetric positive-definite matrix. Defining $\bar{f}=F \eta$, $\bar{g}=G$, we can write the derivative of the RES-CLF as: $$\dot{V_\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu)=L_{\bar{f}} V_\varepsilon(\eta)+L_{\bar{g}} V_\varepsilon(\eta) \mu,$$ with [ $$\begin{aligned}
&L_{\bar{f}} V_\varepsilon(\eta)=\eta^{T}\left(F^{T} P_\varepsilon+P_\varepsilon F\right) \eta, \quad L_{\bar{g}} V_\varepsilon(\eta)=2 \eta^{T} P_\varepsilon G.
\label{eq:clf-lie}
\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
We can then define for every time step an optimization problem in which condition becomes a linear constraint on the auxiliary input $\mu$. The objective function can be set to minimize the norm of the control inputs, in which case the optimization problem is a quadratic program (QP):\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**CLF-QP**: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CLF_QP}
\mu^{*}(x)=\underset{\mu}{\operatorname{argmin}} \ & \mu^{T} \mu \\
\tag{CLF}
\text { s.t. } \ & \dot{V_\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu)+\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} V_\varepsilon(\eta) \leq 0\end{aligned}$$
Control Barrier Function and Control Lyapunov Function Based Quadratic Programs {#subsec:CBF-CLF}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In @7524935 the concept of an Exponential Control Barrier Function (ECBF) is defined. Specifically, a function $B:\mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is an ECBF of relative degree $r_b$ for the system if there exists $K_b\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times r_b}$ such that $$\sup _{u}\left[L_{f}^{r_{b}} B(x)+L_{g} L_{f}^{r_{b}-1} B(x) u+K_{b} \eta_{b}(x)\right] \geq 0
\label{CBF_const}$$ for $\forall x \in \lbrace x \in \mathbb{R}^n |\ B(x)\geq 0\rbrace$ with [ $$\eta_{b}(x)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{B(x)} \\
{\dot{B}(x)} \\
{\ddot{B}(x)} \\
{\vdots} \\
{B^{\left(r_{b}-1\right)}(x)}
\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}
{B(x)} \\
{L_{f} B(x)} \\
{L_{f}^{2} B(x)} \\
{\vdots} \\
{L_{f}^{r_{b}-1}}{B(x)}
\end{array}\right],$$ ]{} that guarantees $B(x_0)\geq0 \implies B(x(t)) \geq0,\ \forall t \geq0$.
We can then choose a *virtual input* $\mu_b$ that input-output linearizes the ECBF dynamics: $$B^{(r_{b})}(x,\mu) = L^{r_b}_{f}B(x) + L_{g}L^{r_{b}-1}_{f} B(x) u(x,\mu) =:\mu_{b},
\label{eq:cbf_der}$$ with $u$ defined in . We refer readers to @7524935 for more details. The condition in then translates to choosing a $\mu_b$ such that $$\mu_b + K_b\eta_b\geq 0,$$ which is added to the following QP, where safety is prioritized over stability by relaxing the CLF constraint:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**CBF-CLF-QP**: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CBF-QP}
\mu^{*}(x)= \ & \underset{\mu,\ \mu_b,\ d}{{\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}}} & & \mu^T \mu + p~d^2 \\
& \text{s.t.} & & \dot{V_\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu)+\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} V_\varepsilon(\eta) \leq d {\tag*{(CLF)}} \\
& & &\mu_b +K_b\ \eta_b \geq 0 {\tag*{(CBF)}} \\
&&& \mu_b = B^{(r_b)}(x,\mu) \notag \\
&&& A_{c}(x) \mu + b_{c}(x) \leq 0 {\tag*{(Constraints)}}\end{aligned}$$
Formulating a QP allows us to incorporate additional control-affine constraints (last line in ). These could be input saturation constraints or other state-dependent constraints such as contact-force constraints.
Reinforcement Learning for CLF-QP Based Controllers under Uncertain Dynamics {#Sec-CLF-QP}
============================================================================
In this section, we address the issue of having a mismatch between the model and the plant dynamics when the true plant vector fields $f,\ g$ are not precisely known. Specifically, between this and the next sections we analytically examine the effects of model uncertainty on the dynamics of the CLF, CBF and other control-affine dynamic constraints. For each of these cases we will define the goal of the RL agent and the policy to be learned.
Reinforcement Learning for CLF-QP Based Controllers: First Approach {#Approach1}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the *nominal model* used in the controller be $$\dot{x} = \tilde{f}(x) + \tilde{g}(x)u.$$
We assume: 1) the vector fields $\tilde{f}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}, \tilde{g}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ are Lipschitz continuous and 2) the vector relative degrees of the model and plant dynamics are the same ($r$). These are the standard assumptions that have been made in most of the literature [@nguyen2016optimal; @taylor2019episodic; @taylor2019learning; @westenbroek2019feedback] to tackle the mismatch terms analytically.
The pre-control law of input-output linearization computed based on the nominal model $\tilde{f}, \tilde{g}$ has the following form $$\tilde{u}(x, \mu) = \tilde{u}^{*}(x) + \left(L_{\tilde{g}} L_{\tilde{f}}^{r-1}h(x)\right)^{-1} \mu,
\label{eq:io_input_model}$$ with a feedforward term $$\tilde{u}^{*}(x) \coloneqq -\left(L_{\tilde{g}} L_{\tilde{f}}^{r-1}h(x)\right)^{-1} L^{r}_{\tilde{f}} h(x).$$ Using this $\tilde{u}$ in yields $$y^{(r)} = \mu + \mathit{\Delta_{1}(x)} + \mathit{\Delta_{2}(x)} \mu,
\label{uncert}$$ where [$$\begin{aligned}
\mathit{\Delta_{1}(x)} \coloneqq& L^{r}_{f} h(x) - L_{g} L_{f}^{r-1}h(x)\left(L_{\tilde{g}} L_{\tilde{f}}^{r-1}h(x)\right)^{-1} L^{r}_{\tilde{f}} h(x), \\
\mathit{\Delta_{2}(x)} \coloneqq& L_{g} L_{f}^{r-1}h(x)\left(L_{\tilde{g}} L_{\tilde{f}}^{r-1}h(x)\right)^{-1} - \mathit{I}_m.
\end{aligned}
\label{delta_IO2}$$ ]{} The dynamics of $\eta$ from now take the form: $$\dot{\eta} = \left(F\eta + G\mathit{\Delta_{1}(\eta, z)}\right) + G\left(I_m + \mathit{\Delta_{2}(\eta, z)} \right) \mu.
\label{eq:nonlinear-zero-dynamics}$$
Note that this equation is the same as if the uncertainty terms are zero, i.e. $\mathit{\Delta_{1}}=\mathit{\Delta_{2}}=0$. Thus, can be considered a nominal model for the true transverse dynamics .
For this first approach we use RL to define an additional input whose goal is to cancel out the uncertainty terms present in the transverse dynamics , and therefore manipulate the transverse dynamics to behave like , as done in @castaneda2020 and @westenbroek2019feedback. If this is achieved exactly, there will not be any uncertain terms in the CLF dynamics, since $\dot{V}_\varepsilon$ only depends on the matrices $F$ and $G$ of the input-output linearized dynamics.
Applying the following input to $$u(x,\mu) = \tilde{u}(x,\mu) + u_\theta(x,\mu),
\label{approach1_input}$$ with $\tilde{u}$ as defined in and with $$u_\theta(x,\mu) \coloneqq \left(L_{\tilde{g}} L_{\tilde{f}}^{r-1}h(x)\right)^{-1} (\alpha_\theta(x)\mu + \beta_\theta(x)),$$ yields
$$y^{(r)} = \mu + \left(\mathit{\Delta_{1}(x)} + \mathit{\Delta_{3}(x)}\beta_\theta(x)\right) + \left(\mathit{\Delta_{2}(x)}+\mathit{\Delta_{3}(x)}\alpha_\theta(x)\right) \mu,
\vspace{-5pt}$$
where $\mathit{\Delta_{3}(x)} \coloneqq \mathit{\Delta_{2}(x)} + I_m$, and $\theta \in \Theta \subset \mathbb{R}^{N}$ are parameters of a neural network to be learned. We can now clearly see the goal of the RL agent for this approach: design a policy $\alpha_\theta$, $\beta_\theta$ such that $y^{(r)}$ is as close as possible to $\mu$. Thus, the time-wise reward function can be defined as $$R(x,\mu) = -||y^{(r)}-\mu||_2^2\,$$ where $y^{(r)}$ is numerically estimated. After training, the $\mu$ present in the final control input is obtained by solving the CLF-QP of in real time. We call this first approach *IO-RL + CLF-QP*.
Reinforcement Learning for CLF-QP Based Controllers: Second Approach {#Approach2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the second approach, we do not directly correct the uncertain terms of the transverse dynamics as we did in the first approach. Instead, we directly analyze the impact of this uncertainty on the dynamics of the CLF.
For this approach, we assume that the CLF designed for the nominal model’s transverse dynamics is also a CLF for the true plant’s transverse dynamics .
In the presence of uncertainty, $\dot{V}_\varepsilon$ becomes $$\dot{V}_{\varepsilon}(\eta,z,\mu) = L_{\bar{f}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta,z)+ L_{\bar{g}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta,z) \mu,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\bar{f}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta,z) &= L_{\tilde{\bar{f}}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta) + \underbrace{2 \eta^{\intercal} P_{\varepsilon} G \mathit{\Delta_{1}(\eta, z)}}_\text{$=:\mathit{\Delta^v_{1}(\eta,z)}$}, \\
L_{\bar{g}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta,z) &= L_{\tilde{\bar{g}}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta) + \underbrace{2 \eta^{\intercal} P_{\varepsilon}G \mathit{\Delta_{2}(\eta, z)}}_\text{$=:\mathit{\Delta^v_{2}(\eta,z)}$}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq70}$$ Here, $\tilde{\bar{f}}$ and $\tilde{\bar{g}}$ are the nominal model input-output linearized dynamics: namely, $\widetilde{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu) = L_{\tilde{\bar{f}}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta) + L_{\tilde{\bar{g}}}V_{\varepsilon}(\eta) \mu$. Therefore, under uncertainty: $$\dot{V}_{\varepsilon}(\eta,z, \mu) = \widetilde{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu) + \mathit{\Delta^v_{1}(\eta,z)}+\mathit{\Delta^v_{2}(\eta,z)} \mu.$$
In this second approach we use RL to estimate the uncertainty terms in $\dot{V}_\varepsilon$: $\mathit{\Delta^v_{1}}$ and $\mathit{\Delta^v_{2}}$. For this purpose, we construct an estimate $$\label{CLF_estimate}
\widehat{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon, \theta}(\eta,z, \mu) = \widetilde{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon}(\eta, \mu) + \beta^{V}_{\theta}(\eta,z) + \alpha^{V}_{\theta}(\eta,z)\mu,$$ where $\theta \in \Theta \subset \mathbb{R}^{N}$ are again the neural network parameters to be learned. The goal of RL is then obvious: learn a policy $\alpha^V_\theta$, $\beta^V_\theta$ such that $\widehat{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon, \theta}$ is as close as possible to $\dot{V}_{\varepsilon}$. Any reward function that penalizes the absolute value of the difference between the two terms can be used. More details on the specific RL implementation are discussed in Section \[SectionRL\].
**Remark 1**: For convenience, it is assumed here that $\alpha_\theta^{V}$, $\beta_\theta^{V}$ share the same network parameters $\theta$, but this does not need to be the case. In this paper, we will assume that all the policy functions to be learned are sharing the same parameters.
The estimate $\hat{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon,\theta}$ in is then used as our best guess of $\dot{V}_\varepsilon$ for the optimization problem:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**RL-CLF-QP**: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RL-CLF-QP}
\mu^{*}_\theta(x)= \ & \underset{\mu}{{\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}}} & & \mu^T \mu\\
& \text{s.t.} & & \widehat{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon, \theta}(\eta,z, \mu)+\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} V_\varepsilon(\eta) \leq 0 {\tag*{(RL-CLF)}}\end{aligned}$$
**Remark 2**: We have illustrated the case in which the CLF is applied to the input-output linearized dynamics. The reason why we use a CLF on the input-output linearized dynamics instead of the full dynamics is that in this way we have a systematic way of computing a CLF candidate, whereas on the original nonlinear system this process could be challenging. However, this approach is not confined to the input-output linearization structure and is also applicable to any general nonlinear control-affine system.
Reinforcement Learning for CBF-CLF-QP Based Controllers under Uncertain Dynamics
================================================================================
Having studied how to compensate for the effects of model uncertainty on CLF-based min-norm controllers, we will now extend our framework to the safety-critical CBF-CLF-QP by following a similar approach.
\[sec:RL-CBF\]
Reinforcement Learning for CBFs
-------------------------------
In the presence of uncertainty, becomes $$\widetilde{B^{(r_b)}}(x, \mu) = L^{r_b}_{\tilde{f}}B(x) + L_{\tilde{g}}L^{r_{b}-1}_{\tilde{f}} B(x) \tilde{u}(x, \mu),
\label{eq80}$$ and the actual CBF’s $r_b^{th}$ derivative can be written as: $$B^{(r_b)}(x, \mu) = \widetilde{B^{(r_b)}}(x, \mu) + \mathit{\Delta^{b}_{1}}(x) + \mathit{\Delta^{b}_{2}}(x) \mu,$$ where $\mathit{\Delta^{b}_{1}}$ and $\mathit{\Delta^{b}_{2}}$ are the uncertain terms that arise from the model-plant mismatch. We omit analytic expressions of $\mathit{\Delta^{b}_{1}}, \mathit{\Delta^{b}_{2}}$ for conciseness, but they can be derived similarly to .
**Remark 3**: When the state of the system can be represented as $x=[q,\dot{q}]^T$, as in most robotic systems, even for high relative degree CBFs model uncertainty only affects the $r^{th}_{b}$ time derivative of $B$, since $B^{(r_{b})}$ is the only term that depends on the plant dynamics through the vector fields $f$ and $g$.
Next, we present how to estimate the uncertainty terms for the CBF and for other dynamic constraints using RL. The approach presented in Section \[Approach1\] cannot be used here since the CBF functions depend on the full dynamics of the system, and not the transverse dynamics.
We build an estimator of $B^{(r_b)}$: $$\widehat{B^{(r_b)}}_{\theta}(x, \mu) = \widetilde{B^{(r_b)}}(x, \mu) + \beta^{B}_{\theta}(x) + \alpha^{B}_{\theta}(x) \mu,$$ and the goal of RL is to learn a policy $\alpha^{B}_{\theta}$, $\beta^{B}_{\theta}$ such that $\widehat{B^{(r_b)}}_{\theta}$ is as close as possible to $B^{(r_b)}$.
In order to integrate everything in a new QP we define the new virtual input of the CBF dynamics as $$\mu_b \coloneqq \widehat{B^{(r_b)}}_{\theta}.$$
In cases where the CBF also depends on a set of parameters $\psi \in \mathbb{R}^q$ , then we need to define the CBF as $B:\mathbb{R}^{n\times q} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The neural-network policy will now need to take $\psi$ as additional inputs $\alpha^{B}_{\theta}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times q}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}, \ \beta^{B}_{\theta}:\mathbb{R}^{n\times q}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ and the proposed estimate of the $r_b^{th}$ time derivative of $B$ becomes: $$\widehat{B^{(r_b)}}_{\theta}(x, \mu, \psi) = \widetilde{B^{(r_b)}}(x, \mu, \psi)+ \beta^{B}_{\theta}(x,\psi) + \alpha^{B}_{\theta}(x,\psi) \mu.$$
Reinforcement Learning for Additional Control-Affine Dynamic Constraints {#subsec:RL-CBF-linear-constraint}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we study the effects of uncertainty on other linear constraints that depend on the dynamics of the system: $$\underbrace{A_{c}(x,f,g) \mu + b_{c}(x,f,g)}_\text{$=:\zeta(x,\mu)$} \leq 0.$$ In the presence of model mismatch we have $$\begin{aligned}
b_{c}(x,f,g) &= b_{c}(x,\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) + \mathit{\Delta^c_{1}(x)}, \\
A_{c}(x,f,g) &= A_{c}(x,\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) + \mathit{\Delta^c_{2}(x)},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq_const}$$ where $\mathit{\Delta^c_{1}}$ and $\mathit{\Delta^c_{2}}$ represent the uncertainty terms. We can then define the nominal constraint $$\tilde{\zeta}(x,\mu) = b_{c}(x,\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) + A_{c}(x,\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) \mu.$$
And the real value of the constraint can be expressed as $$\zeta(x,\mu) = \tilde{\zeta}(x,\mu) + \mathit{\Delta^c_{1}(x)} + \mathit{\Delta^c_{2}(x)} \mu.$$
We can build an estimator of the form $$\hat{\zeta}_\theta (x,\mu) = \tilde{\zeta}(x,\mu) + \beta^C_\theta (x) + \alpha^C_\theta (x) \mu,$$ with a learned policy $\alpha^C_\theta$, $\beta^C_\theta$. The goal of the RL agent is again in this case to make the estimator $\hat{\zeta}_\theta$ as close as possible to $\zeta$. Expanding $\tilde{\zeta}$ we can rewrite the estimator as $$\hat{\zeta}_\theta (x,\mu) = \underbrace{\left(b_{c}(x,\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) + \beta^C_\theta (x)\right)}_\text{$=:b^c_\theta (x)$} + \underbrace{\left(A_{c}(x,\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) + \alpha^C_\theta (x) \right)}_\text{$=:A^c_\theta (x)$} \mu.$$
So far, we have explained our method of constructing an estimator of a single $B^{(r_b)}$ and a single $\zeta(x,\mu)$. This can be applied to $n_b$ multiple CBFs and $n_c$ multiple control-affine constraints. The final optimization problem, which includes all the learned estimates of the uncertain terms is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**RL-CBF-CLF-QP**: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RL-CBF-CLF-QP}
\mu^{*}_\theta(x)= &\underset{\mu,\ \mu_b,\ d}{{\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}}} && \mu^T \mu + p~d^2 \\
& \text{s.t.} && \widehat{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon, \theta}(\eta,z, \mu)+\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon} V_\varepsilon(\eta) \leq d {\tag*{(RL-CLF)}} \\
\text {for } i=1\cdots n_{b} \hspace{-30pt} &&&\mu_{b,i} +K_{b,i}\ \eta_{b,i} \geq 0 {\tag*{(RL-CBF)}} \\
&&&\mu_{b, i} = \widehat{B^{(r_b)}}_{i, \theta}(x, \mu) \notag \\
\text {for } j=1\cdots n_{c} \hspace{-30pt} &&&A^c_{j,\theta} (x) \mu + b^c_{j,\theta} (x) \leq 0 {\tag*{(RL-Constraints)}}\end{aligned}$$
Reinforcement Learning-based Framework {#SectionRL}
======================================
In this section, we present a unified RL framework that can learn the uncertainty terms in the CLF, CBF, and other dynamic constraints by building the terms specified in the earlier sections as $\alpha_\theta^V, \alpha_\theta^B, \alpha_\theta^C, \beta_\theta^V, \beta_\theta^B, \beta_\theta^C$.
A diagram of this framework is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Main\]. The RL agent learns a policy, which is a combination of uncertainty terms in CLF, CBF and other dynamic constraints. These terms are then added to the QP constraints derived from the nominal model, resulting in the estimates of the true plant constraints. Using these estimates, the RL-CBF-CLF-QP optimization problem, in which model uncertainty is addressed, is solved point-wise in time to obtain the control input.
The reward function of the learning problem is designed such that it minimizes each of the estimation errors. Thus, the time-wise loss functions are defined as:
$$\label{eq:loss_functions}
\begin{aligned}
l_{V, \theta} :&= ||\dot{V}_{\varepsilon} - \widehat{\dot{V}}_{\varepsilon, \theta}(x, \mu)||^2 \\
l_{B, \theta} :&= ||B^{(r_b)} - \widehat{B^{(r_b)}}_{\theta}(x, \mu)||^2 \\
l_{C, \theta} :&= ||\zeta - \hat{\zeta}_\theta(x,\mu)||^2
\end{aligned}$$
It is important to note that the true plant’s dynamics information is not used for computing the values of these loss functions. We use explicit expressions for $V_\varepsilon$, $B$ and $\zeta$ and compute the time-derivatives $\dot{V}_{\varepsilon}$, $B^{(r_b)}$ using numerical differentiation. For the CBF, it is important to note that regardless of the value of $r_b$ we only need to do numerical differentiation once, as follows from Remark 3.
A canonical RL problem can be formulated, with the reward for a given state $x$ defined as the weighted sum of the negative loss functions in , in addition to a user-specific failure-case penalty $-l_{e}: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$: $$R(x, \theta) = -w_{v} l_{V, \theta} - \sum_{i=1}^{n_{b}} w_{b, i} l_{B_{i}, \theta} - \sum_{j=1}^{n_{c}} w_{c, j} l_{C_{j}, \theta} -l_{e}(x).$$
The learning problem is then defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\max _{\theta}\ & \mathbb{E}_{x_{0} \sim X_{0}, w \sim \mathcal{N}\left(0, \sigma^{2}\right)} \int_{0}^{T} R\left(x(\tau), \theta\right) d \tau, \\
\text { s.t. } & \dot{x} = f(x) + g(x) \tilde{u}(x, \mu^{*}_{\theta}(x)+\omega),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu^{*}_{\theta}(x)$ is the solution of , $X_{0}$ is the initial state distribution, and $w \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^{2})$ is white noise added to encourage exploration. A discretized version of this problem can be solved using conventional RL algorithms.
**Remark 4**: While running training experiments or simulations, it is assumed that the robot operates under the true plant dynamics. We will later show in Section \[sec:results\] that the trained policy works well even when the true plant in the evaluation differs from the plant of the training environment.
Application to Bipedal Robots {#sec:application}
=============================
The goal of this section is to validate that the RL-CBF-CLF-QP framework enables safety-critical control when model uncertainty is present. We test our method on RABBIT [@chevallereau2003rabbit], a planar five-link bipedal robot, walking on a discrete terrain of stepping stones with one step preview.
Simulation Settings
-------------------
We run two simulation scenarios with our method and offer comparisons with the previous methods. The first simulation consists of RABBIT simply walking on a flat terrain. We evaluate the CLF based methods in Section \[Sec-CLF-QP\] in this scenario. This is to verify only the stabilizing capacity of our proposed method under model uncertainty. In the second simulation, we put the robot on a discrete terrain of randomly spaced stepping stones (Fig. \[fig:stepping-stone\]). The robot’s task here is to always place the foot on the next stepping stone, while managing the stability and not violating the contact-force constraint. The full RL-CBF-CLF-QP is tested in this simulation scenario.
The main model uncertainty in both demonstrations is introduced by scaling all mass and inertia parameters of each link by a constant scale factor = 2, i.e. the nominal model’s mass and inertia terms are half of those of the actual plant.
A single periodic walking gait trajectory is generated offline by the Fast Robot Optimization and Simulation Toolkit (FROST) [@hereid2017frost]. The output function $h(x)$ is defined as the difference between the actuated joint angles and the desired trajectory’s joint angles from the obtained periodic orbit. The gait’s nominal step length is 0.35m. Finally, a torque saturation of 200Nm is applied to the control inputs of all simulations, including training and evaluation.
Reinforcement Learning Settings
-------------------------------
We train our agent using a standard Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient Algorithm (DDPG) [@silver2014deterministic]. The input for the actor neural network is 14 observations, which is RABBIT’s full state $x$, in addition to the CBF parameter $\psi = l_{min, k}$ corresponding to the minimum step length of the $k$th stepping stone (Fig. \[fig:stepping-stone\]) in the second simulation. We use two CBFs $B_1$ and $B_2$ to constrain the position of the swing foot so that it lands on the stepping stone, as shown in Fig. \[fig:stepping-stone\]. We use two dynamic constraints $C_1$ and $C_2$ which correspond to the unilateral normal force and friction cone constraints respectively. The output dimension is 25, corresponding to the 4$\times$1 $\alpha^V_\theta, \alpha^{B_1}_{\theta}, \alpha^{B_2}_{\theta}, \alpha^{C_1}_{\theta}, \alpha^{C_2}_{\theta}$ and the 1$\times$1 $\beta^V_\theta, \beta^{B_1}_{\theta}, \beta^{B_2}_{\theta}, \beta^{C_1}_{\theta},
\beta^{C_2}_{\theta}$.
Both actor and critic neural networks have two hidden layers of widths 400 and 300. This agent is trained on the simulation of ten walking steps per episode, and a discrete time step $T_s = 0.01$sec is used. The failure cases are determined by the robot’s pose. Training on six multiple cores of Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9400F CPU (2.90GHz) without the use of GPU took about 34 seconds per episode. The final agent in use is obtained after 110, 79 and 133 episodes for IO-RL + CLF-QP, RL-CLF-QP and RL-CBF-CLF-QP respectively.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
During the evaluation, the robot is tested not only on the uncertainty that is introduced in the training, but in addition to it, two other kinds of uncertainty are also introduced. First, the robot’s motor dynamics that restricts the rate of change of joint torques is applied in every evaluation. The time constant of motors used in the simulation is 0.004 seconds. Second, the robot is also tested on an alternative kind of uncertainty, which consists of an added weight to the torso of the robot, instead of scaling the links masses and inertias. This weight can represent the robot carrying a payload, and it is deliberately introduced to evaluate the trained policy’s robustness to an unfamiliar kind of uncertainty that it was not trained on.
Simulation 1: Bipedal Walking on Flat Ground
--------------------------------------------
For the first simulation, we evaluate the two RL approaches for CLF explained in Section \[Sec-CLF-QP\], and compare them with the standard L1 Adaptive CLF-QP method of @nguyen2015L1, which guarantees the CLF to be bounded to a small value under model uncertainty if using a sufficiently large adaptation gain.
![Tracking error (top), its derivative (middle), and tangential-normal contact force ratio (bottom) of IO-RL + CLF-QP (Sec. \[Approach1\]), RL-CLF-QP (Sec. \[Approach2\]), and L1-CLF-QP [@nguyen2015L1] controllers, simulated for ten walking steps, where the robot’s mass and inertia values are scaled by a factor of 2. Both IO-RL + CLF-QP and RL-CLF-QP maintain the stability while L1-CLF-QP fails. Only the RL-CLF-QP satisfies the friction cone constraint $|F_{T}/F_{N}|\leq k_{f} = 0.8$.[]{data-label="fig:clf-results"}](plot_clf_tracking_error.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Tracking error (top), its derivative (middle), and tangential-normal contact force ratio (bottom) of IO-RL + CLF-QP (Sec. \[Approach1\]), RL-CLF-QP (Sec. \[Approach2\]), and L1-CLF-QP [@nguyen2015L1] controllers, simulated for ten walking steps, where the robot’s mass and inertia values are scaled by a factor of 2. Both IO-RL + CLF-QP and RL-CLF-QP maintain the stability while L1-CLF-QP fails. Only the RL-CLF-QP satisfies the friction cone constraint $|F_{T}/F_{N}|\leq k_{f} = 0.8$.[]{data-label="fig:clf-results"}](plot_clf_F_ratio.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:clf-results\], both of the proposed methods manage to get RABBIT to stably walk for multiple steps, while the L1 Adaptive CLF-QP controller leads to failure. The original nominal CLF-QP, although not shown in the figure, also fails under this scaled model uncertainty. Note that all three methods do not have friction constraints in the QP and could potentially violate them. In particular, the RL-CLF-QP method succeeds in satisfying the friction constraint ($|F_{T}/F_{N}|\leq k_{f} = 0.8$) for all steps, the IO-RL + CLF-QP exceeds the limit in the first two steps, and the L1-CLF-QP violates it for multiple steps. Therefore, IO-RL + CLF-QP needs the inclusion of friction constraints in the QP.
![Tracking error (top), its derivative (middle), and contact force ratio (bottom) of the three CLF-based controllers, simulated for ten walking steps with the additional torso weight 32kg (this amounts to the weight of RABBIT, i.e. 100% additional weight).[]{data-label="fig:clf-torso-results"}](plot_clf_tracking_error_torso.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Tracking error (top), its derivative (middle), and contact force ratio (bottom) of the three CLF-based controllers, simulated for ten walking steps with the additional torso weight 32kg (this amounts to the weight of RABBIT, i.e. 100% additional weight).[]{data-label="fig:clf-torso-results"}](plot_clf_F_ratio_torso.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Displayed in Fig. \[fig:clf-torso-results\] is the plot of tracking error and contact force ratio of the three controllers when, instead of the mass-inertia-scaling, an additional torso weight of 32kg (100% of the robot mass) is introduced. It is notable that both the RL-CLF-QP and IO-RL + CLF-QP manage to adapt to this uncertainty, which has not been faced during the training. Furthermore, the RL-CLF-QP manages to stabilize the walking gait with an additional torso weight of up to 72kg (225% of robot mass). On the other hand, IO-RL + CLF-QP manages to adapt to additional weights up to 53kg (166% of robot mass).
Simulation 2: Bipedal Walking on Stepping Stones with One Step Preview
----------------------------------------------------------------------
![Safety Constraint: In order to guarantee the swing foot lands on the stepping stone, we use two CBFs to ensure the swing foot position $F$ is within the grey area during the entire walking step.[]{data-label="fig:stepping-stone"}](SteppingStoneCBF.png){width="28.00000%"}
We now evaluate the full RL-CBF-CLF-QP method with the safety-critical constraint of walking on stepping stones and the inclusion of friction constraints, which are dependent on the dynamics. In this simulation scenario, for each step the robot faces a random placement of a stepping stone. Therefore, when the swing foot hits the ground at the end of the step, we want the step length to be within a specific range: $$l_{min, k} \leq l_{k} \leq l_{max, k},
\label{eq:steprange}$$ where k indicates the step index. Two position-constraints-based second order ECBFs parameterized by $l_{min, k},\ l_{max, k}$ that are a sufficient condition for are devised by @nguyen2016optimal. Basically these constraints imply that the swing foot position ($F$ in Fig. \[fig:stepping-stone\]) needs to stay within the grey area. Note that $l_{min, k},\ l_{max, k}$ change for every step.
We also include contact force constraints in the RL-CBF-CLF-QP as control-affine dynamic constraints, following the procedure of Subsection \[subsec:RL-CBF-linear-constraint\]. These are important since the original CBF-CLF-QP violates the friction cone and the unilateral normal force constraints repeatedly.
The robot is trained to walk on randomly spaced stepping stones, of which $l_{min}$ is sampled from a normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0.35\text{m},0.02\text{m})$, truncated at $2.5\sigma$. $l_{max}$ is set as $l_{min} + 0.05\text{m}$.
![Results of the simulation of 20 steps of walking on stepping stones, where the robot’s mass and inertia values are scaled by a factor of 2. (Top) History of swing foot position $l_f$ for each step, with the stepping stone constraints $l_{min},\ l_{max}$. (Bottom) History of tangential-normal contact force ratio that satisfies to stay below $|F_T/F_N|\leq k_{f} = 0.8$.[]{data-label="fig:rl-cbf-clf-results"}](new_result_step_length_long.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Results of the simulation of 20 steps of walking on stepping stones, where the robot’s mass and inertia values are scaled by a factor of 2. (Top) History of swing foot position $l_f$ for each step, with the stepping stone constraints $l_{min},\ l_{max}$. (Bottom) History of tangential-normal contact force ratio that satisfies to stay below $|F_T/F_N|\leq k_{f} = 0.8$.[]{data-label="fig:rl-cbf-clf-results"}](new_result_F_ratio_long.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:rl-cbf-clf-results\] shows the result of the evaluation, where the robot walks on 20 randomly spaced stepping stones. We can check that the foot placement is always on the stepping stones. Also, it is verified that the contact force never exceeds the friction limit. Note that the sample distribution of $l_{min}$ here is same as during training.
Whereas our RL-CBF-CLF-QP method performs well, we have also tested the nominal model-based CBF-CLF-QP method on this simulation for comparison. The CBF-CLF-QP is also solved together with the friction constraints. However, it violates the step length safety constraints after an average of 5.6$\pm$4.64 steps. This value is obtained from 10 random executions of 20 steps simulation.
Finally, for the case of having an additional torso weight applied to the original unscaled plant, RL-CBF-CLF-QP still manages to stay within the safety and friction constraints when the weight is in the range of \[43kg, 72kg\] (134-225% of robot mass).
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In Sections \[sec:application\] and \[sec:results\], we have demonstrated that our method can compensate well for the trained model uncertainty and that it shows some robustness to the introduction of additional uncertainty during evaluation. It is important to note that our method is not restricted to mass and inertia scaling uncertainties, rather they have been used as illustrative examples for this paper. We have additionally tested our framework for other uncertainties: a simplified model of joint friction (assuming that joint friction reduces motor power by a 15%, value taken from @chevallereau2003rabbit), joint damping (up to 1 $(rad/s^2)/(rad/s)$) and bending of links (up to 5% of their length) obtaining successful results.
However, a primary drawback of our approach is that we need the designed nominal controller to not rapidly fail on the uncertain system before RL can learn the uncertainty. This may not always be possible depending on the level of uncertainty. Following this same reasoning, for high levels of uncertainty the CLF designed for the nominal model may not be a CLF for the true plant, in which case our assumption would not hold and the method would fail. There is ongoing research on designing CLFs for systems with uncertain dynamics [@richards18lyapunov; @Umlauft18clf] that could be used to solve this issue, since our method is not restricted to any specific CLF.
An illustration of the aforementioned limitation is that we have also tested our framework for mass-inertia uncertainty scales of 0.7 and 0.5. For the case of scale=0.7, our framework produces a stabilizing controller that respects safety and friction constraints for indefinitely long periods of walking, whereas the nominal model-based controller fails after just one step. In contrast, for the scale of 0.5, the nominal controller fails after just 0.06 seconds, which makes the training a lot more challenging and our framework fails.
Another limitation is that the measurements of $\dot{V}_{\varepsilon}$ and $B^{(r_b)}$ obtained from numerical differentiation could be noisy in experiments. However, a similar method is proved to be effective in real experiments in @westenbroek2019feedback, where an estimate of the output acceleration is computed by numerical differentiation, which is used to train the RL agent.
In this paper we specifically use RL to learn the uncertainty terms since in this way we can gradually enhance the quadratic program’s feasibility and performance while learning the safety constraints, increasingly exploring the state space of our interest. Moreover, RL allows us to unify the learning processes of uncertainty terms in multiple safety constraints to a single process. However, there are several works tackling similar problems with other learning methods, such as supervised learning [@taylor2019episodic; @taylor2019learning], and deciding which is the best approach is still an open question that might depend on the specific properties of the platform used for testing. We plan to address this in the future, adapting our safety-critical control framework to other learning methods.
Finally, it must be noted that feasibility of a CBF-CLF-QP with additional constraints, such as friction, is not guaranteed in general. However, using the trained RL-CBF-CLF-QP model, we observe that the feasibility drastically improves compared to the nominal CBF-CLF-QP.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have addressed the issue of model uncertainty in safety-critical control with an RL-based data-driven approach. We have presented a formal analysis of uncertainty terms in CBF and CLF constraints, in addition to other dynamic constraints. Our framework includes two core components: 1) an RL agent which learns to minimize the effect of model uncertainty in the aforementioned safety constraints, and 2) the formulation of the RL-CBF-CLF-QP problem that solves online for the safety-critical control input. The proposed framework is tested on RABBIT, an underactuated nonlinear bipedal robot. We demonstrate walking on randomly spaced stepping stones with one step preview under high model uncertainty.
[^1]: The work of Jason Choi received the support of a fellowship from Kwanjeong Educational Foundation, Korea. The work of Fernando Castañeda received the support of a fellowship (code LCF/BQ/AA17/11610009) from ”la Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434). This work was partially supported through National Science Foundation Grant CMMI-1931853.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study in this paper three different theories of gravitation with massive gravitons - the modified Fierz-Pauli model, Massive Gravity and the bimetric theory proposed by Visser - in linear perturbation theory around a Minkowski and a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker background. For the transverse-traceless tensor perturbations we show that the three theories give rise to the same dynamical equations, to the same form of the tensor Sachs-Wolfe effect, and consequently to the same form of the Boltzmann equations for the radiative transfer in General Relativity.
We then analyze vector perturbations in these theories and show that they do not give the same results as in the previous case. We first show that vector perturbations in Massive Gravity present the same form as found in General Relativity, whereas in the modified Fierz-Pauli theory the vector gravitational-wave polarization modes ($\Psi_{3}$ amplitudes in the Newman-Penrose formalism) do not decay too fast as it happens in the former case. Rather, we show that such $\Psi_{3}$ polarization modes give rise to an unusual vector Sachs-Wolfe effect, leaving a signature in the quadrupole form $Y_{2,\pm 1}(\theta,\varphi)$ on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation polarization. We then derive the details for the Thomson scattering of CMB photons for these $\Psi_{3}$ modes, and then construct the correspondent Boltzmann equations. Based upon these results we then qualitatively show that $\Psi_{3}$-mode vector signatures - if they do exist - could clearly be distinguished on the CMB polarization from the usual $\Psi_4$ tensor modes.
We also estimate that the graviton mass limit for the vector modes is $m=10^{-66}g\sim 10^{-29}cm^{-1}$, so that vector modes with masses below this limit exhibit the same dynamical evolution as the massless gravitons.
We argue at the end of this paper that CMB polarization experiments can be decisive to test alternative theories of gravitation by measuring CMB polarization in the $E$-mode.
address: |
INPE - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - Divisão de Astrofísica,\
Av.dos Astronautas 1758, São José dos Campos, 12227-010 SP, Brazil\
author:
- 'Dennis Bessada, Oswaldo D. Miranda'
title: CMB Polarization in Theories of Gravitation with Massive Gravitons
---
To appear in *Classical and Quantum Gravity*
\[sec:intr\]Introduction
========================
Among the most important basic predictions of the Theory of General Relativity (GR), we know that only one of them has not been yet directly tested: the existence of Gravitational Waves (GWs). The GWs in the GR present two basic features: first, the particle associated with the wave, the graviton, is massless; second, they have only two polarization states. The first feature comes exactly from the weak-field approximation in the space-time metric, yielding a spin-two massless particle field equation; the second feature comes from the gauge invariance of the field equations under local coordinate transformations. These two features are strictly related, since a massless theory allows gauge transformations, and such transformations lead to two polarization states.
However, a metric theory of gravitation, as we shall see, allows up to six polarization modes in general [@lightman]; furthermore, it was shown in [@miranda] that spherical mass-resonant GW detectors might detect up to six polarization modes. These two facts, one theoretical and the other experimental, motivate us to investigate more carefully a general metric theory of gravitation in order to make it possible to predict further features that in the usual GR might, in principle, be lacking.
An immediate generalization of GR may be constructed taking into account some analogies with the basic ideas of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). The simplest models in QFT usually involve free real massless fields with global internal symmetries as, for example, the electromagnetic field; then, to these models we can add further elements like mass, non-abelian internal symmetries, and so forth. Taking into account again the example of the electromagnetic field, the next generalization of this model is the introduction of a mass (via the Higgs mechanism), giving rise to a massive spin-one particle. These two vector models, the massless and the massive ones, are not theoretical conjectures; they give rise to observable particles, the photon and the gauge bosons $W^{\pm}$ and $Z^{0}$ respectively. Then, since in GR the metric tensor field $g_{\alpha\beta}$ gives rise only to massless particles, the next extension consists in the introduction of massive degrees of freedom into the metric - the so-called “*massive gravitons*". There are some different effort towards a theory of gravitation with massive gravitons; in this paper we shall consider the approaches worked out in the references [@Finn2002], [@gruzinov1], [@visser98], [@rubakov2004] and [@dubovsky2004].
The approach followed in references [@Finn2002] and [@gruzinov1] is an improvement of an earlier model pushed forward by M. Fierz and W. Pauli in the thirties [@fierz1939]. It is constructed by adding a mass term to the linearized Einstein-Hilbert action through the prescriptions of field theory, that is, a quadratic term in the fields $h_{\alpha\beta}$ appearing in the weak-field limit. We shall call this model as “modified Fierz-Pauli" henceforth. In this model, GWs have *six* polarization modes [@boulware], which may introduce interesting features in cosmology as we are going to show in this paper.
The second approach, devised by Matt Visser, [@visser98] is based upon a bimetric theory, first pushed forward by the work of Rosen [@rosen1973]. In this model the mass term is introduced by a quadratic term depending not only upon a dynamical metric as in GR, but upon a nondynamical background metric as well. De Paula *et. al.* [@wayne2004] showed that this theory leads to exactly the same dynamical equations as in the modified Fierz-Pauli model in the weak-field approximation, so that they are absolutely equivalent in this limit. They also have shown that GWs in this model also possess six polarization modes as expected [@boulware].
In the theory of *Massive Gravity*, as introduced in [@rubakov2004], the Lorentz-invariance of the mass lagrangian is broken in the following way: the quadratic term in the metric perturbations is split into components, giving rise to five possible combinations, with each combination having a different coefficient; then, these five different coefficients are interpreted as five *mass parameters*, each of them being proportional to a common scale $m$. It was also shown in [@rubakov2004] that the Fierz-Pauli model is promptly recovered through a suitable choice of the mass parameters. In [@dubovsky2004], the masses for the gravitons are introduced through a very clever analogy with the Higgs mechanism in QFT: the Lorentz invariance is spontaneously broken by a convenient choice of the “vacuum"$~$for the Goldstone fields, which leads to the model devised in [@rubakov2004].
In all the models introduced above the van Dam-Veltmann-Zakharov (vDVZ) discontinuity [@Veltman1970], [@zakharov] is absent [@gruzinov1], [@visser98], [@rubakov2004], [@dubovsky2004]. In particular, it can be shown that Massive Gravity is absolutely free of ghosts and classical instabilities provided the mass parameters obey some constraints [@dubovsky2004].
In addition to the efforts towards a direct observation of GWs (see, *e.g.*, ref. [@ligo]), we might consider, as an excellent alternative for the time being (since the GW detectors have not yet reached the proper sensitivity to make such direct observations), an indirect approach, using the recent work performed on the theory of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) anisotropies and polarization. The CMB spectrum might hide some “tracks" of GWs, or *signatures*, left by the interaction of the primordial cosmological gravitons with the CMB photons. The next generation of CMB satellites after Planck is expected to measure the CMB polarization to a better degree of accuracy, and it can hopefully shed a light on the investigations of primordial GWs through the measurements of the so-called E and B-polarization modes [@bmode]. This means that CMB polarization measurements might not only be decisive to detect GWs, but it might also shed a light on the nature of the gravity itself; in other words, CMB measurements could be decisive to test alternative theories of gravitation. This is exactly our goal in the present work: the analysis of CMB polarization induced by GWs in a theory of gravitation with massive gravitons.
To this end, the present paper is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:pol\] we review the classification of plane GWs in the Newman-Penrose formalism for an arbitrary theory of gravitation, deducing their six possible polarization modes. In Section \[sec:massgrav\] we review the three different approaches to include massive gravitons into GR, and also discuss cosmological perturbations in these theories. Then, in Section \[sec:cmbpol\] we review the basics of radiative transfer in the presence of weak gravitational fields, laying the ground for discussing the Sachs-Wolfe effect in a theory of gravitation with massive gravitons in Section \[sec:sachswolfe\], and the effect of GW vector longitudinal modes on the Thomson scattering in Section \[sec:thomscat\]. In Section \[sec:boltzeq\] we get together all the results, obtaining the related radiation transfer equations (Boltzmann equations) for each polarization mode. At the end of this paper we discuss the obtained results and make the correspondent conclusions.
\[sec:pol\]Polarization States for an arbitrary Metric Theory of Gravitation
============================================================================
The polarization states for a GW in an arbitrary metric theory of gravitation are given by the independent modes of the Riemann tensor. In order to compute its components in an Lorentz-invariant scheme, it is convenient to introduce, following the pioneering work of Newman and Penrose, [@penrose], the quasiorthonormal complex-null basis $(k,l,m,\bar{m})$, where $k$ and $l$ are real null-vectors and $m$ and $\bar{m}$ are a pair of complex numbers, satisfying the following orthogonality relations: $$\label{npbasis}
k\cdot l=0, ~~~ m\cdot \bar{m}=-1,~~~ k\cdot \bar{m}=k\cdot m
=l\cdot \bar{m}=l\cdot m=0.$$ We follow [@lightman] and choose the following set of null vectors, $$\begin{aligned}
k&=&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,0,1),~~~l=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1,0,0,-1),\label{nullvectorsk}\\
m&=&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1,i,0),~~~\bar{m}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1,-i,0),\label{nullvectorsmbar}\end{aligned}$$ all satisfying (\[npbasis\]). With the basis given by (\[nullvectorsk\]) - (\[nullvectorsmbar\]) we can split the Riemann tensor into its irreducible parts, namely, the Weyl tensor, whose ten independent components are given by five complex scalars $(\Psi_{0},\Psi_{1},\Psi_{2},\Psi_{3},\Psi_{4})$, the Ricci tensor, whose nine independent components are given by the scalars $\Phi_{00}$, $\Phi_{01}$, $\Phi_{02}$, $\Phi_{10}$, $\Phi_{20}$, $\Phi_{11}$, $\Phi_{12}$, $\Phi_{21}$, $\Phi_{22}$, and the Ricci scalar $\Lambda$. Throughout this section, we consider only plane GW propagating in the $\mathbf{\hat{z}}$ direction, whose time dependence is given by $\cos \omega t$, and we use for the flat Minkowski metric $\eta_{\alpha\beta}=$diag$\{+,-,-,-\}$.
In this context, we may prove that the differential and algebraic properties of the Riemann tensor reduce the number of independent components to six [@lightman], given by\
\
*i*) *The Weyl tensor*: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{0}&=&\Psi_{1}=0, \label{psi01}\\
\Psi_{2}&=&-\frac{1}{6}R_{lklk},\label{psi2}\\
\Psi_{3}&=&-\frac{1}{2}R_{lkl\bar{m}}, \label{psi3}\\
\Psi_{4}&=&-R_{l\bar{m}l\bar{m}}\label{psi4};\end{aligned}$$
*ii*) *The Ricci tensor*:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{00}&=&\Phi_{01}=\Phi_{10}=\Phi_{02}=\Phi_{20}=0,\label{phi00}\\
\Phi_{22}&=&-R_{lml\bar{m}},\label{phi22} \\
\Phi_{11}&=&\frac{3}{2}\Psi_{2},\label{phi11} \\
\Phi_{12}&=&\bar{\Phi}_{21}=\bar{\Psi}_{3};\label{phi12}\end{aligned}$$
\
*ii*) *The Ricci scalar*: $$\label{lambda}
\Lambda=-\frac{1}{2}\Psi_{2}.$$
We can reduce, therefore, the number of independent components of the Riemann tensor to the set $$\label{npamplitudes}
\{\Psi_{2},\Psi_{3},\bar{\Psi}_{3},\Psi_{4},\bar{\Psi}_{4},\Phi_{22}\}.$$
Henceforth, we call (\[npamplitudes\]) *Newman-Penrose* *(NP)* *amplitudes*. They play the role of definite helicity states $s=(0,\pm 1,\pm 2)$ under rotations around the z axis in a nearly Lorentz coordinate frame. In particular, the two real NP amplitudes $(\Psi_{2},\Phi_{22})$ correspond to the state $s=0$ (which defines the scalar modes), whereas the complex NP amplitudes $(\Psi_{3},\bar{\Psi}_{3})$ correspond to $s=\pm1$ (vector modes), and $(\Psi_{4},\bar{\Psi}_{4})$ to $s=\pm2$ (tensor modes). These polarization modes can be represented on the $x-y$, $y-z$ or $x-z$ plane as can be seen through the effects of a GW on a ring of dust particles (see reference [@will1] for further details). Now, following [@lightman], it is very useful to introduce the “driving-force matrix" $S$, $$\label{drivingforcematrix}
S_{ij}(t):=R_{i0j0}(u),$$ where $t$ is the proper time and $u=t-z/c$ represents a null “retarded time" as measured by an ideal detector in the coordinate system $\{t,x^{i}\}$. From (\[drivingforcematrix\]) we define a basis for the GW polarizations as follows: first, we represent the NP amplitudes as $$\begin{aligned}
p_{1}(\hat{z},t)&=&\Psi_{2}(u),\label{p1}~~~
p_{2}(\hat{z},t)=\textrm{Re} ~\Psi_{3}(u),~~~
p_{3}(\hat{z},t)=\textrm{Im} ~\Psi_{3}(u),\\
p_{4}(\hat{z},t)&=&\textrm{Re} ~\Psi_{4}(u),~~~
p_{5}(\hat{z},t)=\textrm{Im} ~\Psi_{4}(u),~~~
p_{6}(\hat{z},t)=\Phi_{22}(u);\label{p6}\end{aligned}$$ (from now on, whenever the *polarization index* $r$ appears, it will always indicate a given NP amplitude according to the sequence given in (\[p1\]-\[p6\]), so that $r=1$ stands for $\Psi_{2}$, and so forth). Now, writing the NP amplitudes (\[psi2\]), (\[psi3\]), (\[psi4\]) and (\[phi22\]) in Cartesian coordinates (recall that the NP basis given by (\[nullvectorsk\]) - (\[nullvectorsmbar\]) can be written in terms of the coordinates $\{t,x^{i}\}$), we get the following result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{drivingforcematrixcomp}
S&=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-\frac{1}{2}(p_{4}+p_{6}) & \frac{1}{2}p_{5} & -2p_{2} \\
\frac{1}{2}p_{5} & \frac{1}{2}(p_{4}-p_{6}) & 2p_{3} \\
-2p_{2} & 2p_{3} & -6p_{1} \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
&=&\sum_{r=1}^{6}p_{r}\left(\hat{z},t\right)E_{r}\left(\hat{z}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{r}\left(\hat{z}\right)$ are the *basis polarization matrices*, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{polbasis}
E_{1}&=&-6\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~~ E_{2}=-2\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\nonumber \\
E_{3}&=&2\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~~ E_{4}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{crc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), \nonumber \\ E_{5}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~~~ E_{6}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, the polarization of a GW in an arbitrary metric theory of gravity can be fully described by the basis polarization matrices $E_{r}\left(\hat{z}\right)$. However, due to the tensorial character of the space-time metric it is convenient to cast the polarization basis (\[polbasis\]) into a tensor; hence, along with its spatial components, given by $\left(E_{r}\right)_{ij}\left(\hat{z}\right)$, there are the $00$ and $0i$ components, which are zero by the very definition of the “full driving-force matrix"$~S$ (\[drivingforcematrix\]), so that $$\label{drivingforcematrix1}
S_{00}(t)=R_{0000}(u)=0, ~~~~
S_{0i}(t)=R_{0i00}(u)=0.$$ Hence, the *polarization tensor* assumes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{polariztensor}
\varepsilon^{1}&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~~ \varepsilon^{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber \\
\varepsilon^{3}&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~~ \varepsilon^{4}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccrc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), \nonumber \\
\varepsilon^{5}&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~~ \varepsilon^{6}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
\[sec:massgrav\]The Theory of Gravitation with Massive Gravitons
================================================================
\[sec:modfp\] The modified Fierz-Pauli model
--------------------------------------------
Let us now analyze how do GWs arise in the case of the Fierz-Pauli modified model. In this case, the graviton mass lagrangian appears as a quadratic term in the perturbation of the metric tensor $h_{\alpha\beta}$ in the weak-field limit, so that its action is given by [@Finn2002], [@gruzinov1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action1}
S&=&\frac{M_{Pl}^{2}}{8}\int
d^{4}x\left[h_{\alpha\beta,\gamma}h^{\alpha\beta,\gamma}
-2{h_{\alpha\beta}}^{,\beta}{h^{\alpha\gamma}}_{,\gamma}+
2{h_{\alpha\beta}}^{,\beta}{h^{,\alpha}}-h^{,\alpha}h_{,\alpha}\right.
\nonumber \\
&-& \left. 4M_{Pl}^{-2}h_{\alpha\beta}T^{\alpha\beta} - m^2\left(h_{\alpha\beta}h^{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{2}
h^2\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ is given by $$\label{htrace}
h=\eta_{\alpha\beta}h^{\alpha\beta},$$ and $M_{Pl}$ is the Planck mass. If instead of the contribution $m^2h^2/2$ to the last term on the right-hand side of (\[action1\]) one had $m^2h^2$, this model would correspond to the original Fierz-Pauli action, which is plagued by the vDVZ discontinuity [@gruzinov1].
The Einstein equations associated with the action (\[action1\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqmotion}
\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}
h_{\alpha\beta}&-&{{h_{\alpha}}^{\gamma}}_{,\gamma\beta}-{{h_{\beta}}^{\gamma}}_{,\gamma\alpha}
+h_{,\alpha\beta}+\eta_{\alpha\beta}{h^{\gamma\delta}}_{,\gamma\delta}
\nonumber \\ &-&\eta_{\alpha\beta}
\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}
h+
m^2\left(h_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta}h\right)=- 2M_{Pl}^{-2}T_{\alpha\beta};\end{aligned}$$ then, imposing the conservation of the stress energy-momentum tensor, $\nabla_{\alpha} T^{\alpha\beta}=0$, we get the following constraint to the field $h_{\alpha\beta}$ on a Minkowski background, $$\label{hbarconstraint}
\partial_{\alpha}\bar{h}^{\alpha\beta}=0,$$ where we have defined $$\label{hbardef}
\bar{h}_{\alpha\beta}=h_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta}h.$$
The equation (\[hbarconstraint\]) is exactly the same found in GR, but in the present case it emerges as a constraint from the conservation of the stress energy-momentum tensor rather than a gauge choice, as in GR. This constraint eliminates four degrees of freedom out of the ten independent components of the space-time metric, leaving then only six independent modes. Since these modes correspond exactly to the polarization states of the GW, we may readily associate the components of ${\bar{h}}_{\alpha\beta}$ with the correspondent ones of (\[polariztensor\]), so that the only nonzero contributions are the spatial components $\bar{h}_{ij}$.
Using the arguments above and plugging equation (\[hbarconstraint\]) into (\[eqmotion\]), we obtain, in the absence of sources, $$\label{waveq}
\left(\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} + m^2\right){\bar{h}}_{ij}=0,$$ which is clearly a Klein-Gordon equation for a wave propagating in the direction $\hat{\mathbf{k}}=\mathrm{\hat{z}}$. For the sake of simplicity we henceforth drop the bar over the tensor on the left-hand side of (\[hbardef\]) and simply write it as $h_{ij}$.
Due to the oscillatory character of equation (\[waveq\]) we may expand the tensor field $h_{ij}$ into the Fourier modes as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fourierexph}
h_{ij}\left(x\right)=\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}{\tilde{h}}_{ij}\left(k\right)e^{-ikx},\end{aligned}$$ which enables us to write down the following decomposition in terms of the polarization tensor (\[polariztensor\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expanh}
{\tilde{h}}_{ij}\left(k\right)&=&\sum_{r=1}^{6}\varepsilon^{r}_{ij}(k)\tilde{h}^{r}(k).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for the transverse-traceless (TT) component of the tensor perturbation to the metric $h_{ij}$ (corresponding to the $\Psi_{4}$ mode with $r=4,5$), we write $$\label{httff}
{\tilde{h}}^{\perp}_{ij}=\varepsilon^{4}_{ij}(k)\tilde{h}^{4}(k)+\varepsilon^{5}_{ij}(k)\tilde{h}^{5}(k),$$ so that Fourier transforming (\[httff\]) to get ${h}^{\perp}_{ij}$ in the configuration space, we see that this tensor satisfies (\[waveq\]), that is $$\label{waveqtt}
\left(\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} + m^2\right){h}^{\perp}_{ij}=0,$$ which reduces to the GW equation for GR in the limit $m=0$. The tensor ${h}^{\perp}_{ij}$ encompasses then both transverse polarization modes “$+$" and “$\times$" characteristic of GR.
We write the extension of definition (\[httff\]) to the $\Psi_3$ modes (associated with $r=2,3$) as $$\label{hvec}
{\tilde{h}}^{\parallel}_{ij}=\varepsilon^{2}_{ij}(k)\tilde{h}^{2}(k)+\varepsilon^{3}_{ij}(k)\tilde{h}^{3}(k),$$ which corresponds to a longitudinal polarization state. As we shall see in Section \[sec:sachswolfe\], these modes can also induce an unusual angular pattern for the CMB photons and, in consequence, induce a different signature in its polarization pattern.
In this paper we do not consider the GW scalar polarization modes $\Psi_2$ and $\Phi_{22}$, since they couple to the $\delta g_{00}$ scalar component in the metric perturbation on cosmological scales, and then do not produce “handedness" to excite the CMB B-polarization mode.
\[sec:massivegravity\] The bimetric model
-----------------------------------------
The bimetric model proposed by Visser in [@visser98] combines into a single theory a dynamical space-time metric with a nondynamical metric which allows the introduction of a mass for the graviton even in the strong-field limit. However, as was shown by De Paula *et. al.* [@wayne2004], in the weak-field limit the bimetric model is absolutely equivalent to the modified Fierz-Pauli model as discussed above. Due to this property we henceforth consider the modified Fierz-Pauli solely.
\[sec:massivegravity\] Massive Gravity
--------------------------------------
In the case of Massive Gravity, as we have pointed out in the Introduction, the underlying ideas are a bit different. Let us now write down the space-time metric in the weak-field limit as $$\label{linearapprox}
g_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}+\delta g_{\alpha\beta},$$ where $\delta g_{\alpha\beta}$ plays the role of a perturbation to the Minkowski background metric, and assumes the form [@rubakov2004], $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g_{00}=2\varphi, ~~~ \delta g_{0i}=S_{i}-\partial_{i}B,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{pertmetricmassgrav}
\delta
g_{ij}=-\chi_{ij}-\partial_{i}F_{j}-\partial_{j}F_{i}+2\left(\psi\delta_{ij}-\partial_{i}\partial_{j}E\right),$$ where $\varphi,\psi,B,E$ are scalar fields, $F_{i}$ and $S_{i}$ are vector fields, and $\chi_{ij}$ is a tensor field. The vector and tensor fields of (\[pertmetricmassgrav\]) satisfy the well known constraints $$\label{pertmetricconstr}
{\chi_{ij}}^{,~j}=0,~~~
{\chi^{i}}_{i}=0,~~~{F^{i}}_{,i}={S^{i}}_{,i}=0$$ necessary to match the number of independent fields to the ten independent components of the metric $\delta g_{\alpha\beta}$. Now, we construct the mass contribution to the action of the theory as a quadratic term in the tensor fields as well, but breaking the Lorenz invariance as suggested in [@rubakov2004] $$\label{masslagr1}
{\cal{L}}_{m}=\frac{M_{Pl}^{2}}{2}\left[m_{0}^{2}\delta g_{00}^{2}
+ 2m_{1}^{2}\delta g_{0i}^{2}-m_{2}^{2}\delta g_{ij}^{2}
+m_{3}^{2}\delta g_{ii}\delta g_{jj}-2m_{4}^{2}\delta g_{00}\delta
g_{ii}\right].$$ Now, plugging the decomposition (\[pertmetricmassgrav\]) into the mass lagrangian (\[masslagr1\]) and in the usual Einstein-Hilbert lagrangian of GR, and adding up these terms, we get the following equation for the tensor field $\chi_{ij}$ [@rubakov2004] $$\label{waveqchi}
\left(\partial^{\mu}\partial_{\mu} + m_{2}^2\right){\chi}_{ij}=0,$$ which is exactly the same equation for the TT metric contribution of the modified Fierz-Pauli model given by (\[waveqtt\]), representing the “genuine" GW polarization modes for Massive Gravity. As we have argued in Section \[sec:modfp\], the $\Psi_3$ content of the modified Fierz-Pauli model plays the role of extra GW longitudinal polarization modes; however, in Massive Gravity, the vector fields $F_{i}$ and $S_{i}$ evolve as massive spin-one particles with transverse polarization, and have nothing to do with extra GW polarization states.
Besides this original approach devised by V. Rubakov [@rubakov2004], there is another way of breaking the Lorentz symmetry of the massive lagrangian which resembles the Higgs mechanism in QFT. In this case, we introduce a set of four Goldstone fields $\phi^{0}(x)$ and $\phi^{i}(x)$, $i=1,2,3$, and a scalar, a vector and a tensor field constructed as follows [@dubovsky2004], [@dubovsky2005a]: $$\label{xfield}
X=\Lambda^{-4}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\phi^{0}\partial_{\beta}\phi^{0},$$ $$\label{vfield}
V^{i}=\Lambda^{-4}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\phi^{0}\partial_{\beta}\phi^{i},$$ $$\label{wfield}
W^{ij}=\Lambda^{-4}g^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha}\phi^{i}\partial_{\beta}\phi^{j}-X^{-1}V^{i}V^{j},$$ where $\Lambda$ is the energy scale of the theory. With such elements we introduce an arbitrary function $F=F\left(X,V^{i},W^{ij}\right)$, so that the action for Massive Gravity reads $$\label{massgravaction}
S=\int d^{4}x
\sqrt{-g}\left[-M_{Pl}^{2}R+\Lambda^{4}F(X,V^{i},W^{ij})+{\cal{L}}_{matter}\right],$$ where the first term on the right-hand side represents the usual Einstein-Hilbert action, and ${\cal{L}}_{matter}$ is the lagrangian for ordinary matter minimally coupled to the metric. We can show that in the linear perturbation regime given by (\[linearapprox\]), after setting the Goldstone fields to their “vacuum" values, $$\label{goldsvac}
g_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}, ~~~ \phi^{0}=\Lambda^{2}t,
~~~\phi^{i}=\Lambda^{2}x^{i},$$ and substituting these values and the decomposition (\[pertmetricmassgrav\]) into (\[massgravaction\]) we get exactly the same mass lagrangian as (\[masslagr1\]), with the mass parameters now being related to the functions $F$ and their derivatives [@dubovsky2004], [@dubovsky2005a].
\[sec:cosmopert\]Cosmological Perturbations for Massive Gravitons
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Once we have discussed the key features of metric perturbations around a flat Minkowski background, let us now address the same question in a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) background. We start with GR in which, in the standard theory of cosmological perturbations [@brandenberger1992], the metric $\delta
g_{\alpha\beta}$ is decomposed exactly in the same way as we did in (\[pertmetricmassgrav\]) but, in this case, we multiply all these components by the square of the scale factor of the universe $a(\eta)$ ($\eta$ is the conformal time), that is $$\label{cosmopertmetricmassgrav}
\delta g_{\alpha\beta}=a(\eta)^{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2\varphi & S_{i}-\partial_{i}B \\
S_{i}-\partial_{i}B & -\chi_{ij}-\partial_{i}F_{j}-\partial_{j}F_{i}+2\psi\delta_{ij}-2\partial_{i}\partial_{j}E \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ The constraints for the cosmological case are the same as (\[pertmetricconstr\]). Now, since we are interested in the CMB polarization induced by GWs, we focus only on the TT part of the metric perturbation; in this case, the Einstein equation for the tensor field is given by (the prime $'$ indicates a derivative with respect to conformal time) $${{h''}}_{ij}-\nabla^2 {{h}}_{ij}+2\mathcal{H}{{h}}_{ij}'
=0,
\label{tensoreinsteinperttensoriaisnull}$$ which simply describes transverse GW travelling on an expanding background.
In the case of the modified Fierz-Pauli model the same metric decomposition cannot be performed due to the extra polarization modes; we instead introduce $$\label{pertmetmodfp}
\delta g_{\alpha\beta}=a(\eta)^{2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2\phi & X_{i}-Q_{,i} \\
X_{i}-Q_{,i} & - h_{ij} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\phi$ and $Q$ are scalar fields, $X_i$ is a divergenceless vector field, and $h_{ij}$ is the cosmological version of the tensor given by the solution to equation (\[waveq\]), carrying the correspondent six polarization modes spanned in the NP formalism. The two scalar fields, plus the two components of the transverse vector field and the six modes of the tensor field give exactly the required ten degrees of freedom. The mass lagrangian for this model can be constructed analogously as in (\[action1\]), that is, it appears as a quadratic term in the metric (\[pertmetmodfp\]). The full action is then obtained by adding up this contribution to the usual Einstein-Hilbert one, and the Einstein equations can be derived using the standard tools. Before doing that, it is convenient to decompose the tensor perturbation $h_{ij}$ into its TT and longitudinal parts in the Fourier space. In (\[fourierexph\]) the whole time-dependence of $h_{ij}$ is contained in the exponential since it is a solution to a wave equation of the form (\[waveq\]); now, such time-dependence changes because of the extra temporal function $a(\eta)$ appearing in (\[pertmetmodfp\]), which introduces a damping in the oscillation. Therefore, we Fourier-expand the massive tensor perturbation $h_{ij}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cosmofourierexph}
h_{ij}\left(x\right)&=&\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
\frac{d^{3}\mathbf{k}}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}{\tilde{h}}_{ij}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right)e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot
\mathbf{r}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cosmofourierexph1}
\tilde{h}_{ij}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right)&=&\sum^{6}_{r=1}\varepsilon^{r}_{ij}(\mathbf{k})\tilde{h}^{r}
\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right),\end{aligned}$$ so that the TT and longitudinal components of ${\tilde{h}}_{ij}$ can be written in the same foot as (\[httff\]) and (\[hvec\]), that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{httffcosmo}
{\tilde{h}}^{\perp}_{ij}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right)&=&\varepsilon^{4}_{ij}(\mathbf{k})\tilde{h}^{4}
\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right)+
\varepsilon^{5}_{ij}(\mathbf{k})\tilde{h}^{5}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right),\\
{\tilde{h}}^{\parallel}_{ij}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right)&=&\varepsilon^{2}_{ij}(k)
\tilde{h}^{2}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right)
+\varepsilon^{3}_{ij}\left(\mathbf{k}\right)\tilde{h}^{3}\left(\eta,\mathbf{k}\right);\end{aligned}$$ now, extracting the Einstein equations from the action for the cosmological Fierz-Pauli model as we have sketched above, we see that both fields $h^{\perp}_{ij}$ and $h^{\parallel}_{ij}$ satisfy the same dynamical equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tttensorpertmfp}
{h^{\perp''}}_{ij}-\nabla^2 {h^{\perp}}_{ij}+2{\cal{H}}h^{\perp'}_{ij}+a^{2}m^{2}h^{\perp}_{ij}&=&0,\\
{h^{\parallel''}}_{ij}-\nabla^2 {h^{\parallel}}_{ij} +2{\cal{H}}{h^{\parallel}_{ij}}'+a^{2}m^{2}h^{\parallel}_{ij}&=&0\label{vectensorpertmfp}.\end{aligned}$$
In the case of Massive Gravity, the cosmological perturbations to the metric are given by (\[cosmopertmetricmassgrav\]), together the following set of perturbations to the Goldstone fields in the unitary gauge (\[goldsvac\]), $$\label{transfgoldstone}
\tilde{\phi^{0}}=\phi^{0}+\Lambda^2\lambda^{0}, ~~~~~
\tilde{\phi}^{i}=\phi^{i}+\Lambda^2\left(\lambda^{i}+\lambda^{,i}\right),$$ where $\lambda^{0}$ e $\lambda$ are scalar fields and $\lambda^{i}$ is a divergenceless vector field. Now, under infinitesimal coordinate transformations $$\label{translcaiscosmol}
\tilde{\eta}=\eta+\xi^{0}, ~~~~~ \tilde{x}^{i}=x^{i}+\xi^{i},$$ we can show that the following vector fields $$\label{defvecpot} \varpi_i=S_i+F_i',~~~~ \sigma_i=\lambda_i-F_i,$$ are invariant.
The action for Massive Gravity on a flat FRW background is then given by (\[massgravaction\]) with (\[cosmopertmetricmassgrav\]) and the Goldstone fields set to their vacuum values (\[goldsvac\]); the matter lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{matter}$ is assumed to be described by a perfect fluid whose perturbations for the fluid four-velocity are $$\nonumber
\delta u_i = a (\zeta_i + \partial_i \zeta),~~~
\delta u_0 = a\varphi.$$
With these features, the Einstein equations for the tensor field $\chi_{ij}$ are given by [@bebronne2007], $$\label{tensorpertmg}
{{\chi''}}_{ij}-\nabla^2 {{\chi}}_{ij} +2{\cal{H}}\chi_{ij}'+a^{2}m^{2}_{2}\chi_{ij}=0,$$ whereas for the gauge-invariant vector fields defined by (\[defvecpot\]) the Einstein equations read $$\label{cosmovecpertmg1}
\nabla^2 \varpi_i - 2 a^2 \rho_m M_{pl}^{-2} ( 1 + w)\zeta_i = 0,
~~~ \varpi_i' + 2 \mathcal{H} \varpi_i - a^2 m_2^2 \sigma_i = 0,$$ $$\label{cosmovecpertmg3}
m_2^2 \nabla^2 \sigma_{i} = 0,$$ where $\delta_\zeta = \zeta - \left( E^\prime + B \right)$, and $w$ is the parameter appearing the equation of state of the ordinary matter, $p = w\rho$ [@bebronne2007].
Solving equations (\[cosmovecpertmg1\]) - (\[cosmovecpertmg3\]) we conclude that the only relevant vector field is $\varpi_i$, whose amplitude decays with $a^{-2}$ [@bebronne2007], which is exactly the same behavior of vector fields as derived in GR.
Therefore, the Fierz-Pauli modified model and Massive Gravity give rise to the same results for the TT polarization modes of the tensor perturbations as can be seen from equations (\[tttensorpertmfp\]) and (\[tensorpertmg\]), whereas for vector perturbations the situation changes drastically. In the modified Fierz-Pauli model the vector modes of GW polarization obey the same equation as the TT modes, (\[vectensorpertmfp\]), so that they really may contribute to the polarization of CMB as we have shown in [@bessada2008] for the field $\chi_{ij}$; however, in Massive Gravity, the vector perturbations behave exactly as in GR, which means that they decay too fast after the inflationary phase and do not leave any signature on CMB polarization.
Therefore, the vector modes of the modified Fierz-Pauli model, unlike the predictions of GR, Massive Gravity, and other modified models of gravity, can leave signatures on the CMB. To see how this can be achieved, let us estimate now a limit mass to be detected by CMB polarization experiments, according to the discussion in [@bessada2008]. Since the equations for the tensor (\[tttensorpertmfp\]), and vector (\[vectensorpertmfp\]) modes are identical, the dispersion relations are also identical, given by $$\label{disprelation}
\omega^{2}=k^{2}+m^{2};$$ now, since in GR only GW with frequencies $\nu$ within the range $10^{-15}Hz$ to $10^{-18}Hz$ may leave a signature on CMB polarization [@kamionkowski1998], we see that these frequencies correspond to comoving wavenumbers $k$ within the range $10^{-25}cm^{-1}$ to $10^{-28}cm^{-1}$. We then use the values of $k$ of GR, varying the frequencies in order to obtain constant nonzero graviton masses through equation (\[disprelation\]). As a result, if the values of the graviton mass $m$ lie within the range $10^{-66}$ - $10^{-62}g$, the correspondent frequencies have values very close to the expected in GR; in particular, there is a graviton mass limit, $m=10^{-66}g\sim 10^{-29}cm^{-1}$, so that below this limit the dynamical evolution of the massive modes is indistinguishable from the tensor massless modes. Hence, since the vector modes in the modified Fierz-Pauli model are governed by the same equation as the tensor modes, then the graviton mass limit for the vector modes should be exactly the same.
Along with the value discussed above for the vector massive modes, there are other mass limits obtained so far in the literature by using different tests. For instance, Goldhaber and Nieto [@goldhaber1974] found a limit $m < 2.0 \times 10^{-62}g$ analyzing the motion of galaxies in clusters. Later on, Talmadge *et al.* [@talmadge1988] studied the variations of Kepler’s third law when compared with the orbits of Earth and Mars, and found a limit $m < 7.68 \times 10^{-55}g$. Recently, Finn and Sutton [@Finn2002] calculated the decay of the orbital period of the binary pulsars PSR B1913+16 (Hulse and Taylor pulsar) and PSR B1534+12 due to emission of massive gravitons, and found $m < 1.4\times 10^{-52} g$.
\[sec:cmbpol\]The Radiative Transfer Equation in the presence of Weak Gravitational Fields - an overview
========================================================================================================
Once we have discussed the key features of the different theories of gravitation with massive gravitons, we now turn our attention to the polarization of CMB. To do so, we initially review the theory of the radiative transfer in the presence of weak gravitational fields, following closely the seminal paper by Polnarev [@polnarev] (for a pedagogical introduction, see [@kamionkowski2004]).
Let us consider a given beam of radiation characterized by its *Stokes parameters* $\{I_{l},I_{r},U\}$, where $I_{l}$ and $I_{r}$ are the intensities of the radiation in the directions $l$ and $r$, respectively; $I=I_{l}+I_{r}$ is the total intensity of the wave, and the parameter $Q$ is given by $Q=I_{l}-I_{r}$. These functions are strictly related to the photon distribution function, which can be cast in a symbolic vector of the form [@chandrasekhar] $$\label{distfunct}
\hat{f}:=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
I_{l}\\
I_{r}\\
U\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $U$ is the other parameter associated with linear polarization. The components of $\hat{f}$ are functions of the conformal time $\eta$, the comoving spatial coordinates $\mathbf{r}$, and also of the photon angular distribution. Since the photons are scattered by the free electrons prior to recombination via Thomson scattering, their distribution function will be shifted according to the equation [@polnarev] $$\label{boltz1}
\frac{\partial \hat{f}}{\partial \eta}+\frac{p^{i}
}{p}\frac{\partial \hat{f}}{\partial x^{i}}+\frac{\partial
\hat{f}}{\partial \nu}\frac{d \nu}{d \eta}=C[\hat{f}],$$ where $\nu$ is the photon frequency, $\hat{\mathbf{p}}$ is the photon momentum, $C[\hat{f}]$ is the scattering term given by $$\label{collterm}
C[\hat{f}]=-\sigma_{T}N_{e}a\left[\hat{f}-\frac{1}{4\pi}\int^{1}_{-1}d\mu'd\varphi
~ P\left(\mu,\varphi,\mu',\varphi'\right)\hat{f}\right],$$ $\sigma_{T}$ is the Thomson scattering cross-section, $N_{e}$ is the number of free electrons in the unit comoving volume, $\mu=\cos \theta$, and $P\left(\mu,\varphi,\mu',\varphi'\right)$ is the scattering matrix given by [@chandrasekhar] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{collterm1}
P\left(\mu,\varphi,\mu',\varphi'\right)&=&\tilde{P}\left[P^{0}\left(\mu,\mu'\right)+\sqrt{1-\mu^{2}}
\sqrt{1-\mu'^{2}}P^{1}\left(\mu,\varphi,\mu',\varphi'\right)\right. \\
\nonumber &+&\left.
P^{2}\left(\mu,\varphi,\mu',\varphi'\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{matscat1}
\tilde{P}=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 2 \\
\end{array}
\right),~P^{0}=\frac{3}{4}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
2(1-\mu^{2})
(1-\mu'^{2})+\mu^{2}\mu'^{2} & \mu^{2} & 0 & 0 \\
\mu'^{2} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \mu \mu' \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{matscat3}
P^{1}=\frac{3}{4}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
4\mu \mu' \cos \psi & 0 & -2\mu \sin \psi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
2\mu' \sin \psi & 0 & \cos \psi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cos \psi \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\label{matscat4}
P^{2}=\frac{3}{4}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\mu^{2} \mu'^{2} \cos 2\psi & -\mu^{2}\cos 2\psi & -\mu^{2} \mu'
\sin
2\psi & 0 \\
-\mu'^{2}\cos 2\psi & \cos 2\psi & \mu' \sin 2\psi & 0 \\
\mu \mu'^{2} \sin 2\psi & -\mu \sin 2\psi & \mu \mu' \cos 2\psi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where we have defined $\psi:=\varphi-\varphi'$.
In equation (\[boltz1\]) the third term on the left-hand side shows the influence or signature of the GWs on the CMB polarization, whereas the term on the right-hand side gives the details of the Thomson scattering. Since the term (\[collterm\]) depends upon the photon angular function through the angles $\left(\mu,\varphi\right)$, we see that different GW imprints may lead to different processes of polarization via Thomson scattering. In the next two sections we address these issues in detail.
\[sec:sachswolfe\]The Sachs-Wolfe effect induced by Massive Gravitons
=====================================================================
As we have seen in Section \[sec:cosmopert\], the modified Fierz-Pauli model and Massive Gravity are equivalent with respect to the GW TT tensor modes, but only the vector modes of the first model may give rise to relevant contributions to CMB polarization. Hence, from this section on, we shall always consider only the Fierz-Pauli model to address all the issues concerning GW vector modes.
We have discussed in Section \[sec:cmbpol\] that the CMB photons are polarized due to the Thomson scattering with the free electrons in the epoch of recombination. Prior to Thomson scattering, the cosmological perturbations imprint a signature on the photon angular pattern, the so-called *Sachs-Wolfe* (SW) effect, which can be understood as the shift of photon frequency along the line of sight.
This effect can be computed through the geodesic equation for the photon; then, using the metric perturbation (\[pertmetmodfp\]) around a flat FRW space, and the constraint $g_{\alpha\beta}p^{\alpha}p^{\beta}=0$, where $p^{\alpha}$ is the photon four-momentum, the geodesic equation reads for the tensor field $h_{ij}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{geodgen}
\frac{d\nu}{d\lambda}&=&-\nu \left[\mathcal{H}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial
h_{ij}}{\partial \eta}p^{i}p^{j}\right]\frac{d \eta}{d\lambda},\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is an affine parameter. The product $\varepsilon_{ij}p^ip^j$ appearing in (\[geodgen\]) may be evaluated as follows: first, since the photon travels along an arbitrary direction $\hat{\mathbf{p}}$, let us construct a reference frame around the GW propagation vector $\hat{\mathbf{k}}$ such that the GW polarization modes assume the simplified form given by (\[polariztensor\]). To this end we introduce the *polarization vectors* $\{{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(1)},{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(2)}\}$, defined by $$\label{polvectors}
\varepsilon^r_{ij}=\varepsilon^r_{(1)i}\varepsilon^r_{(1)j}-\varepsilon^r_{(2)i}\varepsilon^r_{(2)j},$$ where $\varepsilon^r_{ij}$ is given by (\[polariztensor\]) for each polarization component $r$, satisfying $$\label{gwbasisprop}
{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(1)}\cdot
{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(2)}={\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(1)}\cdot
\hat{\mathbf{k}}={\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(2)}\cdot
\hat{\mathbf{k}}=0.$$ The trihedron $$\label{gwbasis}
\{{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(1)},{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(2)},\hat{\mathbf{k}}\}$$ is then a reference frame around the GW direction $\hat{\mathbf{k}}$ in which the polarization tensor preserves the simple form (\[polariztensor\]).
Second, let us express the photon momentum $\mathbf{p}$ in terms of spherical coordinates around (\[gwbasis\]), so that the following relations hold, $$\label{photonmom}
\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{p}}=\cos \theta,~~~
{\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(1)}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{p}}=\sin\theta \cos
\varphi,~~~ {\hat{\varepsilon}}^r_{(2)}\cdot
\hat{\mathbf{p}}=\sin\theta \sin\varphi,$$ therefore, using (\[polariztensor\]) and (\[photonmom\]), it follows that $$\label{prodepsprepsi3}
\varepsilon^2_{ij}p^ip^j=\mu\sqrt{1-\mu^{2}} \cos\varphi \propto
Y_{2,+1}\left(\mu,\varphi\right),$$ $$\label{prodepspimpsi3}
\varepsilon^3_{ij}p^ip^j=\mu\sqrt{1-\mu^{2}} \sin\varphi\propto
Y_{2,-1}\left(\mu,\varphi\right),$$ $$\label{prodepsprepsi4}
\varepsilon^4_{ij}p^ip^j=\left(1-\mu^{2}\right) \cos
2\varphi\propto Y_{2,+2}\left(\mu,\varphi\right),$$ $$\label{prodepspimpsi4}
\varepsilon^5_{ij}p^ip^j=\left(1-\mu^{2}\right) \sin
2\varphi\propto Y_{2,-2}\left(\mu,\varphi\right);$$ where $Y_{lm}\left(\mu,\varphi\right)$ are the usual spherical harmonics. The results (\[prodepsprepsi3\]) - (\[prodepspimpsi4\]) show us that the GW imprint upon the photon angular distribution is in the form of a quadrupole, with $m=\pm
2$ for the $\Psi_4$ modes ($r=4,5$, which coincides with GR), and with $m=\pm1$ for the $\Psi_3$ modes ($r=2,3$).
Hence, from relations (\[cosmofourierexph\]), (\[cosmofourierexph1\]), (\[geodgen\]) and (\[prodepsprepsi3\])-(\[prodepspimpsi4\]) we get the following geodesic equations:
*i*) $\Psi_{3}$ : $$\label{geodpsi3}
\frac{1}{\nu_0}\frac{d\nu_0}{d\eta}\propto-\frac{\partial h^{2,3}}{\partial
\eta}
Y_{2,\pm1}\left(\mu,\varphi\right),$$
*ii*) $\Psi_{4}$ : $$\label{geodpsi4}
\frac{1}{\nu_0}\frac{d\nu_0}{d\eta}\propto-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial h^{4,5}}{\partial
\eta}
Y_{2,\pm 2}\left(\mu,\varphi\right)$$ where $\nu_0=\nu a(\eta)$.
Then, massive gravitons with the $\Psi_{4}$ polarization modes give rise to the usual tensor SW effect in GR, whereas the $\Psi_{3}$ modes do not yield its well-known vector version in GR (see, for example, the discussion in [@giovannini2005]). This happens because $\Psi_{3}$ modes arise as GW longitudinal states of polarization, and not as a massive vector fields as in GR or Massive Gravity. Anyway, they will leave a different signature on the CMB polarization by means of Thomson scattering, as we discuss in the next section.
\[sec:thomscat\]The Basis for Thomson Scattering
================================================
We now turn to the derivation of the Thomson scattering term (\[collterm\]) for massive gravitons. Let us consider first that the incident radiation prior to be Thomson scattered is unpolarized, with the angular pattern dictated by the SW effect (\[geodpsi3\]) and (\[geodpsi4\]). In this case, the Stokes vectors for the incident radiation are given by
*i*) $\Psi_{3}$ : $$\label{apsi3}
{\hat{a}}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\mu \sqrt{1-\mu^{2}} \cos \varphi ~\mathbf{\hat{u}},~~~
{\hat{a}}^{3}=\frac{1}{2}\mu \sqrt{1-\mu^{2}} \sin \varphi ~\mathbf{\hat{u}},$$
*ii*) $\Psi_{4}$ : $$\label{apsi4}
{\hat{a}}^{4}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\mu^{2}\right) \cos 2\varphi ~
\mathbf{\hat{u}},~~~ {\hat{a}}^{5}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\mu^{2}\right) \sin
2\varphi ~\mathbf{\hat{u}},$$
where we have defined $$\label{defvecu}
\mathbf{\hat{u}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
1\\
0\\
\end{array}
\right).$$
Now, defining the operator $\hat{P}$ as $$\label{poper}
\hat{P}\hat{\xi}\left(\mu,\varphi\right)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int^{1}_{-1}d\mu'd\varphi'
~
P\left(\mu,\varphi,\mu',\varphi'\right)\hat{\xi}\left(\mu',\varphi'\right),$$ where $P$ is the scattering matrix (\[collterm1\]), it is straightforward to see, for $\hat{\xi}={\hat{a}}^{r}$ ($r=2,3,4,5$), that $$\label{defbasis1}
\hat{P}{\hat{a}}^{r}=p {\hat{a}}^{r}+q {\hat{b}}^{r},$$ where $p$ and $q$ are constants, and ${\hat{b}}^{r}$ is a basis vector such that $$\label{defbasis2}
\hat{P}{\hat{b}}^{r}=p '{\hat{a}}^{r}+q' {\hat{b}}^{r},$$ where $p'$ and $q'$ are constants as well. From (\[apsi3\]) - (\[defbasis2\]) we readily see that,
*i*) $\Psi_{3}$ : $$\label{bpsi3}
{\hat{b}}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\mu^{2}} \left(
\begin{array}{r}
\mu \cos \varphi \\
-\mu \cos \varphi \\
2\sin \varphi \\
\end{array}
\right),~~~
{\hat{b}}^{3}=\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{1-\mu^{2}} \left(
\begin{array}{r}
\mu\sin \varphi \\
-\mu \sin \varphi \\
-2\cos \varphi \\
\end{array}
\right),$$
*ii*) $\Psi_{4}$ : $$\label{bpsi4}
{\hat{b}}^{4}=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\left(1+\mu^{2}\right) \cos 2\varphi \\
-\left(1+\mu^{2}\right) \cos 2\varphi \\
4\mu \sin 2\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right],~~~ {\hat{b}}^{5}=\frac{1}{2}\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\left(1+\mu^{2}\right) \sin 2\varphi \\
-\left(1+\mu^{2}\right) \sin 2\varphi \\
-4\mu \cos 2\varphi \\
\end{array}
\right].$$
The basis vectors given by (\[apsi3\]) and (\[bpsi3\]), (\[apsi4\]) and (\[bpsi4\]) allows us to factor out the angular dependence of the photon distribution vectors, and they constitute the first-order contribution to $\hat{f}$. The remaining contribution for $\hat{f}$ comes from the $h=0$ solution, that is, in the absence of GWs, in which the photon distribution vector is given by $$\label{f0}
\hat{f}:={\hat{f}}_{0}=f_{0}(\nu_{0})~\mathbf{\hat{u}}.$$ Now, the linearized photon distribution vector can be written as $$\label{phdistvec}
{\hat{f}}^{r}\sim
{{\hat{f}}_{0}}^{r}+e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}}\left[\alpha^{r}\left(\eta,\mu,\nu_{0}
\right){\hat{a}}^{r}+\beta^{r}
\left(\eta,\mu,\nu_{0} \right){\hat{b}}^{r}\right],$$ where $\alpha^{r}\left(\eta,\mu,\nu_{0} \right)$ and $\beta^{r}\left(\eta,\mu,\nu_{0} \right)$ are functions to be determined as solutions of the Boltzmann’s equations (\[boltz1\]).
\[sec:boltzeq\]The Complete Boltzmann Equations
===============================================
Now, once we have obtained the form of the photon distribution vector (\[phdistvec\]) for the TT and longitudinal GW mode, we are able to write down the full Boltzmann equations (\[boltz1\]). They are given by
*i*) $\Psi_{3}$ : $$\label{boltzpsi31}
{\chi^{r}}' +(q-ik\mu)\chi^{r} =H^{r},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boltzpsi32}
{\beta^{r}}'&+&(q-ik\mu)\beta^{r} =-\frac{3}{8}q
\int^{1}_{-1} d\mu'
\left[-\chi^{r} \mu'^{2}(1-\mu'^{2})\right. \nonumber \\&+& \left. \beta^{r}\left(-1-\mu'^{2}+2\mu'^{4}\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ for $r=2,3$, and
*ii*) $\Psi_{4}$ : $$\label{boltzpsi41}
{\xi^{r}}'+(q-ik\mu)\xi^{r} =H^{r},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boltzpsi42}
{\beta^{r}}'&+&(q-ik\mu)\beta^{r} =\frac{3}{16}q
\int^{1}_{-1} d\mu'
\left[\beta^{r}(1+\mu'^{2})^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\xi^{r}
(1-\mu'^{2})^{2} \right],\end{aligned}$$ for $r=4,5$. The functions $\xi$ and $\chi$ are defined as $$\label{defxi}
\xi^{r}=\alpha^{r}+\beta^{r},$$ $$\label{defchi}
\chi^{r}=\alpha^{r}-\beta^{r},$$ and the scattering rate $q$ is defined as $q=\sigma_{T}N_{e}a$, and finally $$\label{defH}
H^{r}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial h^{r}(\eta)}{\partial
\eta}.$$
The equations (\[boltzpsi41\]) and (\[boltzpsi42\]) for massive gravitons with $\Psi_4$ mode are identical to the correspondent ones in GR; the difference here lies on the Boltzmann equations for the $\Psi_3$ modes, (\[boltzpsi31\]) and (\[boltzpsi32\]), which do not appear in GR. Since the vector and tensor modes satisfy the same dynamical equation, and the mathematical form of the equations (\[boltzpsi31\]) and (\[boltzpsi32\]) is very different from (\[boltzpsi41\]) and (\[boltzpsi42\]), it is clear that the vector polarization modes of massive gravitons leave a characteristic signature distinguishable from the tensor one, which could, in principle, be probed by measurements on the CMB $E$ and $B$-modes. Since the experiments in the Planck satellite will improve the WMAP5 results for the $E$-mode, we may expect that such future measurements might decide whether nontrivial GW signatures - as we showed here through equations (\[boltzpsi31\]) and (\[boltzpsi32\]) for $\Psi_3$-modes - appear or not in the CMB polarization spectrum. In this case, we conclude that CMB polarization measurements may be decisive to test alternative theories of gravitation - in particular, the massive model as we discussed here.
\[conc\]Conclusions
===================
We have analyzed in this work three theories of gravitation with massive gravitons, and we have shown that the modified Fierz-Pauli model coincides with Massive Gravity for the TT tensor field in linear perturbation theory around Minkowski and flat FRW backgrounds. We have shown that such tensor perturbations associated with massive gravitons give rise to the usual tensor SW effect, lead to the same Boltzmann equations for these modes in GR.
We have deduced the dynamical equations for the GW vector longitudinal polarization modes ($\Psi_3$-modes) in the modified Fierz-Pauli model and shown that they do not give the same results of Massive Gravity, in which vector perturbations behave like in GR; instead, they give rise, in a cosmological scenario, to a nontrivial SW effect which leaves a vector signature of the quadrupolar form $Y_{2,\pm 1}(\mu,\varphi)$ on the CMB polarization. Also, such massive vector modes possess a mass limit of $m\sim 10^{-29}cm^{-1}$ as the tensor modes, so that below this limit the Fierz-Pauli model is absolutely indistinguishable from GR in terms of the dynamical evolution.
Analyzing the Einstein equations for such $\Psi_3$-modes we concluded that these vector signatures could be present at recombination epoch, unlike the vector perturbations in GR and Massive Gravity, which would decay too fast and would not leave any signature on CMB polarization. Therefore, we calculated the new basis for the Thomson scattering for such $\Psi_3$-modes, and then deduced the appropriate equation for the radiative transport. Based upon these results we have shown qualitatively that $\Psi_{3}$-mode vector signatures could clearly be distinguished on the CMB polarization from the usual $\Psi_4$ tensor modes if the former do exist; hence, we could look for such signatures in the $E$-mode performed by Planck satellite.
In this sense we argued that Planck polarization measurements could be decisive to test alternative theories of gravitation.
DB and ODM thanks Odylio Aguiar, Armando Bernui, Thyrso Villela and Carlos Alexandre Wuensche for very helpful discussions. The authors also thank Professor José A. de Freitas Pacheco for very important discussions and for a critical reading of the manuscript. DB also thanks Professor Mark Kamionkowski for clarifying some important points concerning CMB polarization. DB was financially supported by CAPES, and ODM is partially supported by CNPq (grant 305456/2006-7).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
D. M. Eardley, D. M. Lee and A. P. Lightman. Phys. Rev. D **8**, 3308 (1973)
C. Stellati, O. D. Miranda and R. M. Marinho. *In preparation*.
P. J. Sutton and L. S. Finn. Phys. Rev. D **65**, 044022 (2002)
G. Gabadadze and A. Gruzinov. Phys. Rev. D **72** 12, 124007 (2005)
M. Visser. Gen. Rel. and Grav. **30**, 1717 (1998)
V. Rubakov.: Lorentz-violating graviton masses: getting around ghosts, low strong coupling scale and VDVZ discontinuity. *hep-th/0407104* (2004)
S. L. Dubovsky. JHEP **10**, 76 (2004)
M. Fierz and W. Pauli. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. **A**, 173 (1939)
D.G. Boulware and S. Deser. Phys. Rev. D **6**, 3368 (1972)
N. Rosen. Ann. of Phys. **84**, 455 (1973)
W. L. S. de Paula, O. D. Miranda and R. M. Marinho. Class. Quantum Grav. **21**, 4595 (2004)
H. van Dam and M. Veltman. Nucl. Phys. **B22**, 397 (1970)
V.I. Zakharov. JETP Lett. **12**, 312 (1970)
B.F. Schutz. Class. Quantum Grav. **16**, A131, (1999)
M. Tucci *et. al*. MNRAS **360**, 935 (2005)
E. Newman and R. Penrose. J. Math. Phys **3**, 566 (1962)
C. M. Will.: The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity **3**, 9 http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3 (2006)
S. L. Dubovsky, P. G. Tinyakov and I. I. Tkachev. Phys. Rev. D **72**, 084011 (2005)
V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman and R. H. Brandenberger.: Theory of cosmological perturbations. Phys. Rep. **215**, 203-333 (1992)
M. V. Bebronne and P. G. Tinyakov. Phys. Rev. D **76**, 084011 (2007)
D. Bessada and O. D. Miranda.: Polarization of CMB induced by tensor modes of primordial GWs in Massive Gravity *Submitted to Class. Quantum Grav.* (2008)
R.R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski and L. Wadley, *Phys. Rev D* **59**, 027101, (1998).
A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto.: M. M. Mass of the graviton. Phys. Rev. D **9**, 1119, (1974).
C. Talmadge, J. P. Berthias, R. W. Hellings and E. M. Standish.: Model-independent constraints on possible modifications of newtonian gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, n. 10, (1988).
A. G. Polnarev. Sov. Astron. **29**(6), 307 (1985)
P. Cabella and M. Kamionkowski.: Theory of Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization *arXiv: astro-ph/0403392* (2004)
S. Chandrasekhar.: Radiative Transfer, *Dover Ed.* (1960)
M. Giovannini.: Theoretical Tools for CMB Physics. IJMP D **14**, 363 (2005)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Boston University
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Boston University
author:
- Steve Rosenberg
- Jie Xu
bibliography:
- 'CLT.bib'
title: Central Limit Theorems on Compact Metric Spaces
---
Introduction
============
We produce a series of Central Limit Theorems (CLTs) associated to compact metric measure spaces $(K,d,\eta)$, with $\eta$ a reasonable probability measure. For the first CLT, we can ignore $\eta$ by isometrically embedding $K$ into $\calC(K)$, the space of continuous functions on $K$ with the sup norm, and then applying known CLTs for sample means on Banach spaces (Theorem \[thm:3.1\]). However, the sample mean makes no sense back on $K$, so using $\eta$ we develop a CLT for the sample Fréchet mean (Corollary \[cor:3.1\]). This involves working on the closed convex hull of the embedded image of $K$. To work in the easier Hilbert space setting of $L^2(K,\eta)$, we have to modify the metric $d$ to a related metric ${d_\eta}$. We obtain an $L^2$-CLT for both the sample mean and the sample Fréchet mean (Theorem \[thm:5.1\]), and we relate the Fréchet sample and population means on the closed convex hull to the Fréchet means on the image of $K$. Since the $L^2$ and $L^\infty$ norms play important roles, in §6 we develop a metric-measure criterion relating $d$ and $\eta$ under which all $L^p$ norms are equivalent.
Background Material
===================
Throughout the paper, $(K,d)$ will be a compact metric space. Recall that a $ G $-valued random variable $ X $ is a function $
X : \Omega \rightarrow G$, where $ (\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P) $ is a fixed probability triple. The induced measure/distribution on $ G $ is given by $ X_{*}(P) $, with $$X_{*}(P)(A) = P(X^{-1}(A)), \ A \subset G.$$
We recall the setup and statement of a Central Limit Theorem on Banach spaces due to Zinn.
\[defone\](i) Let $G$ be a Banach space. A probability measure $\gamma$ on $G$ is a Gaussian Radon measure if for every nontrivial linear functional $L:G\to \R$, on $ G $, the pushforward measure $ L_{*}(\gamma) $ is a non-degenerate Gaussian measure on $ \mathbb{R} $, i.e., a standard Gaussian measure with non-zero variance.
\(ii) Let $ X_{1}, \dotso, X_{n}, \dotso $ be any set of $ G $-valued i.i.d. random variables with common distribution $ \mu $. $ \mu $ satisfies the G-Central Limit Theorem (G-CLT) on $ G $ if there exists a Guassian Radon probability measure $ \gamma $ on $ G $ such that the distributions, $ \mu_{n} $, of $ \frac{X_{1} + \dotso + X_{n}}{\sqrt{n}} $ converge, i.e., for every bounded -continuous real-valued function $ f $ on $ G $, $$\int_{G} f d\mu_{n} \rightarrow \int_{G} f d\gamma.$$
\(iii) The metric $d$ on $K$ implies Gaussian continuity (or $d$ is CGI) if whenever $ \lbrace X(s) \rbrace_{s \in K} $ is a separable Gaussian process such that $${\mathbb E}\left[\lvert X(t) - X(s) \rvert^{2}\right]\leqslant d^{2}(t, s),$$ then $ X $ has continuous sample paths a.s..
Let $ H_{d}(K, \epsilon) = \log (N_{d}(K, \epsilon)) $, where $ N_{d}(K, \epsilon) $ is the smallest number of $d$-balls of diameter at most $ 2 \epsilon $ which cover $ K $.
[@dudley Thm. 3.1] \[proptwoone\] If $$\label{eq2.1}
\int_{0}^{\infty} H_{d}^{1/2} (K, u) du < \infty,$$ then $ d$ is GCI.
Let $ \mathcal{C}(K) $ be the Banach space of continuous functions on the compact metric space $ (K, d) $ equipped with the sup-norm $ \lVert \cdot \rVert_{\infty} $. $\calC(K)$ becomes a complete metric space with the induced distance function $ d_{\infty} $ by $ d_{\infty}(f, g) = \lVert f - g \rVert_{\infty}, \forall f, g \in \mathcal{C}(K) $.
For the compact metric space $ (K, d) $, set $${{\rm Lip}}(d) = \lbrace x \in \mathcal{C}(K) : \sup_{t \neq s} \frac{\lvert x(t) - x(s) \rvert}{d(t, s)} < \infty \rbrace.$$
$ {{\rm Lip}}(d) $ is nonempty (by letting $x$ be a constant function). We check that ${{\rm Lip}}(d)$ is closed. If $ \lbrace x_{k} \rbrace \in {{\rm Lip}}(d)$ has $ \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} x_{k} = y \in \mathcal{C}(K) $, then for any $\epsilon >0$ and $t\neq s$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\lvert y(t) - y(s) \rvert}{d(t, s)} &\leq \frac{\lvert y(t) - x_j(t) \rvert}{d(t, s)}
+\frac{\lvert x_j(t) - x_j(s) \rvert}{d(t, s)} + \frac{\lvert x_j(s) - y(s) \rvert}{d(t, s)}\\
&\leq 2\epsilon + \frac{\lvert x_j(t) - x_j(s) \rvert}{d(t, s)},\end{aligned}$$ for $j = j(\epsilon) \gg 0$ independent of $t,s.$ This implies that $y\in {{\rm Lip}}(d).$
A Radon probability measure $ \mu $ on the Banach space $ (G, \lVert \cdot \rVert) $ has zero mean and finite variance, respectively, if $$\label{conds}
\int_{G} x\ \mu(dx) = 0, \
\int_{G} \lVert x \rVert^{2} \ \mu(dx) < \infty,$$ respectively.
Of course, if a sequence of $G$-valued random variables $X_i$ has finite expectation, then the new random variable $ X_i - \mathbb{E}[X_i] $ has zero mean.
We can now state Zinn’s CLT.
[@zinn] \[twoone\] Let $ (K, d) $ be a compact metric space with $d$ CGI. If $ \mu $ is a Radon probability measure on $ Lip(d) $ with zero mean and finite variance, then $ \mu $ satisfies the Central Limit Theorem on $ (\mathcal{C}(K), \Vert\cdot\Vert_\infty) $ in the sense of Definition \[defone\](ii).
For our main results, we need to define the Fréchet mean with respect to a probability measure $Q$ on $(K,d)$. This generalizes the notion of centroids from vector spaces to metric spaces.
\(i) The Fréchet function $ f:K\to \R$ is $$f(p) = \int_{M} d^{2}(p, z) Q(z) dz, p \in M.$$ If $ f(p) $ has a unique minimizer $ \mu = {\rm argmin}_{p \in K} f(p) $, we call $\mu$ the Fréchet mean of $ Q $.
\(ii) Given an i.i.d. sequence $ X_{1}, \dotso, X_{n} \sim Q $ on $ M $, the empirical Fréchet mean is defined to be $$\mu_{n} = {\rm argmin}_{p \in M} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} d^{2}(p, X_{i}),$$ provided the argmin is unique.
Unlike centroids in Euclidean space, the uniqueness of Fréchet mean cannot be guaranteed, even in spaces which locally look like Euclidean space.
We parametrize an open cone (minus a line) $\calZ: x^2+y^2 = z^2$ of height one by $$F(u,v) = \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} u\cos v, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} u\sin v, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} u\right),\ (u,v)\in (0,1)\times
(0,2\pi).$$ There is a Riemannian isometry from the sector $S = \{(r,\theta)\in (0, \sqrt{2})\times (0, \sqrt{2}\pi)\}$ to $\calZ$ induced by $\alpha: (r,\theta)\mapsto (u = r/\sqrt{2}, v = \sqrt{2}\theta)$, [*i.e.,*]{} $$(r,\theta)\mapsto
\left(\frac{r}{2}\cos( \sqrt{2}\theta), \frac{r}{2}\sin( \sqrt{2}\theta),\frac{r}{2}\right).$$ Indeed, the first fundamental form of the sector at $(r,\theta)$, respectively the first fundamental form of the cone at $(u,v)$, are $$\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&r^2\end{pmatrix},\ \ \begin{pmatrix}2&0\\0&\frac{u^2}{2}\end{pmatrix},$$ respectively. It is easy to check that the differential $d\alpha$ preserves these inner products. Thus every point $p\in S$ has a neighborhood $U$ such that the usual Euclidean distance between $q_1, q_2\in U$ equals the geodesic distance between $\alpha(q_1), \alpha(q_2).$
It is easy to check that for e.g. the uniform distribution on $S$, the Fréchet mean/cen-troid $(\bar x, \bar y)$ is inside $S$. In contrast, by the rotational symmetry of the geodesic distance function on $\calZ$, the minima of the Fréchet function on $\calZ$ form a circle containing $\alpha(\bar x, \bar y).$
For results on CLTs when the Fréchet mean is not unique, see [@Bhattacharya].
A CLT for Compact Metric Spaces
===============================
In this section, we isometrically embed the compact metric $( K,d) $ into the Banach space $(\calC(K),d_\infty)$ to obtain a CLT on the image of $ K $.
We define $$\imath_{d} : K \rightarrow \mathcal{C}(K), x \mapsto f_{x} : = d(x, \cdot).$$
The following proposition is well known.
$ \imath_{d} : (K, d) \rightarrow (\imath_{d}(K), d_{\infty}) $ is an isometry.
For $ x, y \in K $, we have $$d_{\infty}(f_{x}, f_{y}) = \lVert f_{x} - f_{y} \rVert_{\infty} = \max_{z \in K} \lvert d(x, z) - d(y, z) \rvert \geqslant \lvert d(x, y) - d(y, y) \rvert = d(x, y).$$ On the other hand, for $ x, y,z \in K $, we have $$d(x, z) - d(y, z) \leqslant d(x, y), d(y, z) - d(x, z) \leqslant d(x, y) \Rightarrow \lvert d(x, z) - d(y, z) \rvert \leqslant d(x, y),$$ so $$\max_{z \in K} \lvert d(x, z) - d(y, z) \rvert \leqslant d(x, y) \Rightarrow d_{\infty}(f_{x}, f_{y}) \leqslant d(x, y).$$ Thus $\imath_d$ is an isometry.
It follows that $\imath_d$ is an injection, and $\imath_d(K)$ is a compact subset of $\calC(K)$.
To obtain a CLT on $ \imath_{d}(K) $ from Theorem \[twoone\], we need to verify its hypotheses.
\[lem:one\]$ \imath_{d}(K) \subset {{\rm Lip}}(d) $.
For $ f_{x} \in \imath_{d}(K) $, the triangle inequality for $s,t\in K$ gives $$\lvert f_{x}(t) - f_{x}(s) \rvert = \lvert d(x, t) - d(x, s) \vert \leqslant d(s, t).$$ It follows that $$\sup_{s \neq t} \frac{\lvert f_{x}(s) - f_{x}(t) \rvert}{d(s, t)} \leqslant 1.$$
In the following proof, we strongly use the fact that $\calC(K)$ is a “linearization" of $K$.
\[lem:two\] The metric $ d $ on $K$ is GCI.
We must verify (\[eq2.1\]) in Proposition \[proptwoone\]. Equivalently, we will show $$\label{eq3.2} \int_{0}^{\infty} H_{d_{\infty}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\imath_{d}(K), u) du < \infty.$$
As a compact set, $ \imath_{d}(K) $ can be covered by $ N $ balls of radius $ 1 $ for some $ N $. Fix any point $ x_{0} \in \imath_{d}(K) $, and consider the $ d_{\infty} $-ball $ B_\infty(x_{0}, 1) $ of radius $ 1 $ centered at $ x_{0} $. The closure $\overline{B_\infty(x_0,1)}$ equals $\imath_d(\overline{B_d(\imath^{-1}_d(x_0),1) } )$ of the corresponding ball in $K.$ It follows that $\overline{B_\infty(x_0,1)}$ is compact, so we can cover $ B(x_{0}, 1) $ by $ M $ balls of radius $ \frac{1}{2} $ for some $ M $.
Since $ d_{\infty} $ is translation invariant, $ M $ is independent of the choice of $ x_{0} $. Moreover, $d_\infty$ is homogeneous in the sense that $ d_{\infty}(cf, cg) = \lvert c \rvert d_{\infty}(f, g) $ for $ c \in \mathbb{R} $. Thus for $ r >0 $, any $ d_\infty $-ball of radius $ r $ contained in $ \imath_{d}(K) $ can be covered by $ M $ balls of radius $ \frac{r}{2} $. Hence $$N_{d_{\infty}}(\imath_{d}(K), 2^{-k}) \leqslant N \cdot M^{k + 1}.$$
To estimate (\[eq2.1\]), we integrate over $ [0,1] $ and $ [1, \infty) $ separately. Since $ \imath_{d}(K) $ is compact, it is covered by a single $ d_\infty $-ball $ B_\infty(x_{0}, R) $ for some $ R \gg 0 $ and a fixed $ x_{0} \in \imath_{d}(K) $. Choose $ k_{0} \in \mathbb{N} $ such that $ 2^{k_{0}} \leqslant R < 2^{k_{0} + 1} $. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{1}^{\infty} H_{d_{\infty}}^{\frac{1}{2}} (\imath_{d}(K), u) du & = \int_{1}^{\infty} \sqrt{\log (N_{d_{\infty}}(\imath_{d}(K), u))} du \\
&\leqslant \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sqrt{\log (N_{d_{\infty}}(\imath_{d}(K), 2^{k}))} (2^{k} - 2^{k - 1}) \\
& \leqslant \sum_{k = 1}^{k_{0} + 1} \sqrt{\log (N_{d_{\infty}}(\imath_{d}(K), 2^{k}))} 2^{k - 1} < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ For the region $ [0, 1] $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\int_{0}^{1} H_{d_{\infty}}^{\frac{1}{2}} (\imath_{d}(K), u) du}\\
& = \int_{0}^{1} \sqrt{\log (N_{d_{\infty}}(\imath_{d}(K), u))} du
\leqslant \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \sqrt{\log (N_{d_{\infty}}(\imath_{d}(K), 2^{-k-1}))} (2^{-k} - 2^{-k - 1}) \\
&\leqslant \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \sqrt{ \log (N \cdot M^{k + 2})} \ 2^{-k - 1}
= \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \sqrt{ (k + 2) \log M + \log N} \ 2^{ - k - 1}
< \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Adding these estimates gives (\[eq3.2\]).
This gives our first Central Limit Theorem on $K $, or really on the isometric space ${\imath_d}(K).$
\[thm:3.1\]Let $ (K, d) $ be a compact metric space, let $ \mu $ be a Radon probability measure on $K$ with finite variance and such that $\imath_{d,*}\mu$ has zero mean on ${\imath_d}(K)$. Then $\imath_{d,*}\mu$ satisfies the $G$-CLT for $G = (\calC(K), \Vert\cdot\Vert_\infty).$
By Lemmas \[lem:one\], \[lem:two\], the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied for $\imath_{d,*}\mu$.
A Fréchet CLT associated to a compact metric space
==================================================
In the previous section, we found a G-CLT on Banach space associated with the usual sample mean $ \sqrt{n} \cdot \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{i} $ on $G = \calC(K)$. In this section, we prove a G-CLT on the compact metric space $K$ (again, really on ${\imath_d}(K)$), endowed with a Radon probability measure $\eta,$ for the sample Fréchet mean $$\label{sfmean}
\text{argmin}_{Y \in \imath_{d}(K)} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2},$$ $ X_{1}, \dotso, X_{n} $ are i.i.d. $ \imath_{d}(K) $-valued random variables, and the $L^2$ norm is taken with respect to $\imath_{d,*}\eta.$ Note that we compute the sample Fréchet mean with respect to the $ L^{2}$-norm, since we will need a Hilbert space structure below. The minimizer of (\[sfmean\]) may not exist or be unique, since $\imath_{d}(K) $ may be neither closed nor in $ \mathcal{C}(K) $. Instead, we consider the closed convex hull of $ \imath_{d}(K) $, on which the uniqueness of the Fréchet mean is guaranteed.
\[cch\] Let $ \imath_{d}(K)^{c} $ be the convex hull of $ \imath_{d}(K) $, [*i.e.*]{}, the intersection of all convex subsets of $ \mathcal{C}(K) $ containing $ \imath_{d}(K) $, and let $$S_{d} = S_d(K) = \overline{ \imath_{d}(K)^{c}}$$ be the closure of $ \imath_{d}(K)^c $.
By [@border Thm. 5.35], $ S_{d} $ is a compact subset of $ \mathcal{C}(K) $. It is easy to check that $S_d(K) \subset {{\rm Lip}}(d).$ As the minimizer of a convex function on a closed convex space, the Fréchet mean is unique.
To continue with Example 2.1, choose a probability measure $Q$ on the cone $\calZ$. The sample Fréchet mean for $K$-valued random variables $Y_i$ lies in the interior of $\calZ$ in $\R^3.$ It is unclear if the sample Fréchet mean for the $\imath_d(\calZ)$-valued random variables $X_i = {\imath_d}\circ Y_i$ lies in ${\imath_d}(\calZ)$, but it certainly lies in $S_d(\calZ).$ (This example doesn’t really show the strength of embedding $\calZ$ into $\calC(\calZ)$, since $\calZ$ lies in a linear space.
Similar remarks apply to the Fréchet minimum. While the Fréchet minimum for the cone $(\calZ,\eta)$ is not unique, the Fréchet minimum on $(S_d(\calZ), \imath_{d,*}\eta)$, the closed convex hull of the isometric set $(\imath_d(\calZ), \imath_{d,*}\eta)$, is unique. (Note that the sector $S$ in Example 2.1 is only locally isometric to $\calZ.$) While we have gained uniqueness, there is no reason why the Fréchet minimum need be inside $\imath_d(\calZ)$, as in Example 2.1. It is shown in [@eric Supplement C] that in general the distance from the Fréchet mean in $S_d(K)$ to $\imath_d(K)$ is at most twice the diameter of $K$.
At this point we have the embeddings $K\hookrightarrow {\imath_d}(K) \subset S_{d}(K) \subset \mathcal{C}(K) \subset L^{2}(K)$, where $L^2(K)$ is taken with respect to a probability measure on $K$. While $K\hookrightarrow L^2(K)$ is no longer an isometry, there is a known CLT on $S_d(K)$ equipped with the $L^2$ norm.
\[thm:4.1\] Let $\mu$ be a Radon probability measure supported in $ K $ such that $\imath_{d,*}\mu$ satisfies (\[conds\]). Then $\imath_{d,*}\mu$ satisfies the $G$-CLT for $G = (L^2(K), \Vert\cdot\Vert_{2,\eta})$. The same result holds if the random variables $\{X_i\}$ in the G-CLT are ${\imath_d}(K)$-valued and/or $\mu$ has support in $S_d(K).$
By [@ledoux Thm. 9.10], the Hilbert space $L^2(K)$ is of type 2 and cotype 2. The existence of a CLT on spaces of type/cotype 2 follows from [@Jorgensen Thm. 3.5].
We also obtain a CLT for the sample Fréchet mean. Here the Hilbert space structure works to our advantage, as the sample Fréchet mean and the usual sample mean coincide..
\[prop:4.1\]For $S_d(K)$-valued random variables $\{X_i\}$, we have $$S_{n} := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{i} = {\rm argmin}_{Y \in S_{d}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2}.$$
It is well-known that in a finite dimensional Euclidean space, the sample mean coincides with the sample Fréchet mean. For fixed $x\in K$, the real-valued random variables $ \lbrace X_{i}(x) \rbrace $ satisfy $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lvert X_{i}(x) - S_{n}(x) \rvert^{2} \leqslant \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lvert X_{i}(x) - Y(x) \rvert^{2},\ \forall Y \in \mathcal{C}(K).$$ Therefore, for all $Y$, $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \int_{K} \lvert X_{i}(x) - S_{n}(x) \rvert^{2} dQ(x) \leqslant \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \int_{K} \lvert X_{i}(x) - Y(x) \rvert^{2} dQ(x),$$ so $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - S_{n} \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2} \leqslant \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2},$$ which implies $$S_{n} = \text{argmin}_{Y \in S_{d}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2}.$$
Combining the Proposition with Theorem \[thm:4.1\] gives us a CLT for the sample Fréchet mean. We set $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{2,\eta}$ be the $L^2$ norm with respect to a measure $\mu$, and set $\calC_0(X)$ to be the set of bounded continuous functions on a topological space $X$.
\[cor:3.1\] (i) Let $\{X_i\}$ be i.i.d. $ S_{d} $-valued random variables with distribution $\mu$ a Radon probability measure supported in $ \imath_{d}(K) $ satisfying (\[conds\]). Then there exists a Gaussian Radon probability measure $ \tilde{\gamma}_{2} $ such that the distributions $ \mu_{n} $ of $${\rm argmin}_{Y \in S_{d}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2}$$ converge weakly to $\tilde\gamma_2$ in the sense of Defintion \[defone\].
\(ii) $\gamma_2$ in Theorem \[thm:4.1\] equals $\tilde\gamma_2$ in distribution. In particular, for $f\in \calC_0(S_d(K))$, $$\int_{S_d(K)} f d\gamma_{2} = \int_{S_d(K)} f d\tilde{\gamma}_{2}.$$
\(iii) Let $\gamma_1$ be the limiting measure obtained in Theorem \[thm:3.1\]. Then $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2$.
\(i) follows from Proposition \[prop:4.1\]. For (ii), the Proposition implies that the distributions of the sample mean and the sample Fréchet mean are the same a.s. For (iii), this seems to be because Theorems \[thm:3.1\] and \[thm:4.1\] are essentially the same.
$L^2$ techniques and G-CLTs
===========================
In this section, we embed the compact metric space $K$, now equipped with a Radon measure $\eta$ and a modified metric, into $L^2(K,\eta)$ to produce an $L^2$ version of a G-CLT. In this Hilbert space setting, we are able to relate the Fréchet means of the closed convex hulls to the Fréchet means on the embedded image of $K$.
We define a seminorm on $ \imath_{d}(K) = \{f_x = d(x,\cdot) : x\in K\}$ by $$\lVert f_{x} \rVert^2_{2, \eta} =\int_{\imath_{d}(K)} \lvert f_{x}(y) \rvert^{2} d\imath_{d, *} \eta(y)= \int_{K} d^{2}(x, y) d \eta(y).$$ Taking the completion the space of norm zero functions gives the Hilbert space $ (L^{2}({\imath_d}(K)), \lVert \cdot \rVert_{2, \eta}) $. More precisely, we will prove $L^2({\imath_d}(K))$-CLTs for both the sample mean and the sample Fréchet mean.
The norm $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{2,\eta}$ induces a metric $d_{2,\eta}$ on ${\imath_d}(K)$. Since ${\imath_d}:(K,d)\to({\imath_d}(K),
d_{2,\eta})$ is easily continuous, we can pull back $d_{2,\eta}$ to a metric $d_\eta := \imath_{d}^{*} d_{2, \eta}$ on $K$:
$$d_{ \eta}(x, y) = d_{2, \eta}(f_{x}, f_{y}) = \left(\int_K (d(x,z) - d(y,z))^2 d\eta(z)\right)^{1/2} .$$
Thus $\imath_{{d_\eta}}:(K, {d_\eta})\to (\imath_{{d_\eta}}(K), d_{2,\eta})$, defined by $\imath_{{d_\eta}}(x) = {d_\eta}(x,\cdot)$, is an isometry. We interpret $(K, {d_\eta})$ as a modification of $(K,d)$ which keeps track of the $L^2$ information of $\eta.$
We want to relate the various metrics. Let $d_\infty$ be the metric on $\calC(K)$ induced by the sup norm $\Vert\cdot\Vert_\infty,$ and let $[{\imath_d}(K)]$ be the image of ${\imath_d}(K)$ in $L^2(K).$ Consider the maps $$(K, d) \stackrel{{\imath_d}}{\to}({\imath_d}(K), d_\infty)\stackrel{F}{\to} ([{\imath_d}(K)], d_{2,\eta}) \stackrel{G}{\to} (K, d_\eta)$$ given by $F(f_x) = [f_x]$, where we take the $L^2$ equivalence class, and $G([f_x]) = \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1}(f_x)
= \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1}{\imath_d}(x).$ (We show that $G$ is well-defined below.) ${\imath_d}$ is an isometry.
In general, $ F $ and $ G $ are not injective, since equivalence classes in $ L^{2}(K) $ have many representatives, without a restriction on $\eta.$
\[lem:5.1\] Assume that every $d$-ball $ B_{\epsilon}(x)$ centered at $x \in K$ has $ \eta(B_{\epsilon}(x)) > 0 $. Then $F$ is injective, and $G$ is well-defined and injective.
Since $F$ and $G$ are trivially surjective, they are bijective under the Lemma’s hypothesis. Note that for Lebesgue measure and the standard metric on $\R^N,$ the hypothesis is satisfied, while delta functions give rise to Radon measures that do not satisfy the hypothesis.
For $F$, it suffices to show that $F\circ {\imath_d}:x\mapsto [f_x]$ is injective. For $ x \neq y $, and $\epsilon < d(x,y)/3$, we have $$d(y,z) \geq d(x,y) - d(x,z)> 3\epsilon -\epsilon > d(x,z)+ \epsilon,$$ for all $z\in B_\epsilon(x).$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d_{2, \eta}([f_{x}], [f_{y}])^{2} &= \int_{K} \lvert f_{x}(z) - f_{y}(z) \rvert^{2} d\eta_{z} \geq \int_{B_{\epsilon}(x)} \lvert d(x, z) - d(y, z) \rvert^{2} d \eta_{z}\\
& > \epsilon^{2} \eta(B_{\epsilon}(x)) > 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $[f_x]\neq [f_y].$
To show that $G$ is well-defined, if $ f_{x}, f_y\in [f_{x}] \in L^{2}(K) $, then $$d_{2, \eta}([f_{x}], [f_{y}]) = 0 \Rightarrow \int_{K} \lvert d(x, z) - d(y, z) \rvert^{2} d\eta(z) = 0.$$ As above, this implies that $x=y$, so $[f_x]$ has a unique representative of the form $f_x.$ Since ${\imath_d},\imath_{\eta}$ are injective, it follows that $G$ is injective.
We can now state and prove an $L^2$ CLT on $ S_{{d_\eta}}(K) $ for both the sample mean and the sample Fréchet mean. As before, let $ S_{{d_\eta}} = S_{{d_\eta}}(K) $ be the closed convex hall of $ \imath_{{d_\eta}}(K) $ in the sup norm.
\[thm:5.1\] Let $\{X_i\}$ be i.i.d. $ S_{{d_\eta}}$-valued random variables with distribution $\mu$ a Radon probability measure supported in $S_{{d_\eta}}(K) $ satisfying (\[conds\]). Assume that the hypothesis of Lemma \[lem:5.1\] holds.
\(i) There exists a Gaussian Radon probability measure $ \gamma $ on $ S_{{d_\eta}} $ such that the distributions $ \mu_{n} $, of $ \frac{X_{1} + \dotso + X_{n}}{\sqrt{n}} $ converge to a probability measure $ \gamma $ in the sense of Definition \[defone\](ii).
\(ii) The distributions $ \tilde{\mu}_{n} $ of $
{\rm argmin}_{Y \in S_{{d_\eta}}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2,\eta}^{2} $ converge in the same sense to the same measure $ \gamma $.
\(iii) Under the hypothesis in Lemma \[lem:5.1\], the distributions $ \tilde{\mu}_{n} $ of\
$
{\rm argmin}_{Y \in S_{{d_\eta}}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{\infty}^{2} $ converge in the same sense to a Gaussian Radon probability measure $ \tilde{\gamma} $.
\(i) Replacing the metric $d$ by ${d_\eta}$ in Theorem \[thm:3.1\] gives the CLT for the sample mean.
\(ii) Applying Corollary \[cor:3.1\](i) and (iii) to ${d_\eta}$ gives the convergence of $\tilde\mu_n$ to the same measure $\gamma.$
\(iii) The main idea is to use the isometric bijection $\imath_{{d_\eta}}\circ {\imath_d}^{-1}: ({\imath_d}(K), \Vert\cdot\Vert_\infty)\to (\imath_{{d_\eta}}(K),
\Vert\cdot\Vert|_{2,\eta}).$ This extends linearly to an isometric bijection $$\imath_{{d_\eta}}\circ {\imath_d}^{-1}: (S_d(K), \Vert\cdot\Vert_\infty)\to (S_{{d_\eta}}(K),
\Vert\cdot\Vert|_{2,\eta}).$$ Set $$Z_{n} := \text{argmin}_{Y \in S_{{d_\eta}} }\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert X_{i} - Y \rVert_{\infty}^{2}.$$ By Proposition \[prop:4.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{n} & =
\text{argmin}_{Y \in S_{d_{2, \eta}}} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert \imath_{d} \circ \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1} X_{i} - \imath_{d} \circ \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1} Y \rVert_{2, \eta}^{2} \\
& =
\imath_{{d_\eta}}\circ{\imath_d}^{-1}\left(
\text{argmin}_{Y \in S_d} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lVert \imath_{d} \circ \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1} X_{i} - Y \rVert_{2, \eta}^{2}\right)\\
&=
\imath_{{d_\eta}}\circ{\imath_d}^{-1}\left(
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \imath_{d} \circ \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1} X_{i}\right).\end{aligned}$$ $\{(\imath_{d} \circ \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1}) (X_{i})\}$ are $S_d$-valued i.i.d. random variables with common distribution $(\imath_{d} \circ \imath_{{d_\eta}}^{-1})_*\mu.$ By Theorem \[thm:4.1\], we obtain a $S_d$-CLT with respect to a Gaussian Radon measure $\gamma'$ on $S_d$. The isometry $\imath_{{d_\eta}}\circ {\imath_d}^{-1}$ then gives the $S_{{d_\eta}}$-CLT with respect to $(\imath_{{d_\eta}}\circ {\imath_d}^{-1})_*\gamma'.$
Because we are in a Hilbert space setting, we can prove that the Fréchet sample and population means on $S_{{d_\eta}}$ and on ${\imath_{{d_\eta}}}(K)$ have simple relationships.
Let $S_{{d_\eta}}$ be the closed convex hull of $\imath_{{d_\eta}}(K) := K_0$ in $L^2(K, \eta),$ and let $f^2_y = d_\eta(y, \cdot) \in \calC(K).$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
\bar F(\bar x) &= \int_{S_{{d_\eta}}} d^2_{L^2}(\bar x,\bar y)d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(\bar y)
= \int_{K_0} d^2_{L^2}(\bar x,\bar y)d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(\bar y)
= \int_K d^2_{L^2}(\bar x, f^2_y) d\eta(y),\\
F(x) &= \int_K d^2_{\eta}(x,y) d\eta(y) = \int_{K_0} d^2_{L^2}(f^2_x, f^2_y) )d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(f^2_y),
\end{aligned}$$ be the $L^2$ Fréchet functions of $S_{{d_\eta}}$ and $K$, respectively, and let $$\bar \mu = {\rm argmin}_{\bar x\in S_{{d_\eta}}} \bar F(\bar x),\ \mu = {\rm argmin}_{ x\in K} \int_K d^2_\eta(x,y) d\eta(y)$$ be the population means on $S_{{d_\eta}}$ and $K$, respectively. Set $\mu_0 = {\imath_{{d_\eta}}}(\mu).$
We note that as the minimum of a convex function on a convex set, $\bar\mu$ is unique. Also, gradients of differentiable functions exist in Hilbert spaces.
\[prop:5.1\] Assume that (i) $\mu$ is unique, (ii) $K_0$ is the zero set of a Fréchet differentiable function $H:L^2(K,\eta)\to \R$ with $\nabla H_{\mu_0} \neq 0.$ Then $\mu_0$ is the closest point in $K_0$ to $\bar\mu.$ The same relationship holds for the sample Fréchet means of $K_0$-valued i.i.d. random variables.
Note that $K_0 = \partial K_0$ in $L^2(K, \eta)$, since a compact subset of an infinite dimensional space has no interior. Also, $\bar\mu \in K_0$ implies $\bar\mu = \mu_0$, so we may assume $
\bar\mu \not\in K_0.$
The method of Lagrangian multipliers is valid in $L^2(K,\eta)$, so there exists $\lambda\in\R$ with $\nabla \bar F_{\mu_0} = \lambda \nabla H_{\mu_0}.$ The differential $D\bar F$ at $\mu_0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D\bar F_{\mu_0}(v) &= (d/dt)|_{t=0} \int_{S_{{d_\eta}}} d^2_{L^2}(\mu_0 + tv, f^2_y) d\eta(y)\\
& =
(d/dt)|_{t=0} \int_{K} \langle \mu_0 + tv- f^2_y,\mu_0 + tv- f^2_y\rangle d\eta(y)\\
& = 2\left\langle v,
\mu_0 - \int_K f^2_y d\eta(y)\right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where the last term equals the Hilbert space integral $$\int_{K_0}\bar y d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(\bar y) = \int_{S_{{d_\eta}}}\bar y d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(\bar y).$$ Thus $\nabla \bar F_{\mu_0} =2( \mu_0 - \int_{S_{{d_\eta}}}\bar y d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(\bar y)).$ Since $\nabla \bar F_p = 0$ only at $p = \bar\mu$, we see that $\bar \mu = \int_{S_{{d_\eta}}}\bar y d\imath_{{d_\eta},*}\eta(\bar y).$ (This is the usual statement that the Fréchet mean is the center of mass of a convex set in $\R^n.$) Thus $\nabla \bar F_{\mu_0} =2( \mu_0 - \bar\mu).$
Since $ \mu_0 - \bar\mu$ is a multiple of $\nabla H_{\mu_0}$, which is perpendicular to the level set ${\imath_{{d_\eta}}}(K)$, we have $\mu_0-\bar\mu \perp \partial K_0$. We have not used that $\mu_0$ is a minimum, so the same perpendicularity holds at any critical point of $\bar F$ on $\partial K_0.$ We can translate in $S_{{d_\eta}}$ so that $\bar \mu = 0$, in which case $\nabla \bar F_p = 2p$ is twice the Euler vector field. The level sets $\bar F^{-1}(r)$ are thus spheres centered at the origin in $S_{{d_\eta}}.$ Since $\mu_0$ is on the lowest level set of any point in $K_0$, $\mu_0$ is closer to the origin than any other critical point of $\bar F$ on $\partial K_0.$
If we consider the distance function $D:K_0\to \R, D(\bar x) = d^2(\mu_0, x)$, then a Lagrangian multiplier argument as above shows that at a critical point $p$ of $D$, we have $\mu_0-p \perp \partial K_0.$ Thus $\mu_0$ is a critical point of $D$, and by the last paragraph $\mu_0$ must be the closest point in $K_0$ to $\mu_0.$
The same argument holds for the sample means.
If a closest point $p(z)\in K_0$ to each $z\in S_{{d_\eta}}$ can be chosen so that $p$ is continuous, as in the unlikely case that $K_0$ is convex, then we get a G-CLT on $K_0$ and hence on $K$ for $p_*\tilde \mu_n, p_*\gamma.$ This would connect Theorem \[thm:5.1\] and Proposition \[prop:5.1\].
Relating $L^p$ norms
====================
We have results for $L^\infty$- and $L^2$-CLTs, so we wish to compare the associated metrics on ${\imath_d}(K)$. Since ${\imath_d}(K)$ is compact, all norms are abstractly equivalent. In this section, we introduce a metric-measure assumption under which the $L^p$ norms on ${\imath_d}(K)$ are explicitly equivalent, i.e., the constants in the norm comparisons are explicit.
Of course, for a probability measure $\eta$ on $K$, we have for $f\in\calC(K)$ and $p\in [1,\infty)$ $$\Vert f \Vert_p^p = \int_K |f|^p d\eta \leq \Vert f\Vert _\infty^p \int_K d\eta = \Vert f\Vert_\infty^p.$$ Thus $$\label{eq:6.1} d_p(f,g) \leq d_\infty(f,g),$$ for $f, g\in \calC(K)$ and $d_p, d_\infty$, respectively, the $L^p, L^\infty$ metrics, respectively.
We would like a reverse inequality on ${\imath_d}(K)$ in (\[eq:6.1\]), which is impossible without any assumptions. In particular, we assume that $f_x = d(x,\cdot) \in {\imath_d}(K)$ is $\eta$-measurable for $x\in K.$ We also strengthen the triangle inequality $$|d(x,z) - d(y,z) | \leq d(x,y)$$ as follows:
[**Assumption:**]{} There exist $C, D\in (0,1)$ such that for all $x,y\in K$ $$\label{eq:6.2}\eta\{z\in K: |d(x,z) - d(y,z)| \leq D\cdot d(x,y)\} < C.$$
The intuition is that for $D =0$, a workable $\eta$ has $\eta\{z\in K: |d(x,z) - d(y,z)| \leq D\cdot d(x,y)\} = 0$, as for Lebesgue measure. For $D$ close to zero, we demand that $$\max_{x,y\in K} \eta\{z\in K: |d(x,z) - d(y,z)| \leq D\cdot d(x,y)\}$$ should be strictly less than $1 = \eta(K)$. The assumption fails for delta function measures on $\R^n$, but appears to hold for normalized Legesgue measure on compact subsets of $\R^n.$
Assume that $f_x$ is $\eta$-measurable for $x\in K$ and that (\[eq:6.2\]) holds. For $p\in [1,\infty), p'\in [1,\infty]$ with $p < p'$, we have $$D(1-C)^{1/p}\cdot d_{p'}( f_x,f_y) \leq d_p( f_x,f_y) \leq d_{p'}( f_x,f_y),$$ for all $x, y\in K.$ Thus the $L^p$ norms are explicitly equivalent.
The fact that $d_p( f_x,f_y) = \Vert f_x-f_y\Vert_p\leq \Vert f_x-f_y\Vert_{p'} =d_{p'}( f_x,f_y)$ is contained in the Hölder inequality proof that $L^{p'}\subset L^{p}$ on a finite measure space.
Set $S_{x,y} = \{z\in K: |d(x,z) - d(y,z)| \leq D\cdot d(x,y)\}.$ Using (\[eq:6.2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert f_x - f_y\Vert_p^p &\geq \int_{K\setminus S_{x,y}} |d(x,z) - d(y,z)|^p d\eta(z)
\geq \int_{K\setminus S_{x,y}} D^p\cdot d^p(x,y)\ d\eta(z)\\
&\geq D^p(1-C) d^p(x,y) = D^p(1-C)\Vert f_x- f_y\Vert^p_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$d_p(f_x, f_y) \geq D(1-C)^{1/p}d_\infty(f_x, f_y)\geq D(1-C)^{1/p} d_{p'}(f_x, f_y),$$ by (\[eq:6.1\]).
\(i) The $d_p$ pull back to metrics on $K$, also denoted $d_p$, which by the Proposition are all explicitly equivalent.
\(ii) For fixed $x,y$, set $K^p_D =
\{z\in K: |d_p(x,z) - d_p(y,z)| \leq D\cdot d_p(x,y)\}.$ Thus $K^\infty_D$ is the set in (\[eq:6.2\]). From the estimates in the proof above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert f_x-f_z\Vert_{p'} - \Vert f_y-f_z\Vert_{p'} &\leq D^{-1}(1-C)^{-1/p}\Vert f_x-f_z\Vert_p -
\Vert f_y-f_z\Vert_p,\\
D\Vert f_x-f_y\Vert_p &\leq D\Vert f_x-f_y\Vert_{p'}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\{z: D^{-1}(1-C)^{-1/p}\Vert f_x-f_z\Vert_p -\Vert f_y-f_z\Vert_ p
\leq D\Vert f_x-f_y\Vert_p\} \subset K^{p'}_D,$$ and the same with $x, y$ switched. Since $D^{-1}(1-C)^{-1/p} >1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\MoveEqLeft[4]
\{z:d_p(x,z) - d_p( y,z) \leq D d_p(x,y)\} \\
&\subset
\{z: D^{-1}(1-C)^{-1/p}\Vert f_x-f_z\Vert_p -\Vert f_y-f_z\Vert_ p
\leq D\Vert f_x-f_y\Vert_p\} \subset K^{p'}_D,\end{aligned}$$ using $d_p(x,y) = d_p(f_x, f_y).$ The same holds with $x, y$ switched, so $K^p_D \subset K^{p'}_D$ for $p, p'$ as in the Proposition. Thus (\[eq:6.2\]) has the greatest chance of holding for $d = d_1.$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'R. Vio'
- 'P. Andreani'
date: 'Received .............; accepted ................'
title: |
Comments on the paper\
“[*[**The Mexican Hat Wavelet Family. Application to\
point source detection in CMB maps**]{}*]{}”\
by J. González-Nuevo et. al (astro-ph/0604376)
---
Introduction
============
The detection of (extragalactic) point sources embedded in a noise background is a critical issue in the analysis of the experimental CMB maps. Actually, this kind of problem is not only restricted to Cosmology. In fact, this old dated and extensively studied question is of relevance in many scientific and engineering applications. Various approaches have been proposed. Among these, one of the most popular is the [*matched filter*]{} (MF) technique. There are good reasons to choose it [see @kay98]:
- In the case of a background due to a Gaussian stochastic process (a rather common assumption), MF is [*optimal*]{} in the Neyman-Pearson sense. This means that, for a given probability of [*false alarm*]{} (i.e., the probability of a spurious detection), it provides the best probability of detection;\
- If the Gaussian assumption is relaxed, MF still maximizes the [*signal-to-noise ratio*]{} (SNR) at the output of [*any*]{} linear filter. In other words, among the linear filters, MF provides the greatest enhancement of the magnitude of the source relative to the background;
- As proved by its extensive and successful use in very different contexts over many years, MF is a quite robust tool.
In spite of these remarkable characteristics, in the CMB literature a long series of papers were published where the use of alternative techniques (e.g., [*pseudo-filters*]{}, [*Mexican Hat Wavelet filters*]{} and [*biparametric-scale adaptive filters*]{}) is advocated and claimed to provide superior results [e.g., see @san01; @bar03; @lop05]. In another series of papers [@vio02; @vio04; @vio05a; @vio05b] it was shown that such claims were only the consequence of a incorrect interpretation of the results and/or of the incorrect application of the validity conditions of some equations. Of course, this does not mean that MF necessarily has to be chosen in every point source detection problems. However, given its excellent properties, the use of alternative approaches must be motivated on the basis of well-grounded theoretical arguments. Non-standard statistical tools are indicated only in situations of real and sensible improvements of the results. New techniques that do not fulfill these requirements should be introduced with care: they prevent the comparison with the results obtained in other works, may lead people to use not well tested methodologies and end up in unreliable results.
Now, @gon06 ([*Go06*]{}) seem do not agree on this commonsense rule since they propose a new class of filters, say the [*Mexican Hat Wavelet Family*]{} (MHWF), that is derived from the iterated application of the Laplacian operator to the [*Mexican Hat Wavelet*]{} (MHW). However, they do not provide any formalized argument. Their claims are supported only on numerical simulations. This is certainly not a safe way to proceed since, contrary to a rigorous theoretical treatment, a set of numerical experiments is not sufficient to characterize the statistical properties of a given methodology.
The Mexican Hat Wavelet Filter vs. the Matched Filter
=====================================================
[*Go06*]{} start from the consideration that, as written in their paper,
*“ the Mexican Hat Wavelet is a very useful and powerful tool for point source detection due to the following reasons:*
1. It has an analytical form that is very convenient when making calculations and that allows us to implement fast algorithms.\
2. It is well suited for the detection of Gaussian structure because it is obtained by applying the Laplacian operator to the Gaussian function.\
3. It amplifies the point sources with respect to the noise. Moreover, by changing the scale of the Mexican Hat it is possible to control the amplification until an optimum value is achieved.\
4. Besides, to obtain the optimal amplification it is not necessary to assume anything about the noise. In Vielva et al. (2001), it was shown that the optimal scale can be easily obtained by means of a simple procedure for any given image. Therefore the Mexican Wavelet is a very robust tool.”.
Unfortunately, all of these points are irrelevant and/or false:
1. This property is overestimated. The computation of MF does not present particular difficulties [e.g., see @vio02]. Moreover MHW and MF are linear filters, hence both of them can be implemented in very efficient algorithms;\
2. It is not clear on the basis of which argument authors make this claim. Is there any theoretical explanation for it? Moreover, if the conviction of authors is correct, why in the only analytical example presented in their paper (i.e., Gaussian source plus white-noise background) the filter that provides the best source amplification is not MHF but a Gaussian filter that, in this case, corresponds to MF?\
3. Whatever filter that smoothes out the frequencies characteristic of the background amplifies the point source with respect to the noise. But the best amplification is provided by MF not by MHW (see above). This is true even in the case of the scale-adaptive version of MHF. In this respect, it is necessary to stress a point that in @gon06 is not adequately highlighted. In general, the performances of MHW are by far inferior to those of MF [e.g., see @vio02; @vio04]. To make the scale $R$ a free parameter in the analytical form of MHF is only an attempt to improve a performance otherwise unsatisfactory. The situation is similar to that of the fit of a set of data with an inadequate model. If results are not good, the simplest solution is to add one more free parameter to it. Why one should choose MHW with a free parameter to be optimized when the only result that can be expected is a filter at the best suboptimal with respect to MF?\
4. As written above, among all the linear filters, MF provides an optimal source amplification independently from the nature of the noise. For this reason, it is not clear on which basis [*Go06*]{} claim that this property belong to MHW.
More in general, [*Go06*]{} plead that, given their ability to explore a signal at different scales, the wavelets represent an effective tool in detection problems. However, it is not clear why this property should be useful in a context where all the sources have the same shape that, in addition, is known in advance. Why wavelets should provide superior results than the techniques, as MF, that make direct use of the shape of the sources? If a reason is available, this should be formally proved.
As last comment, we stress that MF can be easily adapted when dealing with sources with the same shape but different amplitude. It it not difficult to prove that MF remains identical to that corresponding to a single amplitude. Only the threshold determining the [*probability of false alarm*]{} (hence also the probability of detection), is modified. If the distribution of the amplitudes is known in advance, such threshold can be fixed through a Bayesian approach or, especially in the case of non-Gaussian background, through numerical simulations.
The Mexican Hat Wavelet Family
==============================
By themselves, all the above points should be sufficient to question the real usefulness of a generalization of MHW. However, let’s assume for a moment that MHW has really optimal properties: which is the theoretical reason to construct a family of filters through the iterated application of the Laplacian operator to MHW? Why should such a procedure improve the performances of MHW? Quite surprisingly, [*Go06*]{} do not provide any theoretical argument. The situation appears even more bizarre if one considers again the only analytical example presented in their paper (Gaussian source plus white-noise background). There, the source amplification worsens for increasing values of the order $n$. The [*best*]{} solution is given by $n=0$. Since this case corresponds to the Gaussian filter, i.e. to MF, hopefully [*Go06*]{} do not consider MF belonging to MHWF!
The “optimal” performances of MWHF is supported only on the basis of the CMB numerical experiments carried out by authors. We stress that this is insufficient to drawn reliable conclusion about MHWF also because no whatever comparison is made with other filters and specifically with MF.
Conclusions
===========
In this brief note the procedure suggested by [@gon06] for the detection of point sources in CMB maps is criticized. The introduction of a new class of filters, the [*Mexican Hat Wavelet Family*]{}, is given without providing any theoretical argument about their real properties and usefulness. We stress that any new proposed statistical methodology cannot be validated only on the basis of some numerical experiments, especially if no comparison with classic and well tested techniques is made.
The risk of an uncontrolled proliferation of algorithms (and papers) whose reliability is at least dubious must be avoided and we strongly hope that a more careful check on the scientific foundations will be operated in the future.
Barreiro, R.B., Sanz, J.L., Herranz, D., & Martinez-Gonzalez, E. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 119 Kay, S.M. 1998, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Detection Theory (London: Prentice Hall) González-Nuevo, J. et al. 2006, MNRAS, [*accepted for publication*]{}, astro-ph/0604376 (Go06) López-Caniego, M., Herranz, D., Barreiro, R.B., & Sanz, J.L. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 993 Sanz, J. L., Herranz, D., & Martinez-Gonzalez, E. 2001, ApJ, 552, 484 Vio, R., Tenorio, L., & Wamsteker, W. 2002, A&A, 391, 789 Vio, R., Andreani, P., & Wamsteker, W. 2004, A&A, 414, 17 Vio, R., & Andreani, P. 2005, astro-ph/0509394 Vio, R., & Andreani, P. 2005, astro-ph/0510477
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In order to understand the parameter space $\Xi_d$ of monic and centered complex polynomial vector fields in $\mathbb{C}$ of degree $d$, decomposed by the combinatorial classes of the vector fields, it is interesting to know the number of loci in parameter space consisting of vector fields with the same combinatorial data (corresponding to topological classification with fixed separatrices at infinity).
This paper answers questions posed by Adam L. Epstein and Tan Lei about the total number of combinatorial classes and the number of combinatorial classes corresponding to loci of a specific (real) dimension $q$ in parameter space, for fixed degree $d$; these numbers are denoted by $c_d$ and $c_{d,q}$ respectively. These results are extensions of a result by Douady, Estrada, and Sentenac, which shows that the number of combinatorial classes of the structurally stable complex polynomial vector fields in $\mathbb{C}$ of degree $d$ is the Catalan number $C_{d-1}$.
We show that enumerating the combinatorial classes is equivalent to a so-called *bracketing problem*. Then we analyze the generating functions and find closed-form expressions for $c_d$ and $c_{d,q}$, and we furthermore make an asymptotic analysis of these sequences for $d$ tending to $\infty$.
These results are also applicable to special classes of Abelian differentials, quadratic differentials with double poles, and singular holomorphic foliations of the plane.
address: |
Mathematisches Seminar, Christian-Albrechts Universit[ä]{}t zu Kiel, Ludewig-Meyn-Str. 4, 24098 Kiel, Germany\
Current address: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science,\
Bronx Community College, 2155 University Ave., Bronx, New York 10453, USA\
author:
- KEALEY DIAS
title: 'Enumerating combinatorial classes of the complex polynomial vector fields in $\mathbb{C}$'
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 37F75, 05A15, 05A16.
Keywords and phrases: holomorphic vector field, polynomial vector field, quadratic differential, Abelian differential, holomorphic foliation, combinatorial invariant, exact enumeration problems, asymptotic enumeration.
Introduction
============
The space $\Xi_d$ of monic and centered single-variable complex polynomial vector fields of degree $d$ is parameterized by its $d-1$ complex coefficients. The space $\Xi_d \simeq \mathbb{C}^{d-1}$ is decomposed into combinatorial classes where the vector fields within each class have the same *combinatorial data set* (to be defined). Each of these combinatorial classes is a connected manifold with well-defined (real) dimension $q$, which is the dimension of the combinatorial class as a subspace in $\Xi_d$.
Counting the combinatorial classes will help us to better understand $\Xi_d$, and the techniques utilized may also prove valuable to those who are considering other enumerative problems in dynamical systems.
In this paper, we study the properties of the sequences $c_d$ (the total number of combinatorial classes in $\Xi_d$) and $c_{d,q}$ (the number of combinatorial classes of dimension $q$ in $\Xi_d$). These will be referred to as the *simplified problem* and the *complete problem* respectively. We first show in Section \[bracketingsetupsection\] that these problems are equivalent to so-called *bracketing problems*, where one counts the number of pairings of parentheses satisfying desired conditions [@Com]. Then for each problem, a recursion equation and implicit expressions for the algebraic generating functions are calculated (Section \[genfctsection\]), closed-form expressions for $c_d$ and $c_{d,q}$ are calculated (Section \[closedformssection\]), and asymptotic questions are considered (Section \[asymptoticbehaviorsection\]). In particular, we compute the asymptotic growth of the sequence $c_d$ and prove that the discrete probability distribution $\pi_{d,q}=\frac{c_{d,q}}{c_d}$ converges to a normal distribution for $d
\rightarrow \infty$. Lastly, we consider in Section \[alternativeprobssection\] some related enumeration problems one might be interested in solving.
Thanks to Adam Lawrence Epstein and Tan Lei for the suggestion of the problems and to Christian Henriksen for a simplification of the method for finding the generating functions. The author would furthermore like to thank Bodil Branner, Carsten Lunde Petersen, Carsten Thomassen, and again those mentioned above for helpful discussions and comments. The author is finally indebted to Philippe Flajolet for clarifying comments about his and his co-authors’ work on analytic combinatorics.
This research was supported by the European Union research training network CODY (Conformal Structures and Dynamics).
Background and Definitions
==========================
We present now a summary of some necessary concepts and definitions, and we include a new description of the combinatorial data set; it is different from the one presented in [@BD09] (it is in fact more similar to the definition of the combinatorial invariant in [@Sent]), but it is much more useful for our purposes here. For further details, please see [@BD09] and [@Sent].
It can be shown that $\infty$ is a pole of order $d-2$ for vector fields $\xi_P \in \Xi_d$. There are $2(d-1)$ trajectories $\gamma_{\ell}$ which meet at infinity with asymptotic angles $ \frac{2 \pi\ell}{2\left(d-1\right)}$, $\ell \in \{ 0,1,\dots,2d-3 \}$. When the labelling index $\ell$ is even, the trajectories are called *incoming* to $\infty$, and when the index $\ell$ odd, they are called *outgoing* from $\infty$ (see Figure \[trajsatinfty\]).
There are $2d-2$ accesses to $\infty$ defined by the trajectories at infinity. An *end* $e_{\ell}$ is infinity with access between $\gamma_{\ell-1}$ and $\gamma_{\ell}$ (see Figure \[trajsatinfty2\]). An *odd end* is an end $e_k$ labelled by an odd index $k$, and an *even end* is an end $e_j$ labelled by an even index $j$.
*Separatrices* $s_{\ell}$ are the maximal trajectories of $\xi_P$ incoming to and outgoing from $\infty$. They are labelled by the $2(d-1)$ asymptotic angles $ \frac{2 \pi\ell}{2\left(d-1\right)}$, $\ell \in \{ 0,1,\dots,2d-3 \}$.
A separatrix $s_{\ell}$ is called *landing* if $\bar{s}_{\ell}\setminus s_{\ell}=\zeta$, where $\zeta$ is an equilibrium point for $\xi_P$. A separatrix $s_{\ell}=s_{k,j}$ is called *homoclinic* if $\bar{s}_{k,j}\setminus s_{k,j}=\emptyset$ (see Figure \[separatrixgraph2\]). A separatrix for a vector field $\xi_P \in \Xi_d$ can only be either homoclinic or landing. A homoclinic separatrix $s_{k,j}$ is labelled by the one odd index $k$ and the one even index $j$ corresponding to its two asymptotic directions at infinity. The *Separatrix graph:* $\Gamma_P=\bigcup \limits_{\ell=0}^{2d-3}\hat{s}_{\ell}$ completely determines the topological structure of the trajectories of a vector field (see, for instance, [@DN1975], [@ALGM1973]).
In [@BD09], the separatrix structure is encoded via an equivalence relation and a marked subset $H$ on $\mathbb{Z}/(2d-2)$, where, in short, $H$ tells which separatrices are homoclinic, and for the remaining separatrices (which are landing), the equivalence relation essentially tells which $s_{\ell}$ land at the same equilibrium point (the formal definition will be given in Subsection \[combdatasetsection\]).
This separatrix structure can be equivalently represented in a *separatrix disk model*, by labelling the points $\exp(\frac{2\pi {\rm
i} \ell}{2d-2})$, $\ell=0,\dots,2d-3$ on $\mathbb{S}^1$ by $s_{\ell}$ and joining the points in the same equivalence class (see Figure \[separatrixgraph2\]).
Conversely, if we define an abstract *combinatorial data set*, $(\sim,H)$, which consists of a non-crossing equivalence relation $\sim$ and a marked subset $H$ on $\mathbb{Z}/(2d-2)$ which satisfy certain properties (to be discussed), then it is known that there exists a monic and centered complex polynomial vector field of degree $d$ whose separatrix structure matches the data set [@BD09].
Zones
-----
The connected components $Z$ of $\mathbb{C}\setminus \Gamma_P$ are called *zones*. There are three types of zones for vector fields in $\Xi_d$, and the types of zones are determined by the types of their boundaries:
- A *center zone* $Z$ contains an equilibrium point, which is a center, in its interior. Its boundary consists of one or several homoclinic separatrices and the point at infinity. If a center zone is on the left of $n$ homoclinic separatrices $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_n,j_n}$ on the boundary $\partial Z$, then the center zone has $n$ odd ends $e_{k_1},\dots,e_{k_n}$ at infinity on $\partial Z$ and the zone is called either a *counter-clockwise center zone* or an *odd center zone*. If a center zone is on the right of $n$ homoclinic separatrices $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_n,j_n}$ on the boundary $\partial Z$, then the center zone has $n$ even ends $e_{j_1},\dots,e_{j_n}$ at infinity on $\partial Z$ and the zone is called either a *clockwise center zone* or an *even center zone* (see Figure \[centerzoneshade1\]).
- A *sepal zone* $Z$ has exactly one equilibrium point on the boundary, which is both the $\alpha$-limit point and $\omega$-limit point for all trajectories in $Z$ (i.e. $\zeta_{\alpha}= \zeta_{\omega}$). This equilibrium point is necessarily a multiple equilibrium point. The boundary $\partial Z$ contains exactly one incoming and one outgoing landing separatrix, and possibly one or several homoclinic separatrices, and the point at infinity. If a sepal zone is to the left of $n$ homoclinic separatrices $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_n,j_n}$ on its boundary, then it has $n+1$ odd ends on the boundary: $e_{k_1},\dots,e_{k_n}$ and $e_{j_i+1}$ for some corresponding $j_i$, depending on how one orders the separatrices. In this case, it is called an *odd* sepal zone. Similarly, if a sepal zone is on the right of $n$ homoclinic separatrices $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_n,j_n}$ on its boundary, then it has $n+1$ even ends on the boundary, $e_{j_1},\dots,e_{j_n}$ and $e_{k_i+1}$ for some corresponding $k_i$, again depending on the ordering of the separatrices. In this case, it is called an *even* sepal zone (see Figure \[sepalzoneshade2\]).
- An *$\alpha \omega$-zone* $Z$ has two equilibrium points on the boundary, $\zeta_{\alpha}\neq \zeta_{\omega}$, the $\alpha$-limit point and $\omega$-limit point for all trajectories in $Z$. The boundary $\partial Z$ contains one or two incoming landing separatrices and one or two outgoing landing separatrices, possibly one or several homoclinic separatrices, and the point at infinity. If an ${\rm \alpha \omega}$-zone is both on the left of $n_1$ homoclinic separatrices $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_{n_1},j_{n_1}}$ and on the right of $n_2$ homoclinic separatrices $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_{n_2},j_{n_2}}$ on the boundary, then the ${\rm
\alpha \omega}$-zone has $n_1+1$ odd ends ($e_{k_1},\dots,e_{k_{n_1}}$ and $e_{j_i+1}$ for some corresponding $j_i$) and $n_2+1$ even ends ($e_{j_1},\dots,e_{j_{n_2}}$ and $e_{k_i+1}$ for some corresponding $k_i$) on the boundary (see Figure \[alphaomegashade2\]).
It will be important to note that for a sepal zone, there is exactly one end whose index is not equal to an index of a homoclinic separatrix (in the notation above, $e_{j_i+1}$ for an odd sepal zone and $e_{k_i+1}$ for an even sepal zone). Similarly, for an $\alpha \omega$-zone, there are exactly one odd end and one even end, neither of whose indices coincide with any index of a homoclinic separatrix (in the notation above the odd and even ends are $e_{j_i+1}$ and $e_{k_i+1}$ respectively). In the separatrix disk model, the connected components of $\mathbb{D}\setminus \bigcup \limits_{\ell}s_{\ell}$ are called *cells*. Cells are the abstract analog of zones, and are named accordingly (i.e. there are center cells, sepal cells, and $\alpha \omega$ cells). The types of cells are determined by the types of their boundaries (see Figure \[separatrixgraph2\]).
Combinatorial Data Set {#combdatasetsection}
----------------------
Now that we have defined the types of zones and corresponding cells, we can state the definition of the combinatorial data set as presented in [@BD09]. \[BDcombdatasetdef\] A *combinatorial data set* $\left(\sim,H\right)$ of degree $d \geq 2$ consists of an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\mathbb{Z}/\left(2d-2\right)$ and a marked subset $H \subset \mathbb{Z}/\left(2d-2\right)$ satisfying:
- $\sim$ is non-crossing.
- If $\ell' \neq \ell''$, then $\ell' \sim \ell''$ and $\ell' \in H \Leftrightarrow \ell'' \in H$ and $\ell'$ and $\ell''$ have different parity.
- Every cell in the disk-model realization of $\left(\sim,H\right)$ is one of the five types: an $\alpha \omega$-cell, an odd or even sepal-cell, or an odd or even center-cell characterized as above.
Transversals
------------
There is an equivalent way to encode the combinatorial structure of a vector field, which is much more useful for our purposes here. We define in this section the important structures needed to understand this equivalent definition of a combinatorial data set.
In any simply connected domain avoiding zeros of $P$, the differential $\frac{\rm{d}z}{P(z)}$ has an antiderivative, unique up to addition by a constant $$\phi(z)=\int_{z_0}^{z} \frac{\rm{d}w}{P(w)}.\nonumber$$ Note that $$\phi_{\ast}\left(\xi_P\right)=\phi'\left(z\right)P\left(z\right)\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}z}=\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}z}.$$ The coordinates $w=\phi(z)$ are, for this reason, called *rectifying coordinates*. We will call the images of zones under rectifying coordinates *rectified zones*. The rectified zones are of the following types:
- The image of an $\alpha \omega$-zone under $\phi$ is a horizontal strip (see Figure \[alphaomegashade\]).
- The image of an odd sepal zone under $\phi$ is an upper half plane, and the image of an even sepal zone is a lower half plane (see Figure \[sepalzoneshade\]).
- The image of a center zone (minus a curve contained in the zone which joins the center $\zeta$ and $\infty$) under $\phi$ is a vertical half strip. It is an upper vertical half strip for an odd center zone and a lower vertical half strip for an even center zone (see Figure \[centerzoneshade\]).
Via the rectifying coordinates, it is evident that there are a number of closed geodesics in $\hat{\mathbb{C}} \setminus \{\text{equilibrium pts} \}$ in the metric with length element $\frac{|\rm{d}z|}{|P(z)|}$ through $ \infty$. Among these are the $h$ homoclinic separatrices, and there are $s$ *distinguished transversals* (defined below). The *distinguished transversal* $T_{k,j}$ is the geodesic in the metric $\frac{|\rm{d}z|}{|P(z)|}$ joining the ends $e_k$ and $e_j$, avoiding the separatrices and equilibrium points, where $e_j$ is the left-most end on the upper boundary and $e_k$ is the right-most end on the lower boundary of the strip which is the image of the $\alpha \omega$-zone the transversal is contained in (see Figure \[transstrip\] and \[disttrans\]). Note that the way in which the distinguished transversal is chosen, the indices of the ends it joins are exactly those ends whose indices will never coincide with the indices of any homoclinic separatrices.
Alternative Combinatorial Description
-------------------------------------
We will prove that one can equivalently describe the combinatorics by the union of homoclinic separatrices $s_{k,j}$ and distinguished transversals $T_{k,j}$.
We state the definition below, and prove that it is equivalent to the one presented before (from [@BD09]). A *combinatorial data set* $(\iota,H,T)$ of degree $d\geq 2$ consists of an involution $\iota : \mathbb{Z}/(2d-2)\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}/(2d-2)$ and marked subsets $H$ and $T$ satisfying:
- If $\iota (\ell) \neq \ell$, then $\ell$ and $\iota(\ell)$ have different parity (if one is even, then the other is odd).
- The involution $\iota$ is non-crossing.
- If $\iota (\ell) \neq \ell$, then either both $\ell$ and $\iota(\ell)$ are in $H$ or both $\ell$ and $\iota(\ell)$ are in $T$.
This definition leads to a description of the combinatorics via non-crossing pairings of even and odd numbers. The pairing of indices in $H$ represents pairings of indices $k$ and $j$ corresponding to homoclinic separatrices $s_{k,j}$, and the pairing of indices in $T$ represents pairings of indices $k$ and $j$ corresponding to indices of ends $e_k$ and $e_j$ that the distinguished transversal $T_{k,j}$ joins. The indices which are not paired (i.e. $\ell$ such that $\iota(\ell)=\ell$) correspond to the indices of ends $e_{\ell}$ on the boundary of sepal zones which do not coincide with indices of any homoclinic separatrices. Essentially, we want to use the numbers $\mathbb{Z}/(2d-2)$ to stand for indices of separatrices for homoclinics, and indices of ends otherwise. Since these were chosen in the way described above, this never causes a conflict.
As one can draw a disk model with a separatrix graph given the first definition of combinatorial invariant, one can draw a transversal graph given the second definition. The transversal structure can be equivalently represented in a *transversal disk model*, by labelling the points $\exp(\frac{2\pi {\rm
i} \ell}{2d-2})$, $\ell=0,\dots,2d-3$ on $\mathbb{S}^1$ by $s_{\ell}$ and the points between them $\exp(\frac{2\pi {\rm
i} (\ell-1/2)}{2d-2})$ by $e_{\ell}$, joining $s_{k}$ and $s_j$ corresponding to homoclinic separatrices $s_{k,j}$, and joining $e_k$ and $e_j$ corresponding to each distinguished transversal $T_{k,j}$ (see Figure \[transversalgraph\]). That the involution $\iota$ is non-crossing means that the transversal and homoclinic separatrices in the transversal disk model do not cross.
The definition above is equivalent to the definition of combinatorial data set presented in [@BD09] (Definition \[BDcombdatasetdef\])
We basically need to prove that separatrix disk models are in one-to-one correspondence with transversal disk models.
If we start with a separatrix disk model, such that every cell is one of the five types, then we can construct a unique transversal disk model. Note first that the homoclinic separatrices stay the same. Then for each $\alpha \omega$-zone, there are exactly one even end $e_j$ and one odd end $e_k$ whose indices do not coincide with any of the homoclinic indices on the boundary. Join these ends in the disk. Finally, remove all landing separatrices from the separatrix disk model, and what you are left with is a transversal disk model (see Figure \[transversalgraph\]).
Now conversely given a valid transversal disk model (i.e. one satisfying the definition above), we again leave the homoclinic separatrices alone as before. The homoclinic separatrices and distinguished transversals decompose the transversal disk model into $h+s+1$ connected components. Call each of these components a transversal cell (as not to confuse them with connected components with respect to a separatrix disk model). Let all $s_{\ell}$ on the boundary of each transversal cell be joined to the same point in the interior of the transversal cell. If there are no $s_{\ell}$ on the boundary of a transversal cell, then that component is a center cell (with respect to the separatrix disk model). Now remove the curves corresponding to the distinguished transversals. This procedure gives a separatrix disk model, and now we just need to show that this separatrix disk model has the allowable types of cells. As already mentioned, if there are only homoclinic separatrices on the boundary of a separatrix cell, then that component is a center cell. If there is an open chain of $n$ (where we allow $n=0$) homoclinic separatrices: $s_{k_1,j_1},\dots,s_{k_{n},j_{n}}$ such that either $j_{i+1}=k_{i}+1$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $s_{j_1-1}$ and $s_{k_n+1}$ are landing (see Figure \[openHchains1\]) or if $k_{i+1}=j_{i}+1$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $s_{k_1-1}$ and $s_{j_n+1}$ are landing (see Figure \[openHchains2\]) on the boundary of the same separatrix cell, then either the two landing separatrices land at the same point, or they do not. If they do land at the same point, then $s_{j_1-1}$ and $s_{k_n+1}$ (or $s_{k_1-1}$ and $s_{j_n+1}$) are the two landing separatrices on the boundary of a sepal cell. If they land at different points, then they must be separated by a distinguished transversal $T_{k,k_n+1}$ for some $k$ associated to another open homoclinic chain (or $T_{j_n+1,j}$ for some $j$ associated to another open homoclinic chain) on the boundary of the same separatrix cell. Then $s_{j_1-1}$ must land at the same point as $s_k$, since they are on the boundary of the same connected component in the transversal disk model (similarly for $s_{k_1-1}$ and $s_j$) (see Figure \[openHchains\]). One can make a similar argument for the other open homoclinic chain involved, and then one must get an $\alpha \omega$-cell.
Setup of the Bracketing Problem {#bracketingsetupsection}
===============================
We have seen that the combinatorial structure of a monic and centered complex polynomial vector field can be completely described by pairings of even integers with odd integers, and conversely that any such pairings as defined by the transversal combinatorial data set leads to the combinatorics for a monic and centered complex polynomial vector field. The goal is to utilize the alternative combinatorial description in order to convert the problem of counting the combinatorial classes into a so-called *bracketing problem*: a combinatorial problem involving pairings of parentheses placed in a string of elements (see [@Com]) in a *valid* way (to be defined).
In short, each homoclinic separatrix $s_{k,j}$ has exactly one even and one odd index associated with it, and each distinguished transversal $T_{k,j}$ has exactly one even and one odd index associated to it. Therefore, each combinatorial data set can be fully described by pairings of even and odd numbers, corresponding to these mutually disjoint pairs of indices, and hence they can be counted by a bracketing problem. In our case, we will have balanced parenthetical configurations placed in the string $0 \ 1 \ 2\dots 2d-3$, representing the indices in $\mathbb{Z}/(2d-2)$, and we will use round brackets $(\dots)$ to pair an even an odd number corresponding to homoclinics and square brackets $[\dots]$ to pair an even and odd number corresponding to distinguished transversals. We now elaborate on these ideas.
Structurally Stable Vector Fields {#strstablecase}
---------------------------------
For peadagogical reasons, we start by describing the case of counting structurally stable complex polynomial vector fields by a bracketing problem.
The number of combinatorial classes for the structurally stable vector fields in $\Xi_d$ is the Catalan number $$C_{d-1}=\frac{1}{d}\binom{2(d-1)}{d-1}.$$
For structurally stable vector fields, the combinatorics is completely describable by the $d-1$ transversals (since there are neither homoclinic separatrices nor sepal zones), and hence non-crossing pairings of each odd end $e_k$ with an even end $e_j$ (this is, in fact, how [@Sent] defines the combinatorial invariant for the structurally stable vector fields). This pairing of ends can be represented by placing parentheses in the string $0 \ 1 \ 2\dots 2d-3$, where the elements paired by parentheses correspond to the labels of the ends we want to pair.[^1] Note that this is equivalent to the number of ways to make *valid* pairings of $d-1$ pairs of parentheses, where the string $0 \ 1 \ 2\dots 2d-3$ is not actually necessary, since every end is paired with another. For example, if $d-1=3$, then the configurations in the table below are equivalent:
\[2\[34\]5\] \[ \]\[ \[ \] \]
-------------- -------------------
3\]\[45\] \[ \[ \] \]\[ \]
4\]5\] \[ \[ \[ \] \] \]
\[34\]5\] \[ \[ \]\[ \] \]
\[23\]\[45\] \[ \]\[ \]\[ \]
You might recognize then that the number of combinatorial classes (with the labelling of the separatrices) for the structurally stable monic and centered complex polynomial vector fields of degree $d$ is just the Catalan number $C_{d-1}$. The proof is classical (see for instance [@Davis]), but we include it here for completeness.
The goal is to write a recursion equation for $C_n$, the $n^{\rm th}$ Catalan number, which counts the number of configurations matching $n$ pairs of parentheses. The first character of any balanced configuration is an open parenthesis “\[”. Somewhere in the configuration is the matching “\]” for the open one. In between that pair of parentheses is a balanced configuration, and to the right is another balanced configuration: $$[A]B,$$ where $A$ and $B$ are balanced parenthetical configurations. Each $A$ and $B$ can have anywhere from 0 to $n-1$ pairs of parentheses, but together they must have exactly $n-1$ pairs of parentheses. So if $A$ has $k$ pairs of parentheses, then $B$ must have $n-k-1$ pairs of parentheses. Thus we count all configurations where $A$ has 0 pairs and $B$ has $n-1$ pairs, $A$ has 1 pair and $B$ has $n-2$ pairs, etc. Add them up, and you get the total number of configurations with $n$ balanced pairs of parentheses. Therefore, $$\label{catrecursion}
C_n=C_0C_{n-1}+C_1C_{n-2}+ \cdots +C_{n-2}C_{1}+C_{n-1}C_{0}, \quad C_0=1.$$ We will use this recursion equation and the generating function $$\label{catgenfunc}
f(z)=\sum \limits_{n=0}^{\infty}C_nz^n$$ in order to derive a closed-form expression for $C_n$. Using , one can compute $$\left[f(z) \right]^{2}=C_0C_0+\left(C_0C_1+C_1C_0 \right)z+\left(C_0C_2+C_1C_1+C_2C_0 \right)z^2+\dots.$$ Combining this with , one arrives at $$\left[f(z) \right]^{2}=C_1+C_2z+C_3z^2+C_4z^3+\dots.$$ Therefore, $$f(z)=C_0+z\left[f(z) \right]^{2}.$$ Applying the quadratic formula, $$f(z)=\frac{ 1 \pm \sqrt{1-4z} }{2z},$$ and one must choose the branch $$f(z)=\frac{ 1 - \sqrt{1-4z} }{2z},$$ since $f(z) \rightarrow 1$ as $z \rightarrow 0$, which is desired since $f(z)=C_0=1$ (choosing the “+” branch gives $f(z) \rightarrow \infty$ as $z \rightarrow 0$). Expanding $\sqrt{1-4z}=\left(1-4z \right)^{1/2}$ using the binomial formula and making some arithmetic manipulations, one arrives at $$f(z)=\sum \limits_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n+1}\binom{2n}{n}z^n,$$ giving the desired result. An example is given in Figure \[d4generic\] to demonstrate.
Non-Structurally Stable Vector Fields
-------------------------------------
The convention, as stated before, is that round parentheses $(\cdots)$ are used to mark pairings corresponding to homoclinic separatrices, square parentheses $[\cdots]$ are used to mark pairings corresponding to a distinguished transversal in each $\alpha \omega$-zone, and elements that are not paired correspond to the sepal-zones.
We first look at the case when there are sepal zones but no homoclinic separatrices. Therefore, the zones can only be either $\alpha \omega$-zones, having exactly one even and one odd end, or sepal zones, having exactly one even or one odd end. The string $0 \ 1 \ 2\dots 2d-3$ represents the labels of the $2d-2$ ends in this case. The ${\rm\alpha \omega}$-zones will then be denoted by square parentheses $[\cdots]$ in this string, and the labels corresponding to the ends of sepal zones are not paired by a set of parentheses. We see now that the string $0 \ 1 \ 2\dots 2d-3$ is necessary since the unpaired elements will be placeholders corresponding to the sepal zones. Two examples are given in Figure \[d4wsepal\].
What then happens if we introduce homoclinic separatrices? Then it is no longer enough to consider pairings of ends. The string $0 \ 1 \ 2\dots 2d-3$ now represents the indices which may belong to either the ends $e_{\ell}$ or separatrices $s_{\ell}$ (as was in the involution definition of the combinatorial data set). For every homoclinic separatrix $s_{k,j}$, we pair the numbers $k$ and $j$ by round parentheses $(\cdots)$. For example, $0 \ 1 \ \dots (j \dots k)\dots$ or $0 \ 1 \ \dots (k \dots
j)\dots$. As usual, for every distinguished transversal $T_{k,j}$, we pair the numbers $k$ and $j$ by square parentheses $[\cdots]$ (see Figure \[d4wsepalnhom\]).
We can see from this that given any combinatorial data set, there is a unique bracketing representation defined in this way.
Valid Bracketings
-----------------
The bracketing must satisfy certain rules so that they are in accordance with what can happen for a vector field (and hence a combinatorial data set). Pairs of square and round parentheses placed in a string of elements $0 \ 1 \ 2 \dots
2d-3$ is called a *valid bracketing* if:
1. there are an equal number of right and left parentheses for each type,
2. the number of left parentheses must be greater than or equal to the number of right, reading from left to right [**Example: ())()( not valid**]{},
3. there must be at least one element between successive left (resp. right) parentheses [**Example: $((01)23)$ not valid**]{},
4. there must be an even number of elements in each pair of parentheses [**Example: $(012)3$ not valid**]{},
5. and the square brackets must not cross the round brackets [**Example: (\[)\] not valid**]{}
It is clear that a valid bracketing as defined above leads to an admissible combinatorial data set.
Recursion Equations and Generating Functions {#genfctsection}
--------------------------------------------
We compute the recursion equation for $p_n$, the number of ways to place any number of round or square parentheses in a valid way in a string of $n$ elements, by using the following algorithm to generate any possible valid parenthetical configuration in a string of $n$ elements, which we will denote by $s_n$. $$s_n=\begin{cases}
"s"s_{n-1}&\text{if string does not start with parenthesis } \\
"(s"s_{2a} "s)" s_b&\text{if string starts with round parentheses }\\
"[s"s_{2a} "s]" s_b&\text{if string starts with square parentheses }\end{cases}$$ for non-negative integers $a$ and $b$ satisfying $2a+b+2=n$, and the $s$ representing numbers in $\{ 0, 1 , \dots, 2d-3\}$. A table of the construction of such strings from $n=1$ to $n=5$ is given below.
$n$ $"s"s_{n-1}$ $a$ b $"(s"s_{2a} "s)" s_b$ $"[s"s_{2a} "s]" s_b$
----- --------------- ----- --- ----------------------- -----------------------
1 $s$
2 $ss$ 0 0 $(ss)$ $[ss]$
3 $sss$ 0 1 $(ss)s$ $[ss]s$
$s(ss)$
$s[ss]$
4 $ssss$ 0 2 $(ss)ss$ $[ss]ss$
$ss(ss)$ $(ss)(ss)$ $[ss](ss)$
$ss[ss]$ $(ss)[ss]$ $[ss][ss]$
$s(ss)s$ 1 0 $(ssss)$ $[ssss]$
$s[ss]s$ $(s(ss)s)$ $[s(ss)s]$
$(s[ss]s)$ $[s[ss]s]$
5 $sssss$ 0 3 $(ss)sss$ $[ss]sss$
$sss(ss)$ $(ss)s(ss)$ $[ss]s(ss)$
$sss[ss]$ $(ss)s[ss]$ $[ss]s[ss]$
$ss(ss)s$ $(ss)(ss)s$ $[ss](ss)s$
$ss[ss]s$ $(ss)[ss]s$ $[ss][ss]s$
$s(ss)(ss)$ 1 1 $(ssss)s$ $[ssss]s$
$s[ss](ss)$ $(s(ss)s)s$ $[s(ss)s]s$
$s(ss)[ss]$ $(s[ss]s)s$ $[s[ss]s]s$
s\[ss\]\[ss\]
s(ssss)
s\[ssss\]
s(s(ss)s)
s\[s(ss)s\]
s(s\[ss\]s)
s\[s\[ss\]s\]
Then $p_n$ satisfies the recursion equation $$p_n=\begin{cases}
p_{n-1}+2\left( \sum \limits_{2a+b+2=n}p_{2a} p_b \right), \quad &n\geq 1 \text{ and } a, b \geq 0\\
1, \quad &n=0\\
0, \quad &n<0.\end{cases}$$ We are interested in the generating function $$G(z)=\sum \limits_{d=1}^{\infty}c_d z^d,$$ where $c_d=p_{2(d-1)}$, since for degree $d$ the string we work with is $0 \dots 2d-3$. Note that $G(0)=0$. For $n \geq 0$, let $q_n=p_{2n}$ and $r_n=p_{2n-1}$ ($r_0=p_{-1}=0$). Let also $$f(z)=\sum \limits_{n=0}^{\infty}q_nz^{n}$$ and $$g(z)=\sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty}r_nz^{n}.$$ Note that $zf=G$. One can deduce for $n\geq 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qn}
q_n=p_{2n}&=p_{2n-1}+2\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}p_{2j}p_{2n-2j-2}\nonumber \\
&=r_n+2\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}q_j q_{n-j-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rn}
r_n=p_{2n-1}&=p_{2n-2}+2\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}p_{2j}p_{2n-2j-3}\nonumber \\
&=q_{n-1}+2\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}q_j r_{n-j-1}.\end{aligned}$$ From equations and , one can deduce $$f=1+g+2zf^2 \quad \text{and} \quad g=zf+2zfg$$ respectively, giving $$\label{algeq1}
4z^2f^3-4zf^2+(z+1)f-1=0.$$ Substituting $zf=G$, one gets that $G$ satisfies the algebraic equation $$G^3-G^2+\frac{(z+1)}{4}G-\frac{z}{4}=0.$$ For the complete problem, namely giving the number of combinatorial classes of each dimension, we are interested in the generating function $$G(z,t)=\sum\limits_{d=1,q=0}^{\infty}c_{d,q}z^dt^q, \quad c_{d,q}=p_{2(d-1),q},$$ where $q$ is the real dimension of the combinatorial class in parameter space. Note that $$G(z,1)=\sum\limits_{d=1,q=0}^{\infty}c_{d,q}z^d=G(z).$$ Folllowing the same method as before, $$s_{n,q}=\begin{cases}
"s"s_{n-1,q}&\text{if string does not start with parenthesis } \\
"(s"s_{2a,q_1} "s)" s_{b,q_2}& q_1+q_2+1=q\\
"[s"s_{2a,q_1} "s]" s_{b,q_2}& q_1+q_2+2=q\end{cases}$$ for $2a+b+2=n$. The condidtions on $q_1$ and $q_2$ come from the fact that each homoclinic separatrix (and hence each round pair of parentheses) contributes real dimension 1, and each $\alpha \omega$-zone (and hence each square pair of parentheses) contributes complex dimension 1 (real dimension 2). Manipulating the coefficients as in equations and , we get the equations $$f=1+g+z(tf^2+t^2f^2) \quad \text{and} \quad g=zf+tzfg+t^2zfg.$$ We then have that $G=zf$ satisfies the algebraic equation $$(t+t^2)^2G^3-2(t+t^2)G^2+(1-z+z(t+t^2))G-z=0.$$
Closed Forms {#closedformssection}
============
The best one can hope to achieve with respect to an enumerative problem is to find a closed-form representation for that what is being enumerated. The main tool we will use is the Lagrange-Bürmann Inversion Theorem. We will only use a simplified version and state it here for completeness.
\[LBinversion\] Let $\phi(u)$ be a formal power series with $\phi_0 \neq 0$, and let $Y(z)$ be the unique formal power series solution of the equation $Y=z\phi(Y)$. Then the coefficient of $Y(z)$ of order $n$ is given by $$[z^n]Y(z)=\frac{1}{n}[u^{n-1}]\phi(u)^n.$$
The notation $[z^n]\cdots$ means the coefficent of $z^n$ in the power series expansion of the expression that follows.
The Simplified Problem
----------------------
We first consider this problem for the single-index sequence $c_d$.
To apply the Lagrange-Bürmann Inversion Theorem, we need to write the algebraic equation in the form $G=z\phi(G)$ for some formal power series $\phi$. By simple arithmetic, one arrives at $G=z\phi(G)$ with $$\phi(G)=\frac{1-G}{(1-2G)^2}$$ (note that $\phi(0)\neq 0$). Then by Theorem \[LBinversion\], $$\label{cdzvsu}
c_d=[z^d]G(z)=\frac{1}{d}[u^{d-1}]\left( \frac{1-u}{(1-2u)^2} \right)^d.$$ Since $$(1-u)^d=\sum \limits_{n=0}^d\binom{d}{n}(-u)^n$$ and $$\frac{1}{(1-2u)^{2d}}=\sum
\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\binom{n+2d-1}{n}(2u)^n,$$ then Cauchy multiplication gives $$\begin{aligned}
[u^{d-1}]\left( \frac{1-u}{(1-2u)^2} \right)^d=&\sum \limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\binom{n+2d-1}{n}2^n \binom{d}{d-1-n}(-1)^{d-1-n} \nonumber \\
=&(-1)^{d-1}\sum \limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\frac{(n+2d-1)!}{n!(2d-1)!}\frac{d!(-1)^n2^n}{(d-1-n)!(n+1)!}\nonumber \\
=&(-1)^{d-1}\sum \limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\frac{(n+2d-1)!}{(2d-1)!}\frac{d!(-1)^n}{(d-1-n)!}\frac{2^n}{(2)_nn!}\end{aligned}$$ since $(2)_n=2 \cdot 3 \cdots (2+n-1)=(n+1)!$, and $(-1)^n(1-d)_n=\frac{(d-1)!}{(d-n-1)!}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
=&d(-1)^{d-1}\sum \limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\frac{(n+2d-1)!}{(2d-1)!}\frac{(1-d)_n2^n}{(2)_nn!}\nonumber \\
=&d(-1)^{d-1}\sum \limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\frac{(2d)_n(1-d)_n}{(2)_n}\frac{2^n}{n!}\nonumber \\
=&d(-1)^{d-1}{}_2F_1([1-d,2d];[2];2).\end{aligned}$$ We utilize and Euler’s formula: $$\label{Eulersform}
{}_2F_1([a,b];[c];z)=(1-z)^{-a} {}_2F_1\left([a,c-b];[c];\frac{z}{z-1}\right)$$ (found in Gardner, et. al. [@GKP], for instance) for the Gaussian hypergeometric function $${}_2F_1([a,b];[c];z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left(a\right)_n\left(b\right)_n }{\left( c\right)_n}\frac{z^n}{n!}$$ where $(x)_n=x(x+1)\cdots (x+n-1)$ is the Pochhammer symbol. With $z=2$, $c=2$, $a=1-d$, and $b=2-2d$, and give the hypergeometric function stated in the following:
The number of combinatorial invariants for $\Xi_d$ is $$c_d={}_2F_1([2-2d,1-d];[2];2).$$
This series has a finite number of terms due to $1-d\in \mathbb{Z}^-$ being non-positive for $d \geq 1$.
The Complete Problem {#closedformcomplete}
--------------------
We first find $[z^d]G(z,t)$. Following the same method as before, we note $$\phi(G)=\frac{1+(1-(t+t^2))G}{(1-(t+t^2)G)^2},$$ and by Theorem \[LBinversion\], we again have $$c_d(t):=[z^d]G(z,t)=\frac{1}{d}[u^{d-1}]\left(\frac{1+(1-(t+t^2))u}{(1-(t+t^2)u)^2}
\right)^d.$$ Again utilizing Cauchy multiplication, we have $$c_d(t)=\frac{1}{d}\sum \limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\binom{n+2d-1}{n}(t+t^2)^n
\binom{d}{d-1-n}(1-t-t^2)^{d-1-n},$$ and rewriting gives $$=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{d-1}\frac{(-1)^n(2d)_n(1-d)_n}{(2)_nn!}(t+t^2)^n(1-t-t^2)^{d-1-n}.$$ Recognizing that this is the right-hand side of , with $a=1-d$, $b=2-2d$, $c=2$, and $z=t+t^2$, this simplifies beautifully to $$c_d(t)={}_2F_1([1-d,2(1-d)];[2];t+t^2).$$ By expanding $(t+t^2)^n$, we get
The number of combinatorial invariants of dimension $q$ for $\Xi_d$ is $$c_{d,q}=[t^q]{}_2F_1([1-d,2(1-d)];[2];t+t^2)=\sum_{n=0}^{d-1}\frac{(2-2d)_n(1-d)_n}{(2)_n n!}\binom{n}{q-n}.$$
Asymptotic Behavior {#asymptoticbehaviorsection}
===================
The next characteristic one might want to examine is the asymptotic behavior of the sequences $c_d$ and $c_{d,q}$.
The Simplified Problem {#asymsimple}
----------------------
For $c_d$, we wish to utilize the relation $$\label{Rrelation}
\frac{1}{R}=\limsup_{d \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt[d]{|c_d|},$$ where $R$ is the radius of convergence of the associated generating function. We first check that $R>0$ by use of the Implicit Function Theorem. We have $$\begin{aligned}
P(G,z)&=G^3-G^2+\left(\frac{z+1}{4} \right)G-\frac{z}{4}=0 \\
\frac{\partial P}{\partial G}{\,\rule[-2.5mm]{0.125mm}{5.5mm}_{\rule[-1.0mm]{0mm}{
4mm}\, (0,0)}}&=\frac{1}{4}\neq 0,\end{aligned}$$ so it follows that $R>0$. We next determine $R$ exactly in order to make a more precise asymptotic estimation for $c_d$. The polynomial $P(G)$ behaves nicely; it has three roots, counted with multiplicity. That is, $G$ has three branches, of which we are interested in the one going through $(z,G)=(0,0)$. The radius of convergence of the power series expansion of $G$ about $z=0$ will be determined by the first singularity on the branch of interest. In this light, we wish to find all of the places the branches intersect, i.e. where the discriminant is zero. Calculation gives $$\Delta(P(G))=\frac{-z}{16}\left(z- \left( \frac{11\pm 5\sqrt{5}}{-2}\right) \right),$$ so the discriminant $\Delta(P(G))=0$ when $z=0$ and $z=\frac{11\pm 5\sqrt{5}}{-2}$. When $z=0$, $P(G)$ has a double root at $G=1/2$, and a single root at $G=0$. The branch we are interested in is the one where $G=0$. So $G$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $z=0$, and the radius of convergence will be determined by the $z$ with smallest modulus where there is a singularity. There are two numbers to check; we start with the one with smallest modulus, $\frac{11-5\sqrt{5}}{-2}$. Using Sturm’s Theorem, it can be shown that $P(G)$ has three distinct real roots in the interval $]0,\frac{11-5\sqrt{5}}{-2}[$. At $z=\frac{11-5\sqrt{5}}{-2}$, $P(G)$ has a single root at $G=\frac{1}{2}(-1+\sqrt{5})$ and a double root at $G=\frac{1}{4}(3-\sqrt{5})$. Since $\frac{1}{4}(3-\sqrt{5})<\frac{1}{2}(-1+\sqrt{5})$, we can conclude that the branch we are interested in intersects the point $(z,G)=(\frac{11-5\sqrt{5}}{-2},\frac{1}{4}(3-\sqrt{5}))$. Hence, $R=\frac{11-5\sqrt{5}}{-2}$. Now since $c_d$ is positive and increasing, equation becomes $$\frac{1}{R}=\lim_{d \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt[d]{c_d},$$ and by the definition of a limit, we can conclude $$c_d \sim (1/R)^d =\left(\frac{-2}{11-5\sqrt{5}} \right)^d\approx (11.09)^d.$$
The Complete Problem {#the-complete-problem}
--------------------
We consider the discrete probability distribution $$\pi_{d,q}=\frac{c_{d,q}}{c_d}.$$ The goal is to show that this probability distribution is asymptotically of some known form, for example normal, when $d
\rightarrow \infty$. We wish to use the same method as in [@FN1999]; compare with their Theorem 5.
The distribution $\pi_{d,q}$ has mean $\mu_d$ and variance $\sigma^2_d$ that satisfy $$\mu_d \sim \kappa d, \quad \sigma^2_d \sim \lambda d,$$ where $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ are algebraic numbers. The laws in each case are asymptotically normal for $d\rightarrow \infty$.
The method of the proof is taken from [@FN1999] and also draws on the references [@FS_analcomb], [@EB1973], and [@FO1990].
Consider the characteristic function of $\pi_d(q)$, normalized by shifting the mean by $\mu_d$ and the variance by $\sigma_d^2$: $$f_d(t)= e^{-i\mu_dt/\sigma_d}G_d\left(e^{it/\sigma_d} \right),$$ where $G_d(t)=\frac{c_d(t)}{c_d}$ is the probability generating function. The goal is to show that the normalized characteristic functions $f_d(t)$ converge pointwise to the characteristic function $e^{-t^2/2}$ of the standard normal. Then the limit law follows by Levy’s Continuity Theorem.
We look at $$P(z,t,G)=(t+t^2)^2G^3-2(t+t^2)G^2+(1-z+z(t+t^2))G-z.$$ By previous discussions, $G_0=(3-\sqrt{5})/4$ is a double root for $P(\rho,1,G)$, where $\rho = \frac{11-5 \sqrt{5}}{-2}$, so by Weierstrass preparation, there is an analytic factorization $$P(z,t,G)=((G-G_0)^2+m_1(z,t)(G-G_0)+m_2(z,t))\cdot H(z,t,G),$$ where $H(z,t,G)$ is analytic near $(\rho,1,G_0)$, $H(\rho,1,G_0)\neq 0$, and $m_1$ and $m_2$ are analytic at $(\rho,1)$. Then applying the quadratic formula, $$G(z,t)-G_0=\frac{1}{2}\left( -m_1(z,t)\pm\sqrt{m_1(z,t)^2-4m_2(z,t)} \right).$$ We determine our branch of interest (as we did in Subsection \[strstablecase\]) by the following. Consider first $(z,t)$ restricted to $0\leq z<\rho(t)$ and $0\leq t < 1$. Since $G(z,t)$ is real there ($G$ has real coefficients), the discriminant $m_1(z,t)^2-4m_2(z,t)$ must also be real and non-negative. Furthermore, since $G$ is increasing in $z$ for fixed $t$ (coefficients of $G$ are non-negative), and since the discriminant vanishes at $\rho(t)$ and is hence decreasing in $z$, then we need to take the minus sign, i.e. $$G(z,t)-G_0=\frac{1}{2}\left( -m_1(z,t)-\sqrt{m_1(z,t)^2-4m_2(z,t)} \right).$$ Set $D(z,t):=m_1(z,t)^2-4m_2(z,t)$. Consider the resultant $$R(z,t)={\rm Result}_G \left( P(z,t,G), \frac{\partial}{\partial G}P(z,t,G) \right),$$ which is a polynomial whose restriction $R(z,1)$ has, by the discussion in Section \[asymsimple\], a simple root at $\rho = \frac{11-5 \sqrt{5}}{-2}$. By the Implicit Function Theorem, this root lifts to an analytic branch $\rho(t)$ of an algebraic function, for $t$ near 1: $$R(\rho(t),t)=0, \quad \rho(1)=\rho.$$ Therefore, the function $D(z,1)$ has a simple real zero at $z=\rho$, and we can factorize $$D(z,t)=(\rho(t)-z)K(z,t),$$ for some analytic $K$ satisfying $K(\rho,1)\neq0$. So the uniform family of singular expansions for $G(z,t)$ near $(\rho(t),t)$ takes the form $$\label{puiexp}
G(z,t)=c_0(t)+c_1(t)\sqrt{1-z/\rho(t)}+\mathcal{O}(1-z/\rho(t)),$$ uniformly with respect to $t$ for $t$ in a small neighborhood of 1, and with $\rho(t)$, $c_0(t)$, and $c_1(t)$ analytic at 1. If $G(z,t)$ satisfies equation , we let $\tilde{z}=z/\rho(t)$ and apply the results in [@FO1990] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
c_d(t):=[z^d]G(z,t)&=(\rho(t))^{-d}[\tilde{z}^d]\{
c_1(t)\sqrt{1-\tilde{z}}+\mathcal{O}(1-\tilde{z})\}\nonumber \\
&=\frac{c_1(t)(\rho(t))^{-d}}{\Gamma(-1/2)d^{3/2}}\left( 1 + \mathcal{O}(1/d)\right).\end{aligned}$$
The probability generating function is therefore a so-called “quasi-power,” i.e. $G_d(t)$ satisfies $$\label{quasipower}
G_d(t)=\frac{\gamma(t)}{\gamma(1)}\left( \frac{\rho(1)}{\rho(t)} \right)^d\left(
1+\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{1}{d} \right) \right).$$ If holds, then for $d \rightarrow \infty$ and close enough to $w=1$, $$G_d(t)\sim \left(\frac{\rho(1)}{\rho(t)}\right)^d,$$ so for fixed $t$, letting $d\rightarrow \infty$, $$f_d(t) \sim e^{-i\mu_dt/\sigma_d}\left[ \frac{r(0)}{r(it/\sigma_d)}\right]^d,$$ where $r(s)=\rho(e^s)$. Set $y(s)=\log (r(s)/r(0))$, expand $y(s)$ in a Taylor series, and use $\left[
\frac{r(0)}{r(s)}\right]^d=\exp \left(d \log (r(0)/r(s))\right)$ to get $$f_d(t)\sim \exp\{-i\mu_dt/\sigma_d -d \left(ity'(0)/\sigma_d
-t^2y''(0)/2\sigma_d^2+\mathcal{O}(t^3/\sigma_d^3) \right) \}.$$ By calculation on , $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_d &= G_d'(1)\sim -d \rho'(1)/\rho(1)=-dy'(0)\quad \text{and}\nonumber \\
\sigma_d^2&=G_d''(1)+\mu_d(1-\mu_d)\sim -d
\left(\frac{\rho''(1)+\rho'(1)}{\rho(1)}-\left(
\frac{\rho'(1)}{\rho(1)}\right)^2\right)=-dy''(0).\end{aligned}$$ We obtain $$f_d(t)\sim e^{-t^2/2}$$ for all $t$. By differentiation of and with help from MAPLE’s *algeqtodiffeq* function in the GFUN package [@SZ1994], we can calculate $$\rho(1) = \frac{-11+5\sqrt{5}}{2}, \quad \rho'(1)=\frac{87-39\sqrt{5}}{2}, \quad
\rho''(1)=\frac{702\rho(1)+716\rho'(1)}{-60},$$ so $$\kappa=\frac{\rho'(1)}{\rho(1)}=\frac{3(-3+\sqrt{5})}{-2}\approx 1.145898036,$$ and $$\lambda=-\frac{\rho''(1)}{\rho(1)}-\frac{\rho'(1)}{\rho(1)}+\left(
\frac{\rho'(1)}{\rho(1)}\right)^2=\frac{-60+29\sqrt{5}}{10}\approx 0.484597133.$$
Alternative Counting Problems {#alternativeprobssection}
=============================
There are several variations on this enumeration problem that one might consider interesting. We discuss a few of these now.
Distinguishing between Real and Complex Dimension
-------------------------------------------------
It has been suggested that one might want to count the complex dimensions (corresponding to the number of analytic invariants in $\mathbb{H}$ for a vector field $\xi_P$) and the real dimensions (corresponding to the number of analytic invariants in $\mathbb{R}_+$ for a vector field $\xi_P$) separately (see [@BD09] and [@Sent] for definitions of the analytic invariants). This would correspond in the complete problem to a triple-indexed sequence $c_{d,s,h}$, where $s$ is the number of complex analytic invariants and $h$ is the number of real analytic invariants. We follow the same method as in Section \[genfctsection\]. Let $$s_{n,s,h}=\begin{cases}
"s"s_{n-1,s,h}&\text{if string does not start with parentheses } \\
"(s"s_{2a,s_1,h_1} "s)" s_{b,s_2,h_2}& s_1+s_2=s, \ h_1+h_2+1=h\\
"[s"s_{2a,s_1,h_1} "s]" s_{b,s_2,h_2}& s_1+s_2+1=s, \ h_1+h_2=h\end{cases},$$ be our string generating algorithm for $2a+b+2=n$. We define a recursion equation for $p_{n,s,h}$ in the usual way, and arrive at the generating function $G(z,t,w)=\sum c_{d,s,h}z^d w^s t^h$ satisfying (unsurprisingly) $$(t+w)^2G^3-2(t+w)G^2+(1-z+z(t+w))G-z=0.$$ One can use methods as before to determine properties of $c_{d,s,h}$.
Enumeration of Moduli Classes
-----------------------------
The combinatorial classes we have focused on distinguish between vector fields which are conformally conjugate by a rotation by a $(d-1)^{{\rm st}}$ root of unity. Some may consider the problem of enumeration of classes in moduli space (i.e. without the labelling of the separatrices) more valuable. In order to study this, we utilize Pólya theory for the cyclic group isomorphic to the group generated by $e^{2\pi
{\rm i}/(d-1)}$. We are interested in the sequence $ \tilde{c}_d=[z^{d-1}]C(G(z))$ where $C(G(z))$ is generating function for the number of combinatorial classes for degree $d$ vector fields moduli rotation by a $(d-1)^{{\rm st}}$ root of unity. Pólya theory gives $$C(G(z))=\sum \limits_{k \geq 1}\frac{\phi(k)}{k}\log \frac{1}{1-G(z^k)},$$ where $\phi(k)$ is the Euler totient function. This relies on prime factorization, so it does not seem likely that one can find a closed-form expression for $\tilde{c}_d$ as a function of $d$ as of date.
[9]{} A. A. Andronov, E. A. Leontovich, I. I. Gordon, and A. G. Maier. [*Qualitative theory of second-order dynamic systems.*]{} Nakua, Moscow 1967, English translation: Wiley, New York, 1973. B. Branner and K. Dias. Classification of polynomial vector fields in one complex variable. [*Journal of Difference Equations and Applications 16 (2010) no. 5, 463-517.*]{} E. A. Bender. Central and local limit theorems applied to asymptotic enumeration. [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 15 (1973) 91-111.*]{} L. Comtet. [*Advanced Combinatorics.*]{} D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland, 1974. T. Davis [*Catalan numbers.*]{} http://geometer.org/mathcircles/catalan.pdf. A. Douady, F. Estrada, and P. Sentenac. Champs de vecteurs polynomiaux sur $\mathbb{C}$. [*Unpublished manuscript.*]{} P. Flajolet and M. Noy. Analytic combinatorics of non-crossing configurations. [*Discrete Mathematics 204 (1999) 203-229.*]{} P. Flajolet and A. Odlyzko. Singularity analysis of generating functions. [*SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 3 (1990) no. 2, 216-240.*]{} P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick. [*Analytic Combinatorics.*]{} Cambridge University Press, 2009. R. L. Graham, D. E. Knuth, and O. Patashnik. [*Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science.*]{} Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1994. D. Neumann. Classification of Continuous Flows on 2-Manifolds. [*Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 48 (1975) no. 1, 73-81.*]{} B. Salvy and P. Zimmerman. [GFUN]{}: a [M]{}aple package for the manipulation of generating and holonomic functions in one variable. [*ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 20 (1994) no. 2, 163-167.*]{}
[^1]: A more familiar description might be evident in the disk model, where this pairing can be seen as the number of non-crossing handshakes of $2(d-1)$ people seated around a round table.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a unified approach to celebrated $\log\log$-theorems of Carleman, Wolf, Levinson, Sj[ö]{}berg, Matsaev on majorants of analytic functions. Moreover, we obtain stronger results by replacing original pointwise bounds with integral ones. The main ingredient is a complete description for radial projections of harmonic measures of strictly star-shaped domains in the plane, which, in particular, explains where the $\log\log$-conditions come from.'
author:
- Alexander Rashkovskii
title: 'Classical and new $\log\log$-theorems'
---
Introduction. Statement of results
==================================
Our starting point is classical theorems due to Carleman, Wolf, Levinson, and Sj[ö]{}berg, on majorants of analytic functions.
A nonnegative measurable function $M$ on a segment $[a,b]\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ belongs to the class ${{\cal L^{++}}}[a,b]$ if $$\int_a^b \log^+\log^+ M(t)\,dt<\infty.$$
(For any real-valued function $h$, we write $h^+=\max\{h,0\}$, $h^-=h^+-h$.)
Carleman was the first who remarked a special role of functions of the class ${{\cal L^{++}}}$ in complex analysis, by proving the following variant of the Liouville theorem.
[**Theorem A**]{} (T. Carleman [@C]) [*If an entire function $f$ in the complex plane ${{\mathbb C}}$ has the bound $$\label{eq:A}
|f(re^{i\theta})|\le M(\theta)\quad \forall\theta\in [0,2\pi],\
\forall r\ge r_0,$$ with $M\in {{\cal L^{++}}}[0,2\pi]$, then $f\equiv const$.*]{}
This phenomenon appears also in the Phragmén–Lindelöf setting.
[**Theorem B**]{} (F. Wolf [@W1]) [*If a holomorphic function $f$ in the upper half-plane ${{\mathbb C}}_+=\{z\in{{\mathbb C}}:\:{\rm Im}\,z>0\}$ satisfies the condition $$\limsup_{z\to x_0} |f(z)|\le 1\quad\forall x_0\in{{\mathbb R}}$$ and for any $ \epsilon>0$ and all $r>R(\epsilon)$, $\theta\in
(0,\pi)$, one has $$|f(re^{i\theta})|\le [M(\theta)]^{\epsilon r}$$ with $M\in {{\cal L^{++}}}[0,\pi]$, then $|f(z)|\le 1 $ on ${{\mathbb C}}_+$.*]{}
The most famous statement of this type is the following local result known as the Levinson–Sj[ö]{}berg theorem.
[**Theorem C**]{} (N. Levinson [@L], N. Sj[ö]{}berg [@S], F. Wolf [@W2]) [*If a holomorphic function $f$ in the domain $Q=\{x+iy:\: |x|<1,\ |y|<1\}$ has the bound $$|f(x+iy)|\le M(y)\quad\forall x+iy\in Q,$$ with $M\in {{\cal L^{++}}}[-1,1]$, then for any compact subset $K$ of $Q$ there is a constant $C_K$, independent of the function $f$, such that $|f(z)|\le C_K$ in $K$.*]{}
For further developments of Theorem C, including higher dimensional variants, see [@D1], [@D2], [@Dy2], [@Dy3], [@G]. Theorems A and B were extended to subharmonic functions in higher dimensions in [@Y].
A similar feature of majorants from the class ${{\cal L^{++}}}$ was discovered by Beurling in a problem of extension of analytic functions [@Be]. It also appears in relation to holomorphic functions from the MacLane class in the unit disk [@H], [@Mac], and in a description of non-quasi-analytic Carleman classes [@Dy1].
The next result, due to Matsaev, does not look like a $\log\log$-theorem, however (as will be seen from our considerations) it is also about the class ${{\cal L^{++}}}$; further results in this direction can be found in [@MM].
[**Theorem D**]{} (V.I. Matsaev [@M]) [*If an entire function $f$ satisfies the relation $$\log|f(re^{i\theta})|\ge -Cr^\alpha|\sin\theta|^{-k} \quad \forall\theta\in(0,\pi),\ \forall r>0,$$ with some $C>0$, $\alpha>1$, and $k\ge 0$, then it has at most normal type with respect to the order $\alpha$, that is, $\log|f(re^{i\theta})|\le
Ar^\alpha+B$.*]{}
All these theorems can be formulated in terms of subharmonic functions (by taking $u(z)=\log|f(z)|$ as a pattern), however our main goal is to replace the pointwise bounds like (\[eq:A\]) with some integral conditions. A model situation is the following form of the Phragmén–Lindelöf theorem.
[**Theorem E**]{} (Ahlfors [@Ah]) [*If a subharmonic function $u$ in ${{\mathbb C}}_+$ with nonpositive boundary values on ${{\mathbb R}}$ satisfies $$\lim_{r\to\infty} r^{-1}\int_0^\pi u^+(re^{i\theta})\sin\theta\,d\theta=0,$$ then $u\le 0$ in ${{\mathbb C}}_+$.*]{}
We will show that all the above theorems are particular cases of results on the class $\mathcal A$ defined below and that the $\log\log$-conditions appear as conditions for continuity of certain logarithmic potentials.
\[def:A\] Let $\nu$ be a probability measure on a segment $[a,b]$; we will identify it occasionally with its distribution function $\nu(t)=\nu([a,t])$. Suppose $\nu(t)$ is strictly increasing and continuous on $[a,b]$, and denote by $\mu$ its inverse function extended to the whole real axis as $\mu(t)=a$ for $t<0$ and $\mu(t)=b$ for $t>1$. We will say that such a measure $\nu$ belongs to the class ${{\cal A}}[a,b]$ if $$\label{eq:cA}
\lim_{\delta\to 0}\sup_x\int_0^\delta\frac{\mu(x+t)-\mu(x-t)}{t}\,dt=0.$$
Note that this class is completely different from MacLane’s class $\mathcal A$ [@Mac] that consists of holomorphic functions in the unit disk with asymptotic values at a dense subset of the circle. MacLane’s class is however described by the condition $|f(re^{i\theta})|\le M(r)$, $M\in{{\cal L^{++}}}[0,1]$.
Our results extending Theorems A–C and E are as follows.
\[theo:1\] Let a subharmonic function $u$ in the complex plane satisfy $$\int_0^{2\pi} u^+(te^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta) \le V(t)\quad \forall t\ge
t_0, \label{eq:1}$$ with $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$ and a nondecreasing function $V$ on ${{\mathbb R}}_+$. Then there exist constants $c>0$ and $A\ge 1$, independent of $u$, such that $$\label{eq:distort} u(te^{i\theta})\le cV(At)\quad \forall t\ge t_0.$$
\[theo:2\] If a subharmonic function $u$ in the upper half-plane ${{\mathbb C}}_+$ satisfies the conditions $$\limsup_{z\to x_0} u(z)\le 0\quad\forall x_0\in{{\mathbb R}}$$ and $$\lim_{t\to\infty}t^{-1}\int_0^{\pi} u^+(te^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)=0$$ with $\nu\in {{\cal A}}[0,\pi]$, then $u(z)\le 0 $ $\forall z\in{{\mathbb C}}_+$.
\[theo:3\] Let a subharmonic function $u$ in $Q=\{x+iy:\:
|x|<1,\ |y|<1\}$ satisfy $$\int_{-1}^{1} u^+(x+iy)\,d\nu(y)\le 1\quad\forall x\in(-1,1)
\label{eq:3}$$ with $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[-1,1]$. Then for each compact set $K\subset Q$ there is a constant $C_K$, independent of the function $u$, such that $u(z)\le C_K$ on $ K$.
Relation of these results to the $\log\log$-theorems becomes clear by means of the following statement.
Denote by ${{\cal L}^-}[a,b]$ the class of all nonnegative integrable functions $g$ on the segment $[a,b]$, such that $$\label{eq:LM}
\int_a^b\log^-g(s)\,ds<\infty.$$
\[prop:1\] If the density $\nu'$ of an absolutely continuous increasing function $\nu$ belongs to the class ${{\cal L}^-}[a,b]$, then $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[a,b]$. Consequently, if a holomorphic function $f$ has a majorant $M\in{{\cal L^{++}}}$, then $\log|f|$ has the corresponding integral bound with the weight $\nu\in{{\cal A}}$ with the density $\nu'(t)=\min\{1,1/M(t)\}$.
We recall that positive measures $\nu$ on the unit circle with $\nu'\in{{\cal L}^-}[0,2\pi]$ are called [*Szegö measures*]{}. Proposition \[prop:1\] states, in particular, that absolutely continuous Szegö measures belong to the class ${{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$.
An integral version of Theorem D has the following form.
\[theo:4\] Let a function $u$, subharmonic in ${{\mathbb C}}$ and harmonic in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb R}}$, satisfy the inequality $$\label{eq:M1}
\int_{-\pi}^\pi u^-(re^{i\theta})\Phi(|\sin\theta|)\,d\theta\le V(r)\quad
\forall r\ge r_0,$$ where $\Phi\in{{\cal L}^-}[0,1]$ is nondecreasing and the function $V$ is such that $r^{-1-\delta}
V(r)$ is increasing in $r$ for some $\delta>0$. Then there are constants $c>0$ and $A\ge 1$, independent of $u$, such that $$u(re^{i\theta})\le cV(Ar)\quad\forall r\ge r_1=r_1(u).$$
Our proofs of Theorems \[theo:1\]–\[theo:4\] rest on a presentation of measures of the class ${{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$ as radial projections of harmonic measures of star-shaped domains. Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Jordan domain containing the origin. Given a set $E\subset\partial\Omega$, $\omega(z,E,\Omega)$ will denote the harmonic measure of $E$ at $z\in\Omega$, i.e., the solution of the Dirichlet problem in $\Omega$ with the boundary data $1$ on $E$ and $0$ on $\partial\Omega\setminus E$. The measure ${\omega(0,E,\Omega)}$ generates a measure on the unit circle ${{\mathbb T}}$ by means of the radial projection $\zeta\mapsto \zeta/|\zeta|$. It is convenient for us to consider it as a measure on the segment $[0,2\pi]$, so we put $$\label{eq:hat}
\widehat\omega_\Omega(F)=\omega(0,\{\zeta\in\partial\Omega:\arg\zeta\in
F\}, \Omega)$$ for each Borel set $F\subset[0,2\pi]$.
The inverse problem is as follows. [*Given a probability measure on the unit circle ${{\mathbb T}}$, is it the radial projection of the harmonic measure of any domain $\Omega$?*]{}
For our purposes we specify $\Omega$ to be [*strictly star-shaped*]{}, i.e., of the form $$\label{eq:domain}
\Omega=\{re^{i\theta}:\: r<r_\Omega(\theta),\ 0\le\theta\le 2\pi\}$$ with $r_\Omega$ a positive continuous function on $[0,2\pi]$, $r_\Omega(0)=r_\Omega(2\pi)$.
\[theo:5\] A continuous probability measure $\nu$ on $[0,2\pi]$ is the radial projection of the harmonic measure of a strictly star-shaped domain if and only if $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$.
\[cor:Szego\] Every absolutely continuous measure from the Szegö class on the unit circle is the radial projection of the harmonic measure of some strictly star-shaped domain.
Theorem \[theo:5\] is proved by a method originated by B.Ya. Levin in theory of majorants in classes of subharmonic functions [@Levin].
Theorems \[theo:1\]–\[theo:3\] and \[theo:5\] (some of them in a slightly weaker form) were announced in [@R1] and proved in [@R2] and [@R3]. The main objective of the present paper, Theorem \[theo:4\], is new. Since its proof rests heavily on Theorem \[theo:5\], we present a proof of the latter as well, having in mind that the papers [@R2] and [@R3] are not easily accessible. Moreover, we include the proofs of Theorems \[theo:1\]–\[theo:3\], too, motivated by the same accessability reason as well as by the idea of showing the whole picture.
Radial projections of harmonic measures (Proofs of Theorem \[theo:5\] and Proposition \[prop:1\])
=================================================================================================
Measures from the class ${{\cal A}}$ have a simple characterization as follows.
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be as in Definition \[def:A\]. Then the function $$N(x)=\int_0^1\log|x-t|\,d\mu(t)$$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ if and only if $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[a,b]$.
[*Proof.*]{} The function $N(x)$ is continuous on $[0,1]$ if and only if for any $\epsilon>0$ one can choose $\delta\in(0,1)$ such that $$I_x(\delta)=\int_{|t-x|<\delta}\log|x-t|\,d\mu(t)>-\epsilon$$ for all $x\in[0,1]$. Integrating $I_x$ by parts, we get $$|I_x(\delta)|=\int_0^\delta\frac{r_x(t)}{t}\,dt+r_x(\delta)|\log\delta|,$$ where $r_x(t)=\mu(x+t)-\mu(x-t)$. Therefore, continuity of $N(x)$ implies (\[eq:cA\]). On the other hand, since $r_x(t)$ increases in $t$, we have $$r_x(\delta)|\log\delta|=2r_x(\delta) \int_\delta^{\sqrt\delta}\frac{dt}{t}\le 2\int_\delta^{\sqrt\delta}\frac{r_x(t)}{t}\,dt,$$ which gives the reverse implication. [$\square$]{}
In the proof of Theorem \[theo:5\], we will use this property in the following form.
\[prop:cont\] Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be as in Definition \[def:A\] for the class ${{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$. Then the function $$h(z)=\int_0^{2\pi}\log|e^{i\theta}-z|\,d\mu(\theta/2\pi)$$ is continuous on ${{\mathbb T}}$ if and only if $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$.
[*Proof of Theorem \[theo:5\]*]{}. 1) First we prove the sufficiency: [*every $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$ has the form $\nu=\widehat\omega_\Omega$ (\[eq:hat\]) for some strictly star-shaped domain $\Omega$. In particular, for any compact set $K\in \Omega$ there is a constant $C(K)$ such that $$\label{eq:bound}
\omega(z, E,\Omega)\le C(K)\,\nu(\arg E)\quad\forall z\in E$$ for every Borel set $E\subset\partial\Omega$, where $\arg
E=\{\arg\zeta:\: \zeta\in E\}$.*]{}
Let $$u(z)={\frac1\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\log|e^{i\theta}-z|\,d\mu({\theta /
2\pi})$$ with $\mu$ the inverse function to $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$. The function $u$ is subharmonic in ${{\mathbb C}}$ and harmonic outside the unit circle ${{\mathbb T}}$. By Proposition \[prop:cont\], it is continuous on ${{\mathbb T}}$ and thus, by Evans’ theorem, in the whole plane. Let $v$ be a harmonic conjugate to $u$ in the unit disk ${{\mathbb D}}$, which is determined uniquely up to a constant. Since $u\in C({\overline {{\mathbb D}}})$, radial limits $v^*(e^{i\psi})$ of $v$ exist a.e. on ${{\mathbb T}}$. Let us fix such a point $e^{i\psi_0}$ and choose the constant in the definition of $v$ in such a way that $v^*(e^{i\psi_0})=\psi_0$.
Consider then the function $w(z)=z\exp\{-u(z)-iv(z)\}$, $z\in {{\mathbb D}}$. By the Cauchy-Riemann condition, $\partial v/\partial\phi=r\partial
u/\partial r$, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\arg w(re^{i\psi}) &=& \psi-v(re^{i\psi_0})
-\int_{\psi_0}^\psi \frac{\partial v(re^{i\phi})}{\partial\phi}\,d\phi
= \psi_0-v(re^{i\psi_0})\\
{}& +&\frac1{2\pi}\int_{\psi_0}^\psi \int_0^{2\pi}
\left[1-\frac{2r^2-2r\cos(\theta-\phi)}{|r-e^{i(\theta-\phi)}|^2}\right]
\,d\mu({\theta/ 2\pi})\,d\phi\\
{}&=& \psi_0-v(re^{i\psi_0})
+\frac1{2\pi}\int_{\psi_0}^\psi \int_0^{2\pi}
\frac{1-r^2}{|r-e^{i(\theta-\phi)}|^2} \,d\mu({\theta/
2\pi})\,d\phi.\end{aligned}$$ By changing the integration order and passing to the limit as $r\to 1$, we derive that for each $\psi\in [0,2\pi]$ there exists the limit $$\lim_{r\to 1}\arg w(re^{i\psi}) =\mu({\psi/ 2\pi})
-\mu({\psi_0/ 2\pi}).$$ Therefore the function $\arg w$ is continuous up to the boundary of the disk; in particular, we can take $\psi_0=0$. Since $|w|$ is continuous in $\overline {{\mathbb D}}$ as well, so is $w$.
By the boundary correspondence principle, $w$ gives a conformal map of ${{\mathbb D}}$ onto the domain $$\label{eq:obl1}
\Omega=\{re^{i\theta}:\: r<\exp\{-u(\exp\{2\pi i\nu(\theta)\})\},\
0\le\theta\le 2\pi\}.$$ It is easy to see that the domain $\Omega$ is what we sought. Let $f$ be the conformal map of $\Omega$ to ${{\mathbb D}}$, inverse to $w$. For $z\in\Omega$ and $E\subset\partial\Omega$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(z,E,\Omega) &=& \omega(f(z),f(E),U)=\frac1{2\pi}
\int_{\arg{f(E)} }\frac{1-|f(z)|^2}{|f(z)-e^{it}|^2}\,dt\\
{}&=& (1-|f(z)|^2)\int_{\arg E}\frac{d\nu(s)}{|f(z)-e^{2\pi i\nu(s)}|^2},\end{aligned}$$ which proves the claim.
2\) Now we prove the necessity: [*if $\omega$ is of the form (\[eq:domain\]), then $\widehat\omega_\Omega \in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$*]{}.
We use an idea from the proof of [@Levin Theorem 2.4]. Let $w$ be a conformal map of ${{\mathbb D}}$ to $\Omega$, $w(0)=0$. Since $\Omega$ is a Jordan domain, $w$ extends to a continuous map from $\overline {{\mathbb D}}$ to $\overline\Omega$, and we can specify it to have $\arg w(1)=0$. Define $$f(z)=u(z)+iv(z)=\log\frac{w(z)}z\ {\rm for}\ |z|\le 1, \quad
f(z)=f(|z|^{-2}z)\ {\rm for}\ |z|>1.$$ It is analytic in ${{\mathbb D}}$ and continuous in ${{\mathbb C}}$. Define then the function $$\label{eq:lam}\lambda(z)=u(z)+\frac1{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\log|e^{i\psi}-z|\,dv(e^{i\psi}),$$ $\delta$-subharmonic in ${{\mathbb C}}$ and harmonic in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb T}}$. Let us show that it as actually harmonic (and, hence, continuous) everywhere. To this end, take any function $\alpha\in C({{\mathbb T}})$ and a number $r<1$, and apply Green’s formula for $u(z)$ and $A(z)=|z|\alpha(z/|z|)$ in the domain $D_r=\{r<|z|<r^{-1}\}$: $$\label{eq:12}
\int_{D_r}(A\Delta u-u\Delta A) = \left[\frac{\rho}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\left(\rho\alpha(e^{i\psi}) \frac{\partial u(\rho e^{i\psi})}{\partial \rho}-
u(\rho e^{i\psi})\alpha(e^{i\psi})\right)\,d\psi
\right]_{\rho=r}^{\rho=R}.$$ Using the definition of the function $f$ outside ${{\mathbb D}}$ and the Cauchy-Riemann equations $\partial v/\partial\phi=\rho\partial u/\partial \rho$ if $\rho<1$ and $\partial v/\partial\phi=-\rho\partial u/\partial \rho$ if $\rho>1$ (which follows from the definition of $f$), we can write the right hand side of (\[eq:12\]) as $$-\frac{r+r^{-1}}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\alpha(e^{i\psi})\,d_\psi v(r e^{i\psi})+ \frac{r-r^{-1}}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}u(r e^{i\psi})\alpha(e^{i\psi})\,d\psi.$$ When $r\to 1$, (\[eq:12\]) takes the form $$\int_{{\mathbb T}}\alpha\Delta u=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\alpha(e^{i\psi})\,d v(e^{i\psi}),$$ which implies the harmonicity of the function $\lambda(z)$ (\[eq:lam\]) in the whole plane.
Now we recall that $v(e^{i\psi})=\arg w(e^{i\psi})-\psi$. Since the harmonic measure of the $w$-image of the arc $\{e^{i\theta}:0<\theta<\psi\}$ equals $\psi/2\pi$, we have $$\widehat\omega_\Omega(\arg w(e^{i\psi}))=\psi/2\pi$$ and thus $\arg w(e^{i\psi})=\mu(\psi/2\pi)$ with $\mu$ the inverse function to $\widehat\omega_\Omega(\psi)$. Therefore, $v(e^{i\psi})=\mu(\psi/2\pi)-\psi$.
Consider, finally, the function $$\gamma(z)=\frac1{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\log|e^{i\psi}-z|\,d\mu(\psi/2\pi)=
\lambda(z)-u(z)+
\frac1{\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\log|e^{i\psi}-z|\,d\psi.$$ Since it is continuous on ${{\mathbb T}}$, Proposition \[prop:cont\] implies $\widehat\omega_\Omega\in {{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$, and the theorem is proved. [$\square$]{}
Note that all the dilations $t\Omega$ of $\Omega$ ($t>0$) represent the same measure from ${{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$, and $\Omega$ with a given projection $\widehat\omega_\Omega$ is unique up to the dilations.
Now we prove Proposition \[prop:1\] that presents a wide subclass of ${{\cal A}}$ with a more explicit description.
[*Proof of Proposition \[prop:1\]*]{}. Let $\nu:[0,1]\to [0,1]$ be an absolutely continuous, strictly increasing function, $\nu'\in{{\cal L}^-}[0,1]$. Since ${\rm mes}\,\{t:\nu'(t)=0\}=0$, its inverse function $\mu$ is absolutely continuous ([@N], p. 297), so $$\mu(t)=\int_0^t g(s)\,ds$$ with $g$ a nonnegative function on $[0,1]$. We have $$\infty>\int_0^1\log^-\nu'(t)\,dt=\int_0^1\log^-\frac1{\mu'(t)}\,d\mu(t)
=\int_0^1g(t)\log^+g(t)\,dt,$$ so $g$ belongs to the Zygmund class ${\bf L\log L}$.
Let $\Delta(t) $ denote the modulus of continuity of the function $\mu$. Note that it can be expressed in the form $$\Delta(t)=\int_0^t h(s)\,ds$$ where $h$ is the nonincreasing equimeasurable rearrangement of $g$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1\frac{\Delta(t)}{t}\,dt &=&\int_0^1 t^{-1}\int_0^1
h(s)\,ds\,dt
=\int_0^1h(s)\log s^{-1}\,ds\\
{}&=& \int_{E_1\cup E_2}h(s)\log s^{-1}\,ds,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_1=\{s\in (0,1):h(s)>s^{-1/2}\}$, $E_2=(0,1)\setminus E_1$. Since $h\in {\bf L\log L}\,[0,1]$, $$\int_{E_1}h(s)\log s^{-1}\,ds\le 2 \int_{E_1}h(s)\log h(s)\,ds
<\infty.$$ Besides, $$\int_{E_2}h(s)\log s^{-1}\,ds\le \int_{E_2}s^{-1/2}\log s^{-1}\,ds<\infty.$$ Therefore, $$\int_0^1\frac{\Delta(t)}{t}\,dt<\infty$$ and thus $$\lim_{\delta\to 0}\int_0^\delta \frac{\Delta(t)}{t}\,dt=0,$$ which gives (\[eq:cA\]). [$\square$]{}
Corollary \[cor:Szego\] follows directly from the definition of the Szegö class, Theorem \[theo:5\] and Proposition \[prop:1\].
Proofs of Theorems \[theo:1\] and \[theo:2\]
============================================
Here we show how the integral variants of Carleman’s and Wolf’s theorems can be derived from Theorem \[theo:5\].
We will need an elementary
\[lem:1\] Let $r(\theta)\in C[0,2\pi]$, $1<r_1\le r(\theta)\le
r_2$, let $\nu$ be a positive measure on $[0,2\pi]$ and $V(t)$ be a nonnegative function on $[0,\infty]$. If a nonnegative function $v(te^{i\theta})$ satisfies $$\int_0^{2\pi}v(te^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)\le V(t)\quad\forall t\ge t_0,$$ then for any $R_2>R_1\ge t_0$, $$\int_{R_1}^{R_2}\int_0^{2\pi}v(t\,r(\theta)e^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)\,dt
\le r_1^{-1}\int_{r_1R_1}^{r_2R_2} V(t)\,dt.$$
[*Proof of Lemma \[lem:1\]*]{} is straightforward: $$\int_{R_1}^{R_2}\int_0^{2\pi}v(t\,r(\theta)e^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)\,dt
=\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{R_1r(\theta)}^{R_2r(\theta)}v(te^{i\theta})
\,dt\,\frac{d\nu(\theta)}{r(\theta)}$$ $$\le r_1^{-1}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_{R_1r_1}^{R_2r_2}v(te^{i\theta})
\,dt\,{d\nu(\theta)}
\le r_1^{-1}\int_{R_1r_1}^{R_2r_2}V(t)
\,dt.$$ [$\square$]{}
. By Theorem \[theo:5\], there exists a domain $\Omega$ of the form (\[eq:domain\]) that contains $\overline {{\mathbb D}}$ such that $$\label{eq:t11} \omega(z,E,\Omega)\le c_1\nu(\arg E),\quad
\forall z\in{\overline {{\mathbb D}}}, \ E\subset\partial \Omega,$$ with a constant $c_1>0$, see (\[eq:bound\]). Let $r_1=\min
r(\theta)$. $r_2=\max r(\theta)$. By the Poisson–Jensen formula applied to the function $v_t(z)=u^+(tz)$ ($t>0$) in the domain $s\Omega$ ($s>1$) we have, due to (\[eq:t11\]), $$\begin{aligned}
v_t(z) &\le &\int_{\partial s\Omega}
v_t(\zeta)\,\omega(z,d\zeta,s\Omega)
=\int_{\partial \Omega} v_t(s\zeta)\,\omega(s^{-1}z,d\zeta,\Omega)\\
{}&\le & c_1\int_0^{2\pi}v_t(s\,r(\theta)e^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta),
\quad z\in{\overline {{\mathbb D}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The integration of this relation over $s\in [1,R]$ ($R>1$) gives, by Lemma \[lem:1\], $$(R-1)v_t(z)\le c_1\int_1^R\int_0^{2\pi}v_t(s\,r(\theta)
e^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)\,ds\le
c_2t^{-1}r_1^{-1}\int_{tr_1}^{tr_2R}V(s)\,ds$$ for each $t\ge t_0$. So, $$u(te^{i\theta})\le c(R)V(t\,r_2R),\quad t\ge t_0,$$ which proves the theorem.[$\square$]{}
. 1. It is easy to see that the constant $A$ in (\[eq:distort\]) can be chosen arbitrarily close to $r_2/ r_1\ge 1$.
2\. Note that we have used inequality (\[eq:1\]) in the integrated form only, so the following statement is actually true: [*If a subharmonic function $u$ on ${{\mathbb C}}$ satisfies $$\int_ {t_0}^t\int_0^{2\pi} u^+(se^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)\,ds \le
W(t)\quad\forall t\ge t_0 \label{eq:1'}$$ with $\nu\in{{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$ and a nondecreasing function $W$, then there are constants $c>0$ and $A\ge 1$, independent of $u$, such that $ u(te^{i\theta})\le ct^{-1}W(At)$ for all $t\ge t_0$.*]{}
Now we prove Theorem \[theo:2\] as a consequence of Theorem \[theo:1\].
. The function $v$ equal to $u^+$ in ${{\mathbb C}}_+$ and $0$ in ${{\mathbb C}}\setminus{{\mathbb C}}_+$ is a subharmonic function in ${{\mathbb C}}$ satisfying the condition $$\int_0^{2\pi} v^+(te^{i\theta})\,d\nu(\theta)\le V_1(t)$$ with $\nu\in {{\cal A}}[0,2\pi]$ and $V_1(t)=o(t)$, $t\to\infty$. Therefore, it satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[theo:1\] with the majorant $V(t)=\sup\{V_1(s):s\le t\}$. So, $ \sup_\theta
u^+(te^{i\theta})=o(t)$ as $t\to\infty$, and the conclusion holds by the standard Phragmén–Lindelöf theorem. [$\square$]{}
Proof of Theorem \[theo:3\]
===========================
The integral version of the Levinson–Sj[ö]{}berg theorem will be proved along the same lines as Theorem \[theo:1\], however the local situation needs a more refined adaptation.
We start with two elementary statements close to Lemma \[lem:1\].
\[lem:2\] Let a nonnegative integrable function $v$ in the square $Q=\{|x|,|y|<1\}$ satisfy (\[eq:3\]) with a continuous strictly increasing function $\nu$. Then for any $d\in(0,1)$ there exists a constant $M_1(d)$, independent of $u$, such that for each $y_0\in(-1,1)$ one can find a point $y_1\in(-1,1)\cap (y_0-d,y_0+d)$ with $$\int_{-1}^1v(x+iy_1)\,dx<M_1(d).$$
[*Proof*]{}. Assume $y_0\ge 0$, then $$\int_{y_0-d}^{y_0} \int_{-1}^1v(x+iy)\,dx \,d\nu(y)=
\int_{-1}^1\int_{y_0-d}^{y_0} v(x+iy)\,d\nu(y)\,dx\le 2.$$ Therefore for some $y_1\in(y_0-d,y_0)$, $$\int_{-1}^1v(x+iy_1)\,dx\le 2[\nu(y_0)-\nu(y_0-d)]^{-1}\le
2[\Delta_*(\nu,d)]^{-1}$$ with $\Delta_*(\nu,d)=\inf\{\nu(t)-\nu(t-d):\,t\in(0,1)\}>0$. [$\square$]{}
\[lem:3\] Let a function $v$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[lem:2\], a function $r$ be continuous on a segment $[a,b]\subset[-1,1]$, $0<r_1=\min r(y)\le\max r(y)=r_2<1$, and $\delta\in (0,1-r_2)$. Then there exists $t\in(0,\delta)$ such that $$\int_a^b v(t+r(y)+iy)\,d\nu(y)<M_2(\delta)$$ with $M_2(\delta)$ independent of $v$.
[*Proof*]{}. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\delta\int_a^b v(t+r(y)+iy)\,d\nu(y) &=&
\int_a^b\int_{r(y)}^{\delta+r(y)} v(s+iy)\,ds\,d\nu(y)\\
\le\int_{r_1}^{\delta+r_2}\int_a^b v(s+iy)\,d\nu(y)\,ds &\le &
\delta+r_2-r_1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus one can find some $t\in(0,\delta)$ such that $$\int_a^b v(t+r(y)+iy)\,d\nu(y)<\delta^{-1}(\delta+r_2-r_1).$$ [$\square$]{}
. Consider the measure $\nu_1$ on $[-i,i]$ defined as $$\nu_1(E)=\nu(-iE),\quad E\subset [-i,i].$$ The conformal map $f(z)=\exp\{z\pi/2\}$ of the strip $\{|{{\rm Im}\,}z|<1\}$ to the right half-plane ${{\mathbb C}}_r$ pushes the measure $\nu_1$ forward to the measure $f^*\nu$ on the semicircle $\{e^{i\theta}: -\pi/2\le
\theta\le\pi/2\}$, producing a measure of the class ${{\cal A}}[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$; we extend it to some measure $\nu_2\in{{\cal A}}[-\pi.\pi]$. By Theorem \[theo:5\], there is a strictly star-shaped domain $\Omega\supset{\overline {{\mathbb D}}}$ such that the radial projection of its harmonic measure at $0$ is the normalization $\nu_2/\nu_2([-\pi,\pi])$ of $\nu_2$.
Let $\Omega_1=\Omega\cap{{\mathbb C}}_r$, then for every Borel set $E\subset\Gamma=\partial
\Omega_1\cap{{\mathbb C}}_r$ and any compact set $K\subset\Omega_1$, $$\omega(w,E,\Omega_1)\le C_1(K)\,\nu_2(\arg E)\quad\forall w\in K.$$
The pre-image $\Omega_2=f^{[-1]}(\Omega_1)$ of $\Omega_1$ has the form $$\Omega_2=\{z=x+iy:\: x<\varphi(y),\ y\in (0,1)\}$$ with some function $\varphi\in C[-1,1]$. Let $$\Gamma_2=\{x+iy:\: x=\varphi(y),\ y\in (0,1)\},$$ then for every Borel $E\subset\Gamma_2$ and any compact subset $K$ of $\Omega_2$, $$\label{eq:LS1} \omega(z,E,\Omega_2)\le C_2(K)\,\nu({{\rm Im}\,}E)\quad \forall z\in K.$$ For the domain $$\Omega_3=\{z=x+iy:\: x>-\varphi(y),\ y\in (0,1)\}$$ we have, similarly, the relation $$\label{eq:LS2} \omega(z,E,\Omega_3)\le C_3(K)\,\nu({{\rm Im}\,}E)\quad \forall z\in
K$$ for each $E\subset\Gamma_3=\{x+iy:\: x=-\varphi(y),\ y\in (0,1)\}$ and compact set $K\subset\Omega_3$.
Let now $K$ be an arbitrary compact subset of the square $Q$. We would be almost done if we were able to find some reals $h_2(K)$ and $h_3(K)$ such that $$K\subset\{\Omega_2+h_2(K)\}\cap\{\Omega_3+h_3(K)\}\subset\overline{\{\Omega_2+h_2(K)\}\cap\{\Omega_3+h_3(K)\}} \subset Q.$$ However this is not the case for any $K$ unless $\varphi\equiv
const$. That is why we need partition.
Given $K$ compactly supported in $Q$, choose a positive $\lambda<(4\, {\rm
dist}\,(K,\partial Q))^{-1}$ and then $\tau\in(0,\lambda)$ such that the modulus of continuity of $\varphi$ at $4\tau$ is less than $\lambda$. Take a finite covering of $K$ by disks $B_j=\{z:|z-z_j|<\tau\}$, $z_j\in K$, $1\le j\le n$. To prove the theorem, it suffices to estimate the function $u$ on each $B_j$.
Let $Q_j=\{z\in Q: |{{\rm Im}\,}(z-z_j)|<2\tau\}$, then $B_j\subset
Q_j$ and ${\rm dist}\,(B_j,\partial Q_j)=\tau$. Take also $$\Omega_2^{(j)}=\Omega_2\cap Q_j,\quad \Gamma_2^{(j)}=
\Gamma_2\cap{\overline\Omega_2^{(j)}}=\{x+iy:\: x=\varphi(y),\
a_j\le y\le b_j\}.$$ Now we can find reals $h_2^{(j)}$ and $h_3^{(j)}$ such that $$\Gamma_2^{(j)} +h_2^{(j)}
=\{x+iy: x=r_2^{(j)}(y)\}
\subset Q_j\cap\{x+iy: 1-4\lambda <x<1<2\lambda\}$$ and $$\Gamma_3^{(j)} +h_3^{(j)}
=\{x+iy: x=r_3^{(j)}(y)\}
\subset Q_j\cap\{x+iy: -1+2\lambda<x<-1+4\lambda\}.$$ Furthermore, by Lemma \[lem:3\], there exist $t_2^{(j)}\in(0,\lambda)$ and $t_3^{(j)}\in(-\lambda,0)$ such that $$\label{eq:LS18}
\int_{a_j}^{b_j} u^+(t_k^{(j)}+r_k^{(j)}(y)+iy)\,d\nu(y)<M_2(\lambda),
\quad k=2,3.$$ Finally we can find, due to Lemma \[lem:2\], $y_1^{(j)}\in (a_j,a_j+\tau)$ and $y_2^{(j)}\in (b_j-\tau,b_j)$ such that $$\label{eq:LS20}
\int_{-1}^1u^+(x+iy_m)\,dx<M_1(\tau),\quad m=1,2.$$ Denote $$\Omega^{(j)}=\{x+iy:r_3^{(j)}(y)+t_3^{(j)}<x<
r_2^{(j)}(y)+t_2^{(j)},\ y_1^{(j)}\le y\le y_2^{(j)}\}.$$ Since $\overline{B_j}\subset\Omega^{(j)}$, relations (\[eq:LS1\]) and (\[eq:LS2\]) imply $$\label{eq:LS21}
\omega(z,E,\Omega^{(j)})\le C(B_j)\nu({{\rm Im}\,}E)\quad\forall z\in B_j$$ for all $E$ in the vertical parts of $\partial\Omega^{(j)}$. For $E$ in the horizontal parts of $\partial\Omega^{(j)}$, we have, evidently, $$\label{eq:LS22}
\omega(z,E,\Omega^{(j)})\le C(B_j)\,{\rm mes}\,E\quad\forall z\in B_j.$$
Now we can estimate $u(z)$ for $z\in B_j$. By (\[eq:LS18\])–(\[eq:LS22\]), $$\begin{aligned}
u(z) &\le & \int_{\partial\Omega^{(j)}}u^+(\zeta)\omega(z,d\zeta,
\Omega^{(j)})\\
{}&\le & C(B_j)\sum_{k=2}^3\int_{a_j}^{b_j}u^+(t_k^{(j)}+r^{(j)}(y)
+iy)\,d\nu(y)\\
{}& + & C(B_j)\sum_{m=1}^2\int_{-1}^1 u^+(x+iy_m)\,dx\\
{}&\le & 2C(B_j)(M_1(\tau)+M_2(\lambda)),\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof. [$\square$]{}
Proof of Theorem \[theo:4\]
===========================
By Theorem \[theo:1\] and Proposition \[prop:1\], it suffices to prove
\[prop:2\] If a function $u$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[theo:4\], then there exists a function $f\in{{\cal L}^-}[-\pi,\pi]$ and a constant $c_1>0$, the both independent of $u$, such that $$\label{eq:t41}
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}u^+(re^{i\theta})f(\theta)\,d\theta\le
c_1V(r)\quad\forall r>r_0.$$
[*Proof*]{}. What we will do is a refinement of the arguments from the proof of the original Matsaev’s theorem (see [@M], [@Levin1]). Let $$D_{r,R,a}=\{z\in{{\mathbb C}}:\: r<|z|<R,\ |\arg z-{\pi/ 2}|<\pi({1/ 2}-a)\},
\quad 0<a<1/4,$$ $b=(1-2a)^{-1}$, $S(\theta,a)=\sin b(\theta-a\pi)$. Carleman’s formula for the function $u$ harmonic in $D_{r,R,a}$ has the form $$2bR^{-b}\int_{\pi a}^{\pi-\pi a} u(Re^{i\theta})S(\theta,a)\,d\theta
-b(r^{-b}+r^bR^{-2b})\int_{\pi a}^{\pi-\pi a} u(re^{i\theta})S(\theta,a)\,d\theta$$ $$-(r^{-b+1}-r^{b+1}R^{-2b})\int_{-\pi a}^{\pi a} u'_r(re^{i\theta})
S(\theta,a)\,d\theta$$ $$+b\int_r^R\left[u(xe^{i\pi a})+u(xe^{i\pi (1-a)})\right](x^{-b-1}
-x^{b-1}R^{-2b})\,dx=0.$$ It implies the inequality $$\int_{\pi a}^{\pi-\pi a} u^+(Re^{i\theta})S(\theta,a)\,d\theta\le
c(r,u)R^b+
\int_{\pi a}^{\pi-\pi a} u^-(Re^{i\theta})S(\theta,a)\,d\theta$$ $$\label{eq:M3}
+R^b\int_r^R\left[u^-(xe^{i\pi a})+u^-(xe^{i\pi (1-a)})\right](x^{-b-1}
-x^{b-1}R^{-2b})\,dx.$$ Fix some $\tau\in(0,1/4)$ such that $$\label{eq:M4}
\beta:=(1-2\tau)^{-1}<1+\delta$$ with $\delta$ as in the statement of Theorem \[theo:4\]. Inequality (\[eq:M3\]) gives us the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:M5} I_0 &:= & \int_0^\tau\Phi(\sin\pi a) \int_{\pi a}^{\pi-\pi a} u^+(Re^{i\theta})S(\theta,a)
\,d\theta\,da\nonumber\\
{}&\le &
c(r,u)\int_0^\tau R^b\Phi(\sin\pi a)\,da+
\int_0^\tau\Phi(\sin\pi a)
\int_{\pi a}^{\pi-\pi a} u^-(Re^{i\theta})S(\theta,a)\,d\theta\,da\nonumber\\
{}&+& \int_0^\tau \Phi(\sin\pi a)
\int_r^R\left[u^-(xe^{i\pi a})+u^-(xe^{i\pi (1-a)})\right]
R^bx^{-b-1}
\,dx\,da\nonumber\\
{}&=& I_1+I_2+I_3.\end{aligned}$$ We can represent $I_0$ as $$I_0=\int_0^\pi u^+(Re^{i\theta})\Psi(\theta)\,d\theta$$ with $$\label{eq:psi}
\Psi(\theta)=\int_0^{\lambda(\theta)} S(\theta,a)\Phi(\sin\pi a)\,da$$ and $$\label{eq:lambda}
\lambda(\theta)=\min\{\theta/\pi, 1-\theta/\pi,\tau\}.$$
Note that $S(\theta,a)\ge 0$ when $a\le\lambda(\theta)$, and $S'_a(\theta,a)\le 0$ for all $a<1/4$. Since $\Phi(t)$ is nondecreasing, this implies the bound $$\Psi(\theta) \ge \int_{\lambda(\theta)/2}^{\lambda(\theta)}
S(\theta,a) \Phi(\sin\pi a)\,da\ge f(\theta)=\lambda^2(\theta)\: \Phi\left(\sin\frac{\pi\lambda(\theta)}{2}\right)$$ and thus, $$\label{eq:M9}
I_0\ge \int_0^\pi u^+(Re^{i\theta})f(\theta)\,d\theta$$ with $f\in{{\cal L}^-}[0,\pi]$.
Let us now estimate the right hand side of (\[eq:M5\]). We have $$\label{eq:M11}
I_1\le c(r,u)R^\beta\int_0^\tau\Phi(\sin\pi a)\,da\le c_1(r,\tau,u)R^\beta;$$ $$\label{eq:M12}
I_2=\int_0^\pi u^-(Re^{i\theta})\Psi(\theta)\,d\theta
\le \int_0^\pi u^-(Re^{i\theta})\Phi(\sin\theta)\,d\theta;$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:M13} I_3 &\le & \int_0^\tau\int_r^R \Phi(\sin\pi a)
\left[u^-(xe^{i\pi a})+u^-(xe^{i\pi (1-a)})\right]
\left(\frac{R}{x}\right)^{\beta}x^{-1}\,dx\,da
\nonumber\\
{}&=& R^\beta\int_r^R x^{-\beta-1}\left[\int_0^{\pi\tau}+
\int_{\pi(1-\tau)}^\pi\right] u^-(xe^{i\theta}) \Phi(\sin\theta)\,d\theta\,dx
\nonumber\\
{}&\le & R^\beta\int_r^R x^{-\beta-1}\int_0^{\pi}
u^-(xe^{i\theta}) \Phi(\sin\theta)\,d\theta\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ We insert (\[eq:M9\])–(\[eq:M13\]) into (\[eq:M5\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:M14}
\int_0^\pi u^+(Re^{i\theta})f(\theta)\,d\theta &\le & c_1(r,\tau,u)R^\beta
+\int_0^\pi u^-(Re^{i\theta})\Phi(\sin\theta)\,d\theta\nonumber\\
{}&+& R^\beta\int_r^R x^{-\beta-1}\int_0^{\pi}
u^-(xe^{i\theta}) \Phi(\sin\theta)\,d\theta\,dx\nonumber\\
{}&=& J_1(R)+J_2(R)+J_3(R).\end{aligned}$$ By the choice of $\beta$ (\[eq:M4\]), $J_1(R)=o(V(R))$ as $R\to\infty$. Condition (\[eq:M1\]) implies $J_2(R)\le V(R)$, $R>r_0$. As to the term $J_3$, take any $\epsilon\in(0,1+\delta-\beta)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
J_3(R) &\le & R^\beta\int_r^R x^{-\beta-1}V(x)\,dx
= R^\beta\int_r^R x^{-\beta-\epsilon}V(x)x^{\epsilon-1}\,dx\\
{}&\le & R^\beta R^{-\beta-\epsilon}V(R)\int_r^R x^{\epsilon-1}\,dx
\le \epsilon^{-1}V(R).\end{aligned}$$ These bounds give us $$\int_0^\pi u^+(Re^{i\theta})f(\theta)\,d\theta\le c_2V(R)\quad \forall
R>r_1(u).$$
Absolutely the same way, we get a similar inequality in the lower half-plane and, as a result, relation (\[eq:t41\]). [$\square$]{}
We do not know if condition (\[eq:M1\]) can be replaced by a more general one in terms of the class ${{\cal A}}$.
The author is grateful to Alexandre Eremenko and Misha Sodin for valuable discussions, and to the referee for suggestions that have simplified considerably the proof of Theorem 5.
[111]{}
L. Ahlfors, [*On Phragmén-Lindelöf’s principle*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**41**]{} (1937), no. 1, 1–8.
, [*Analytic continuation across a linear boundary*]{}, Acta Math. [**128**]{} (1971), 153–182.
, [*Extension d’un théorème de Liouville*]{}, [Acta Math.]{} [**48**]{} (1926), 363–366.
, [*On the existence of a largest subharmonic minorant of a given function*]{}, [Ark. Mat.]{} [**3**]{} (1958), no. 5, 429–440.
, [*Uniform boundness in families related to subharmonic functions*]{}, [J. London Math. Soc. (2)]{} [**38**]{} (1988), 485–491.
, [*Growth of an analytic function near its set of singular points*]{}, [Zap. Nauch. Semin. LOMI]{} [**30**]{} (1972), 158–160. (Russian)
, [*The pseudoanalytic extension*]{}, [J. Anal. Math.]{} [**60**]{} (1993), 45–70.
, [*An asymptotic Cauchy problem for the Laplace equation*]{}, [Ark. Mat.]{} [**34**]{} (1996), 245–264.
, [*On N. Levinson’s theorem on normal families of subharmonic functions*]{}, [Zap. Nauch. Semin. LOMI]{} [**19**]{} (1970), 215–220. (Russian)
, [*A growth condition for the MacLane class*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**23**]{} (1971), 371–384.
, [*Relation of the majorant to a conformal map. II*]{}, [Teorija Funktsii, Funktsional. Analiz i ih Prilozh.]{} [**52**]{} (1989), 3–21 (Russian); translation in J. Soviet Math. [**52**]{} (1990), no. 5, 3351–3364.
, [Lectures on Entire Functions]{}. Transl. Math. Monographs, vol. 150. AMS, Providence, RI, 1996.
, [Gap and Density Theorems]{}. Amer. Math. Colloq. Publ. [**26**]{}. New York, 1940.
, [*A growth condition for class $\mathcal A$*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**25**]{} (1978), 263–287.
, [*On the growth of entire functions that admit a certain estimate from below*]{}, Dokl. AN SSSR [**132**]{} (1960), no. 2, 283–286 (Russian); translation in Sov. Math., Dokl. [**1**]{} (1960), 548–552.
, [*A division theorem for analytic functions with a given majorant, and some of its applications*]{}, Zap. Nauch. Semin. LOMI [**56**]{} (1976), 73–89. (Russian)
, [Theory of Functions of a Real Variable]{}. GITTL, Moscow, 1957. (Russian)
, [*Theorems on compactness of families of subharmonic functions, and majorants of harmonic measures*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**312**]{} (1990), no. 3, 536–538; translation in Soviet Math. Dokl. [**41**]{}(1990), no. 3, 460–462.
, [*Majorants of harmonic measures and uniform boundness of families of subharmonic functions.*]{} In: Analytical Methods in Probability Theory and Operator Theory. V.A. Marchenko (ed.). Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1990, 115–127. (Russian)
, [*On radial projection of harmonic measure.*]{} In: Operator theory and Subharmonic Functions. V.A. Marchenko (ed.). Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1991, 95–102. (Russian)
, [*Sur les minorantes sousharmoniques d’une fonction donnée*]{}, Neuvieme Congr. Math. Scand. 1938. Helsinki, 1939, 309–319.
, [*An extension of the Phragmén-Lindelöf theorem*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. [**14**]{} (1939), 208–216.
, [*On majorants of subharmonic and analytic functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**49**]{} (1942), 952.
, [*A boundedness criterion for subharmonic functions*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) [**24**]{} (1981), 148–160.
Tek/Nat, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway
0.1cm
[E-mail]{}: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We revisit the longstanding question of whether first brightest cluster galaxies are statistically drawn from the same distribution as other cluster galaxies or are “special”, using the new non-parametric, empirically based, model presented in @paper2 for associating galaxy luminosity with halo/subhalo masses.
We introduce scatter in galaxy luminosity at fixed halo mass into this model, building a conditional luminosity function (CLF) by considering two possible models: a simple lognormal and a model based on the distribution of concentration in haloes of a given mass. We show that this model naturally allows an identification of halo/subhalo systems with groups and clusters of galaxies, giving rise to a clear central/satellite galaxy distinction, obtaining a special distribution for the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs).
Finally, we use these results to build up the dependence of BCG magnitudes on cluster luminosity, focusing on two statistical indicators, the dispersion in BCG magnitude and the magnitude difference between first and second brightest galaxies. We compare our results with two simple models for BCGs: a statistical hypothesis that the BCGs are drawn from a universal distribution, and a cannibalism scenario merging two galaxies from this distribution. The statistical model is known to fail from work as far back as @tr. We show that neither the statistical model nor the simplest possibility of cannibalism provide a good match for observations, while a more realistic cannibalism scenario works better. Our CLF models both give similar results, in good agreement with observations. Specifically, we find $<m_1>$ between -25 and -25.5 in the K-band, $\sigma(m_1)\sim0.25$ and $<\Delta_{12}>$ between 0.6 and 0.8, for cluster luminosities in the range of $10^{12}$ to $10^{13} h^{-2}
{\rm L_\odot}$.
author:
- |
A. Vale$^{1,2}$[^1] and J. P. Ostriker$^{1,3}$\
$^{1}$Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, United Kingdom\
$^{2}$CENTRA, Departamento de Física, Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal\
$^{3}$Princeton University Observatory, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544, USA
title: 'The Non-Parametric Model for Linking Galaxy Luminosity with Halo/Subhalo Mass: Are First Brightest Galaxies Special?'
---
galaxies: haloes – galaxies: fundamental parameters – galaxies: clusters: general – dark matter – methods: statistical
Introduction
============
The nature of brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) has long been a subject of interest and much debate [@peebles; @sandage; @dressler]. In particular, investigators have asked whether their origin is statistical or special in nature, that is, whether they follow a special distribution independent of the fainter galaxies in the cluster, or on the contrary, they are merely the extreme values of the same global distribution derived for all cluster galaxies.
On the theoretical side, there has been renewed interest in this subject with recent studies of the relation between galaxies and their dark matter haloes from a theoretical, statistical point of view, involving the study of the distribution of the galaxy population through different haloes while bypassing the complications of the physics of galaxy formation (e.g., @bg [@paper1; @iro; @yanghod; @zehavi; @zz; @coorayc; @charlie; @vdb]). Since these involve populating dark matter haloes with galaxies, they usually lead to a distinction between central and satellite galaxies. This in turn has lead to, in many of these works, central galaxies being treated separately from the rest, and therefore having a distinct distribution, with consequences visible, for example, in the luminosity function. Some of these studies have in fact looked at some specific BCG-related properties of clusters, like the magnitude gap (e.g., @milos [@vdb]).
In the past, observational studies which have focused on this issue [@tr; @hgt; @sgh; @bb84; @hs; @bhavsar; @pl; @bb] have been hindered by the limited numbers of high luminosity galaxy observations available, since the strongly declining nature of the bright end of the luminosity function requires having very large samples to obtain significant numbers of high luminosity galaxies. Due to this, these studies were mostly inconclusive when it came to answer the question of whether BCGs were statistical or special in nature, although many works hinted at the latter. More recently, the advent of large scale surveys such as the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), has motivated plentiful, ongoing work on this subject (e.g., @lms [@lm; @ls; @bernardi; @linden]).
This issue is in large part motivated by the fact that, observationally, BCGs do look different from other galaxies. They usually sit at the centre of the cluster, and tend to be considerably brighter than the remaining cluster members. The most striking case is cD galaxies, found in the centre of rich clusters and which dominate their satellites in both size and brightness, while having a characteristically distinct morphology and surface brightness distribution (e.g., @cdreview). Likewise, cD galaxies tend to be brighter than what would be expected from the bright end of the cluster galaxy luminosity function. In fact, it has been observed that, when analyzing composite luminosity functions of cluster galaxies, the most luminous of them form a hump at the bright end (e.g., @colless [@yagi; @2pigg]). Yet, at the same time, there is little variation in magnitude among them [@hs; @pl; @bernardi; @linden]. This ties in with the fact that the luminosity of BCGs is expected to vary only slowly with increasing cluster luminosity (@lm; see also the results for the mass luminosity relation of central galaxies in @paper2).
In order to try to answer this problem from available observational data, two different indicators have been considered. One is the shape of the overall distribution of the magnitude of BCGs. If BCGs are merely the extreme cases of a general distribution applicable to all cluster galaxies, then it is expected that results from extreme value theory in statistics apply, predicting a resulting distribution shaped like the Gumbel distribution [@bb84; @bb]. On the other hand, if BCGs are considered a special, distinct type of galaxy, then some particular distribution is to be expected, such as a Gaussian [@pl] or lognormal. Some studies have also raised the possibility that it could be actually a combination of the two, probably depending on the type of cluster [@bhavsar; @bb].
The other property studied is the ratio $r=\Delta_{12}/\sigma_1$, where $\Delta_{12}$ is the average magnitude difference between the first and second brightest galaxies, and $\sigma_1$ the dispersion in the magnitude of the first brightest galaxy. It is possible to prove the powerful conclusion [@tr] that, if all galaxies are drawn from the same statistical distribution, regardless of its exact form, then $r\leq 1$. Observational results give a value for $r$ around 1.5 (e.g., @lm [@ls]), which would exclude this possibility.
This has led to the study of possible alternative scenarios for the formation of BCGs, in order to account for their special nature. One such is galactic cannibalism, initially proposed by Ostriker and collaborators [@ot; @oh; @ho]. Such a scenario is akin to taking the above case of having all galaxies drawn from the same distribution, but then merging the brightest of them with one or more of the others. From this simplistic model of the process, it is easy to see that this mechanism would help to solve the above problem, mostly by increasing the value of $\Delta_{12}$ as the luminosity of the first brightest galaxy is driven up by the mergers and the brightness of the surviving second brightest galaxy declines as luminous galaxies are merged out of existence.
In the present paper, we explore this issue in light of the non-parametric model for the mass luminosity relation presented in @paper2 (hereafter paper I; see also @paper1). The basic idea behind the non-parametric model is to adopt the simple proposition that more luminous galaxies are hosted in more massive haloes/subhaloes. No attempt at physical modelling is made and the association is made simply by matching one-to-one the rank ordered observational list of galaxies with the rank ordered computed list of haloes/subhaloes. We here extend this model by introducing scatter into it, and also by considering possible effects on the total disruption of some subhaloes into the total luminosity related to the halo.
As is the case in HOD models (e.g., @bg [@zehavi; @zz]), this model naturally gives rise to a separation between central and satellite galaxies, by associating the former with the parent halo itself and the latter with the subhaloes associated with it. We analyze this issue in more detail, studying how it affects the cluster galaxy luminosity function and gives rise to a bright end bump caused by the central galaxies. We then develop a model for the BCG luminosity distribution. Since the halo in fact arises from the union of subhaloes this non-parametric model is a statistically well defined variant of the cannibalism scenario.
This paper is organised as follows: in section 2, we give a brief summary of the non-parametric model relating galaxy luminosity with halo/subhalo mass presented in paper I, and introduce a simple recipe for checking the contribution of destroyed subhaloes to the halo mass, and how this changes our estimate of the total luminosity. In section 3, we introduce scatter into the non-parametric model by building a conditional luminosity function, where we consider two possibilities for it, either a simple lognormal shape or a better motivated approach involving the distribution of concentration for haloes of a given mass. In section 4, we explore more indepth how the model gives rise to a central/satellite galaxy separation, and show how this impacts the cluster galaxy luminosity function. In section 5, we build up a model for the distribution of cluster galaxies, based on the mass-luminosity relation and the halo/subhaloes separation which underpins it. In section 6, we present simple models to account for another two possible origins for the BCG distribution: first, we consider that all cluster galaxies are drawn from the same distribution; then we take a simple model for cannibalism, by merging two of the galaxies (the brightest plus one other) in the first example. Finally, in section 7 we present the results of all models for the average magnitude of first and second brightest galaxies as well the dispersion of the former as a function of cluster luminosity. We then compare these results with observations.
Throughout we have used a concordance cosmological model, with $\Omega_m=0.24$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.76$, $h=0.735$ and $\sigma_8=0.74$ [@wmap].
The Mass-luminosity relation
============================
The work presented below is based on the non-parametric model for relating galaxy luminosity with halo/subhalo mass presented in paper I. The basic idea is that more massive haloes/subhaloes have deeper potential wells and will thus accrete more gas and subsequently will have more luminous galaxies forming within them. In effect, we take the relation between galaxy luminosity and halo/subhalo mass to be one to one and monotonic. An additional extra ingredient is necessary to maintain this approximation in the framework of the model, since subhaloes lose mass to the parent halo after accretion due to tidal interactions. Alternatively put, a halo is not simply the sum of the identifiable subhaloes within it due to tidal stripping. Therefore, we need to account for the mass of the subhaloes not at present, but that which they had at the time of their merger into the parent. The relation between mass and luminosity is then obtained statistically by matching the numbers of galaxies with the total number of hosts, that is, haloes plus subhaloes through their distributions.
The halo abundance is given by the usual Sheth-Tormen mass function [@stmf]:
$$\label{stmf}
n_h(M) dM = A \Big( 1+\frac{1}{\nu^{2q}}\Big) \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}
\frac{\rho_m}{M} \frac{d\nu}{dM} {\rm exp}\Big(-\frac{\nu^2}{2}\Big) dM\, ,$$
with $\nu=\sqrt{a}\frac{\delta_c}{D(z) \sigma(M)}$, $a=0.707$, $A\approx 0.322$ and $q=0.3$; as usual, $\sigma(M)$ is the variance on the mass scale $M$, $D(z)$ is the growth factor, and $\delta_c$ is the linear threshold for spherical collapse, which in the case of a flat universe is $\delta_c=1.686$, with a small correction dependent on $\Omega_m$ ($\delta_c=1.673$ for $\Omega_m=0.24$).
Following the discussion in paper I, we will assume a very simple model for the subhalo mass distribution within the parent. In terms of their original, pre-accretion mass, we assume that the subhalo distribution is given by a simple Schechter function:
$$\label{shmf}
N(m|M) dm = A(M) (m/\beta M)^{-\alpha} {\rm exp} (-m/\beta M) dm/\beta M \, ,$$
where the cutoff parameter $\beta=0.5$ serves to insure that no subhalo was larger than half the present mass of the parent (otherwise it would, by definition, be the parent). The slope $\alpha=1.9$ is set to the same value as is generally found for the present day subhalo mass function in simulations (e.g., @gao [@jochen; @vdbshmf; @zentner; @laurie]). The normalization $A(M)=1/\beta[\Gamma(2-\alpha)-\Gamma(2-\alpha,1)]$ is set so that the total mass originally in subhaloes corresponds to the present day mass (where the integration is done to an upper limit of $0.5M$). This approximation potentially ignores the problem of total disruption of some of the merged subhaloes, as can occur for example in the case of major mergers, by assuming that all of these subhaloes are still present and that therefore the total fraction of mass originally in subhaloes is one. In @paper2, we showed that as long as this fraction is close to one, then the resulting mass luminosity relation is similar, with both number of satellites in a halo and their total luminosity decreasing slightly. From the study of simulation results it is still not completely clear how to treat this complex issue, and no simple analytical models are available, so we explore a simple recipe to better account for this problem in the context of our model in section \[sect:destroyedsh\].
The galaxy distribution is given by the luminosity function. This is given by the usual Schechter function fit:
$$\label{schechter}
\phi_{obs}(L) dL = \phi_* \Big(\frac{L}{L_*}\Big)^{\alpha} {\rm
exp}\Big(-\frac{L}{L_*}\Big) \frac{dL}{L_*} \, .$$
The values of the parameters will depend on the waveband used. In this paper, we use mostly the K-band luminosity function from the 2MASS survey, with parameters given by $\alpha=-1.09$, $\phi_*=1.16\times10^{-2} h^{3} {\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ and $M_*-5 {\rm log}
h=-23.39$ [@2mass]. For comparison, we also obtain the $b_J$-band 2dF survey, with $\alpha=-1.21$, $\phi_*=1.61\times10^{-2}
h^{3} {\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ and $M_*-5 {\rm log} h=-19.66$ [@2df]. Also note that we are in fact extending these fits as necessary, including beyond the magnitude interval in which they were obtained.
The basic mass-luminosity relation can then be obtained from these ingredients by a counting process, matching the numbers of galaxies at a given luminosity to the total number of hosts at a given mass:
$$\label{mlrel}
\int_L^\infty \phi(L)dL=\int_M^\infty(n_h(M)+n_{sh}(M))dm \, ,$$
where the host contribution is separated into a halo term, $n_h(M)$, and a subhalo term obtained by summing up all the subhaloes at that mass, $n_{sh}(m)=\int_0^\infty N(m|M)n_h(M)dM$. An average relation between host mass and galaxy luminosity can then be built through this process, with results that match well with observations (see paper I for a detailed analysis). The resulting relation can be well fit by a double power law of the type:
$$\label{mlfit}
L_{ref}(M)=L_0\frac{(M/M_0)^a}{[1+(M/M_0)^{b k}]^{1/k}} \, ,$$
where the differents parameters are shown in table \[mlfitparam\]; mass is in units of $h^{-1} {\rm M}_\odot$, luminosity in $h^{-2} {\rm L}_\odot$. The fit was done in the mass range $10^{11}$ ($3\times 10^{10}$ in the $b_j$ band case) to $3\times10^{15}$ $h^{-1} {\rm M}_\odot$.
\[mlfitparam\]
K-band $b_J$-band
------- --------------------- ----------------------
$L_0$ $1.37\times10^{10}$ $4.12\times 10^9$
$M_0$ $6.14\times10^9$ $1.66\times 10^{10}$
$a$ 21.03 6.653
$b$ 20.74 6.373
$k$ 0.0363 0.111
: Fit parameters for the mass-luminosity relation.
![Mass-luminosity relation as obtained using the non-parametric model, in the K- and $b_J-$ bands. Upper pannel shows galaxy luminosity normalized to the characteristic luminosity, $L^*$, of each band; lower pannel shows the corresponding mass-to-light ratio.[]{data-label="mlfig"}](fig1a.ps "fig:"){width="84mm"} ![Mass-luminosity relation as obtained using the non-parametric model, in the K- and $b_J-$ bands. Upper pannel shows galaxy luminosity normalized to the characteristic luminosity, $L^*$, of each band; lower pannel shows the corresponding mass-to-light ratio.[]{data-label="mlfig"}](fig1b.ps "fig:"){width="84mm"}
Figure \[mlfig\] shows the results for the luminosity of a single galaxy as a function of the mass of the hosting halo/subhalo, together with the corresponding mass-to-light ratio. Shown are curves for both K- and $b_J$ bands. We caution that the results for the latter band should be treated with some reserve. This counting method is not entirely adequate to get the mass-luminosity relation in the blue, due to complications arising from recent star formation, although it is still interesting to compare the differences obtained from using two different luminosity functions.
Destroyed subhaloes and the subhalo mass fraction {#sect:destroyedsh}
-------------------------------------------------
As mentioned, a potentially important correction to the non-parametric model in paper I is to account for subhaloes which have been completely destroyed. The study of this evolution of the subhalos and their eventual destruction, with the subsequent merger (or not) of their galaxy with the central one, is a very interesting topic by itself, which is still not completely understood but which is essential to a complete understanding of the formation of BCGs. However, such a detailed look at this question is beyond the scope of the present paper; here, we are merely interested in a simple model to account for how much mass was in these destroyed subhalos, to correct the normalization of our original subhalo mass function.
Our scheme is based on the fact that most of the luminosity of the central galaxy is built up by merging with the satellite galaxies brought in by these subhaloes. In other words, the central (BCG) optical galaxy is made up of the galaxies that have been ”merged away” – disappeared from the original distributions. This is consistent with what is known of the size, shape and colour properties of central galaxies. We therefore assume that the fraction of mass in these destroyed subhalos (with respect to the total halo mass), is given by the ratio of the central galaxy luminosity to the total luminosity of the halo:
$$\label{eq:destfracdef}
f_{dest}=\frac{m_{dest}}{M}=\frac{L_{cent}}{L_{total}} \, .$$
For a given $L(M)$ relation, which sets the luminosity of both the central and satellite galaxies as a function of the halo/subhalo mass, the previous equation can then be solved for $f_{dest}$ as a function of halo mass, since the total luminosity is going to be a function of only it and the total mass: $L_{total}=L_{cent}(M)+(1-f_{dest})L_{sat,max}(M)$, where $L_{sat,max}$ is the maximum contribution of the satellites for when $f_{dest}=0$. This is given by:
$$\label{eq:lsatmax}
L_{sat,max}(M)=\int_0^{0.5 M} L_{ref}(m) N(m|M) dm \, .$$
The upper pannel of figure \[fig:fdest\] shows the destroyed mass fraction as a function of halo mass for our base mass-luminosity relation, given by equation (\[mlfit\]), while the bottom pannel shows the effect on the total luminosity. As can be seen, this is most pronounced at the lower end of the mass scale shown, and becomes small enough to have little effect at high mass.
![Upper pannel: total mass in subhaloes which have been completely disrupted, as a fraction of the total halo mass. Bottom pannel: total luminosity as a function of halo mass with or without using the fraction of mass in destroyed subhaloes shown in the upper pannel. Results are for the K-band, using the base mass-luminosity relation of equation (\[mlfit\]).[]{data-label="fig:fdest"}](fig2a.ps "fig:"){width="84mm"} ![Upper pannel: total mass in subhaloes which have been completely disrupted, as a fraction of the total halo mass. Bottom pannel: total luminosity as a function of halo mass with or without using the fraction of mass in destroyed subhaloes shown in the upper pannel. Results are for the K-band, using the base mass-luminosity relation of equation (\[mlfit\]).[]{data-label="fig:fdest"}](fig2b.ps "fig:"){width="84mm"}
There are two additional factors that need to be noted. First, the introduction of this term can also have an effect on the actual mass-luminosity relation, since we are using a counting method to obtain it. However, for the mass range we are interested in, the number counts are dominated by the central galaxies and will therefore not be affected (see section 4). Likewise, the only haloes capable of hosting subhaloes large enough to be counted in this range are the most massive ones, for which the effect is smallest (see section 3). Secondly, in principle, this approach will also depend on the exact form of the mass-luminosity relation. However, for the small deviations from the base relation we will be considering in this paper, the effect on the total luminosity is small, since the variation to the base relation will be greatest at higher mass, where this effect is smallest. We will therefore, for simplicity, use this one result throughout the paper.
Finally, it needs to be stressed that this is just a very simple approximation. The calculated factor is applied to the whole subhalo mass fraction as a correction to the normalization, without taking into account a possible dependence on subhalo mass. In particular, the situation with very low mass subhaloes is very uncertain in this scheme, since they are expected to be very faint, and have therefore very little weight in the sum of the total luminosity, while they can contribute an important fraction of the mass. Another important point is that in principle the luminosity of the galaxies that were contained in the destroyed subhaloes should be added to the central galaxy luminosity, since under this scheme we are assuming that these are merging. In practice, though, the light in these destroyed subhaloes is going to be small in comparison with the BCG in this model, since the largest fraction of destroyed subhaloes occurs for less massive haloes where the BCG is dominant. For simplicity, we will here ignore this contribution.
Introducing scatter {#sect:scatter}
===================
The conditional luminosity function
-----------------------------------
In the context of the present paper, we need a more detailed model than the one described previously. Most importantly, it needs to include some kind of scatter in the mass-luminosity relation. Naturally, we expect that not all galaxies in hosts of the same mass will have the same luminosity. To capture this, we introduce a dispersion around the average relation describe above. We use the conditional luminosity function (CLF) formalism introduced by @yang (see also @vdb and references therein) and by Cooray and collaborators (e.g., @cooray [@coorayc] and references therein). This consists of replacing a deterministic mass-luminosity relation, like the one in equation (\[mlfit\]), with a distribution of luminosity around an average value for any given halo mass, $\phi_{CLF}(L|M)dL$, which represents the probability of having a galaxy of luminosity $L$ in a halo of mass $M$. Note that here we are only applying this to the central galaxy in any given halo, since that is the important one for the study of BCGs; the distribution of satellite galaxies we draw directly from the distribution of subhalo masses.
An important point is that this CLF must, by definition, match the observed luminosity function when it is integrated over all haloes, i.e. $\int_0^\infty \phi_{CLF}(L|M) n(M) dM=\phi(L)$, where $n(M)$ is the halo mass function, $\phi(L)$ the observed luminosity function and $L$ should only be considered in the range where the haloes dominate the number of hosts (i.e., at high luminosity, which is precisely the range we are interested in when looking at BCGs;otherwise, we would also need to account for subhalo contribution). The introduction of scatter then leads to a problem with the mass-luminosity relation derived from the counting method, however. As noted by @iro, the fact that the mass function is decreasing with increasing mass causes an effect similar to the Malmquist bias: for any given mass bin, more objects are scattered into it from lower mass bins than are scattered out of it. If we then take our base mass-luminosity relation to be the average one in the CLF distribution, because of this effect we will end up with a calculated luminosity function that greatly overestimates the abundance of very bright galaxies when compared to the observed one.
To get the correct matching to the observed luminosity function, it is then necessary to modify the average mass-luminosity function we take for the basis of the CLF. This is achieved by introducing an additional term, of the form:
$$\label{eq:mlmod}
L(M)=L_{ref}(M)(1+M/M_s)^a \, ,$$
where $L_{ref}(M)$ refers to the base mass-luminosity relation of equation (\[mlfit\]). In practice, $a$ is going to be negative since we need to lower the luminosity corresponding to any given high-mass halo in order to drive the value of our calculated luminosity function down.
There is one final, potentially important point about this issue: once scatter is introduced, care must be taken when looking at the calculated average mass-luminosity relation. In our approach, the average luminosity at fixed mass needs to go down, relative to the scatter-less case or, looking at it the opposite way, the same average luminosity is obtained for higher mass haloes. This is due to the fact that, when considering the CLF, we are doing the binning by mass (or more precisely, taking the conditional variable in the distribution to be the mass). If we had instead binned by luminosity, the effect of introducing scatter would have been the opposite: the average mass correspoding to a given luminosity would instead have gone down. This is to be expected and is just a statistical effect of the two different ways in which the conditional function can be defined. It does however mean that care must be taken when comparing results of different authors to look at how the binning was done in each case.
In this paper we will consider two different models for the CLF of the central galaxy: a simpler model where we assume the distribution is lognormal, but where we are left with a free parameter in the scatter introduced; and a more complicated one based on the distribution of concentrations at a given halo mass, which fully motivates the introduction of scatter in the CLF without any free parameters. For the satellite galaxies we will use the same modified mass-luminosity relation as well, since these were central galaxies within their own independent haloes prior to merging, so it is reasonable to expect the same effects to apply to them. From semi-analytical modelling, it has been shown that this is a good approximation, although a more careful treatment shows a slightly different relation for sattelites than for central galaxies [@wang]. But note that, when doing analytical calculations, using the subhalo mass function already introduces a form of distribution for the subhaloes as well (in that the mass of a given subhalo can be drawn from it, see section 5.1 for further discussion).
Lognormal model
---------------
The simplest CLF model we consider is to assume it has a lognormal form. This is similar to what was done previously by other authors [@cooray; @coorayc], and such a form seems a good match to the distribution of stellar mass obtained in semi-analytic modelling [@wang]. The problem with this approach is that there is no [*a priori*]{} reason to assume any specific value for the dispersion. Furthermore, this value is linked to the modified mass-luminosity relation of equation (\[eq:mlmod\]), so it needs to be defined in some way in order to determine the latter. We do this by determining which value of the dispersion leads to an average luminosity as a function of mass which best fits observational values. For simplicity, we will consider that the value of the dispersion, $\sigma$, is constant and independent of mass. Since we are only interested in the bright end, where we expect central galaxies to dominate, and these are known to have only a small scatter in luminosity (e.g., @pl [@bernardi]), this is quite likely a good approximation. Semi-analytical modelling also shows that scatter in stellar mass is only a weak function of halo mass [@wang].
The luminosity $L$ of a galaxy in a host of mass $M$, is then given by a lognormal distribution of the type:
$$\label{eq:lognormal}
\phi_{CLF}(L|M)dL=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{LN} L}{\rm exp}
\Big(-\frac{({\rm ln} [L/L_0(M)]+\sigma_{LN}^2/2)^2}{2 \sigma_{LN}^2} \Big) dL \, ,$$
where $L_0(M)$ is some average luminosity for a host of mass $M$ (discussed further below), and $\sigma$ is the dispersion in the normal logarithm of the luminosity. Note that there is some confusion in the literature over the exact form defined for the lognormal distribution. First, it is necessary to pay attention to whether the distribution is in the natural logarithm or base 10 logarithm of the variable; the quoted value of $\sigma$ will be different in the two cases for the same distribution. Secondly, the way we have defined it in equation (\[eq:lognormal\]), the average luminosity is given by $L_0(M)$. This is due to the second term in the denominator of the exponential term, which not all authors include; if it is omitted, $L_0$ would not be the average luminosity.
The difficulty with using an approach such as this is that we are left with two unknowns we need to determine, the reference luminosity function $L_0$ and the dispersion $\sigma$. The only condition we can impose on this distribution is that, when integrated over all hosts, the resulting luminosity function must match the observed one. Fitting this calculated luminosity function to the observed one then allows us to relate the two parameters we have when we take $L_0=L(M)$ from equation (\[eq:mlmod\]), $a$ and $M_s$, to the scatter $\sigma$. However, this still leaves us with one free parameter which we cannot otherwise specify. In order to address this problem, we determine which value of the scatter gives us an average luminosity as a function of mass that best fits the observed data. Since our original mass-luminosity relation was already quite a good fit to the data (see paper I), we must necessarily have only a small correction to it (i.e., a small value of $a$), which in turn implies a small value for the scatter, which is qualitatively in good agreement with observations (see further discussion in section 7).
Concentration model
-------------------
The other model for the CLF of BCGs we consider is based on the variation of the concentration of haloes with the same mass. The basic idea behind this is that the distribution of concentration in same mass haloes will lead to different mass in the inner region of the halo where the galaxy will be present; the luminosity of the hosted galaxy will then simply be proportional to this mass. In practice, we calculate the mass-to-light ratio of this inner region, for the average concentration and with an average luminosity given by equation (\[eq:mlmod\]), and then calculate the change in luminosity as the concentration changes by assuming that the mass-to-light ratio is fixed (observationally, it has been noted that the dynamical mass-to-light ratio of BCGs is almost constant, e.g. @linden). This then gives us the BCG luminosity as a function of both concentration and halo mass.
Although the model is conceptually simple, the details are problematic. The main issue is to determine what exactly is this inner region and how to calculate its mass. The most obvious solution, taking quoted values from the literature for BCG radius and its dependence on luminosity, is not really satisfactory since these are most often determined from isophotal limits and in the case of cD galaxies it would be necessary to further consider whether to include the envelopes; also, it is natural to assume that the actual region of influence for the dark matter is more extensive than the visible galaxy. Other options such as some parameter from the dark matter structure, run into the problem of motivating what exactly it should be.
In the end, after checking the results of several different possible models, we concluded that the one that has the best motivation and also gives the best results is to calculate the inner region mass by using a weighting function based on the luminosity profile of the BCGs.
Since we just require it to make our weighting function, for simplicity we assume that the luminosity profile of BCGs can be universally fit by a Sersic profile:
$$\label{eq:sersic}
I(r)= A\, exp(-b_n[(r/r_e)^{1/n}-1])\, ,$$
where $A$ is a normalization factor, and $\Gamma(2n)=2\gamma(2n,b_n)$, where $\Gamma(2n)$ is the gamma function and $\gamma(2n,x)$ the incomplete gamma function; this can be well approximated by $b_n\approx 2n-0.327$ [@capaccioli]. It is know that there is a correlation between the profile parameters $n$ and $r_e$, and also between $r_e$ and the galaxy luminosity $L$, although the correlation between $n$ and $L$ is very weak (e.g., @graham). For simplicity, we will assume that we can relate both parameters to the galaxy luminosity; although in practice this is not really true, for our purposes here it is a sufficient, if rough, approximation. Based on results from the literature [@graham; @lm], we use the following relations:
$$\label{eq:nsersic}
n=2.8694{\rm log}(r_e)+2.0661 \, ,$$
$$\label{eq:resersic}
{\rm log}(r_e)=0.9523{\rm log}(L)-9.1447 \, ,$$
where $L$ is the K-band luminosity; these are similar to what is reported by other authors (e.g., @bernardi). Our weighting function is then given not by the actual profile, but rather the integration factor for the luminosity, $w(r)=r I(r)$, and the normalization $A$ chosen so that $\int_0^{r_{vir}}w(r)dr=1$. Finally, the inner region mass is simply obtained by integrating the mass density times the weighting function:
$$\label{eq:innermass}
M_{inner}=\int_0^{r_{vir}}4\pi r^2 w(r) \rho(r) dr \, .$$
We use the usual NFW profile for the density [@nfw],
$$\label{nfw}
\rho=\frac{\rho_1}{x(x+1)^2} \, ,$$
where $x=r/r_s$, with $r_s=r_{vir}/c_{vir}$ and the virial radius is $r_{vir}=(3 M/4 \pi \Delta_{vir} \bar{\rho})^{1/3}$ and $\Delta_{vir}=387$; $\rho_1$ is normalized to give the halo mass at the virial radius.
For the concentration distribution, we take the model of @bullock (see also @maccio, who get similar results). This relates the average concentration of a halo of mass $M$ with the scale factor at its collapse, $a_c$, given by:
$$\label{acoll}
\sigma(f M)=\frac{\delta_c}{D(a_c)} \, ,$$
where $\sigma$ is, as usual, the variance of the linearly extrapolated power spectrum of perturbations, $D(a)$ is the growth factor and $\delta_c=1.673$ the linear threshold for collapse; $f=0.001$ is a parameter. The concentration is then given by $c_{vir}=k/a_c$, with the parameter $k=3$. Finally, the distribution of the concentration is given by a lognormal distribution with average $c_{vir}$ and variance $\sigma[{\rm log}(c_{vir})]\sim
0.18$.
The BCG luminosity distribution is then obtained from the concentration distribution by $\phi(L|M)=f(c|M)/(dL/dc)$, where $f(c|M)$ is the concentration distribution as a function of halo mass. As mentioned, the luminosity for any given concentration and halo mass is given by
$$\label{eq:lumconc}
L(c,M)=\frac{M_{inner}}{(M/L)_0} \, ,$$
where $(M/L)_0$ is the mass-to-light ratio with the inner mass calculated at the average concentration and the luminosity given by our mass-luminosity relation, equation (\[eq:mlmod\]), and $M_{inner}$ is given by equation (\[eq:innermass\]). Finally, we fit our calculated luminosity function to the observed one, in order to determine the parameters that go into the modified mass-luminosity relation (see table 2).
Note that both @bullock and @maccio find that subhaloes tend to have higher concentrations than parent haloes of the same mass. Although it goes beyond the scope of the present work, it is wortwhile to mention that in the framework of the model just presented, this can possibly lead to slightly different distributions of luminosity as function of mass for the subhaloes, although this is most likely complicated by the fact that we need to take the subhalo properties at accretion rather than at present.
\[sigmamodparam\]
model $\sigma_{LN}$ $a$ $M_s$
--------------- --------------- ------- -------------
concentration N/A -0.08 $10^{13.5}$
lognormal 0.265 -0.07 $10^{13}$
Table 2 shows the values we obtain for the parameters of the modified mass-luminosity relation of equation (\[eq:mlmod\]). Figure \[fig:clfdistribution\] shows examples of the actual distribution we obtain for the BCG luminosity, both for the lognormal model and for the concentration model.
![Examples of the calculated distribution for the BCG luminosity, for both the lognormal and concentration models, and for two different values of the halo mass.[]{data-label="fig:clfdistribution"}](fig3.ps){width="84mm"}
Central vs satellite galaxies
=============================
As was briefly mentioned above, the way we build up the mass-luminosity relation naturally gives rise to a model for clusters, featuring a distinct separation between central and satellite galaxies. This comes from the fact that we consider that galaxies are hosted by both the parent halo and the subhaloes. Since we consider that the same mass-luminosity relation applies for both, and the former will be, by definition, considerably more massive than the latter, this results in there being a central, very luminous galaxy, hosted by the parent halo, while fainter satellite galaxies are spread throughout in the subhaloes.
Of particular importance for the question of whether the first brightest galaxies are special, this separation implies that these galaxies should indeed have a special luminosity distribution, independent from that of the remaining galaxies in the cluster. This comes from the fact that the distribution functions of these two types of galaxies will be different in origin: the central galaxies one will be determined by the halo mass function, while the satellite galaxies one will depend on the subhalo mass function. This dichotomy is also found in HOD models, for instance when accounting for total galaxy occupation number (e.g., @yanghod [@zz]): while $P(N|M)$, the probability that a halo of mass $M$ hosts $N$ galaxies, is Poissonian at high $N$, where satellite galaxy numbers dominate, it is significantly sub-Poissonian at low $N$, indicating that the distribution of the central galaxies is much more deterministic.
This has an important consequence, derived from the fact that, at high mass, and therefore also at high luminosity, the total mass function is dominated by the haloes, not subhaloes. This means that, when analysing the luminosity function of galaxies in clusters, the brightest region will be dominated by the central galaxies, which will actually be more abundant overall than the brightest of the satellite galaxies. We then expect that this will cause a feature in the cluster galaxy luminosity function at the bright end; this point will be examined in further detail below. Another consequence is that we expect the luminosity of the central galaxy in the cluster to be completely determined by halo mass and its distribution, without the need to account for surviving subhaloes.
It is in fact possible to derive the different contributions to the global luminosity function from the central and satellite galaxies, by associating them with the halo and subhalo distributions, respectively, and then using the CLF formalism presented in the previous section:
$$\label{xform}
\phi_i(L)dL=\int_0^\infty \phi_{CLF}(L|M) n_i(M)dM \, ,$$
where the $i$ indexes refer to the haloes and subhaloes, respectively. The derived luminosity functions for central and satellite galaxies are shown in figure \[centrallffig\]. Unsurprisingly, the central galaxies completely dominate the overall luminosity function at high luminosity, with their numbers becoming comparable to the satellites only at low luminosity. This simply reflects the trends seen in the halo and subhalo numbers (see paper I). The expected relative contributions of both types of galaxies are still uncertain: while @bfb using their semi-analytical modelling find satellite galaxies to dominate at the faint end, @coorayb using a conditional luminosity function formalism find that central galaxies dominate throughout the range (likewise, @zz find that central galaxies dominate the stellar mass function on any mass scale).
![Contribution to the high-end luminosity function of central and satellite galaxies. These particular curves are for the $K$-band, lognormal model, but the results are similar for the concentration model. It is very noticeable that the halo numbers dominate in this luminosity range. The relative satellite contribution to the total luminosity function is qualitatively similar to what is found by other authors [@vdb].[]{data-label="centrallffig"}](fig4.ps){width="84mm"}
Definition of cluster threshold mass {#sect:clmass}
------------------------------------
A necessary first step before continuing this analysis is to define precisely what we mean by a ”cluster”. We will opt for a simple choice, following the standard Abell definition of rich cluster, namely that it must have upwards of 30 objects brighter than $m_3+2^m$, where $m_3$ is the magnitude of the third brightest galaxy in the cluster. It is then possible, following our model, to translate this into a minimum mass threshold for a halo to host a cluster, as follows.
The third brightest galaxy will correspond to the second most massive subhalo (since the brightest galaxy is hosted by the parent halo itself), and the probability of this having a mass $m_2$ is then:
$$\label{2ndmass}
P_2(m_{s,2},M_h)=N(m_{s,2}|M_h) <N> {\rm e}^{-<N>} \, ,$$
where $N(m_{s,2}|M_h)$ is the mass distribution function of the subhaloes, equation (\[shmf\]), and $<N>=\int_{m_{s,2}}^\infty N(m'|M_h)
dm'$ is the average number of subhaloes more massive than $m$ in a parent halo of mass $M_h$. This expression assumes that the distribution of subhalo masses is Poissonian with average $<N>$, as expected for the subhaloes (e.g., @kravtsov; since we are looking at cluster sized haloes, $<N>$ will be large in this case), and it is simply the product of the probability of having a subhalo with mass $m_2$, given by the first term on the right hand side, by the Poisson probability of having exactly one subhalo more massive than $m_2$. Using the fact that $d<N>/dm=-N(m_s|M_h)$, it is easy to check that this probability is well normalized to 1. The average value of the magnitude corresponding to this subhalo, $m_3$, can then be calculated from the distribution by:
$$\label{2ndmassavg}
<m_{3}(M_h)>=\int_0^\infty m(m_s) P_2(m_s,M_h) dm_s \, ,$$
where $m(m_s)$ represents the corresponding magnitude as a function of the subhalo mass, calculated using the mass-luminosity relation from section 2. In this instance, we have used the simpler relation of equation (\[mlfit\]), since it greatly simplifies the calculations and using the full CLF results in only a slight difference.
Using this magnitude we can then obtain $m_3+2^m$, and then convert this back into a mass threshold, $m_t(M_h)$, which will be dependent on the parent halo mass. Finally, we can find the probability, as a function of $M_h$, that $N(m_t|M_h)\geq 29$ (giving more than 30 objects above the magnitude limit, when including the central galaxy). Since we are assuming that the subhalo distribution is Poissonian, this will simply be given by $\sum _{n=29}^{\infty}
P(n,\mu )$, where $P(n,\mu )$ is the normal Poisson probability with average $\mu=<N(m_t|M_h)>$. This gives a smooth transition for the mass of cluster hosting haloes, shown in figure \[clustprob\], starting around a halo mass of $M_h=10^{14} h^{-1} {\rm
M_\odot}$, but which depends on the luminosity function considered.
![Probability that a halo of mass $M$ contains more than 30 galaxies brighter than $m_3+2^m$ and is considered a rich cluster according to the usual Abell definition. Using either the $b_J$ or the $K$ bands to do the counting results in the two different curves.[]{data-label="clustprob"}](fig5.ps){width="84mm"}
Cluster galaxy luminosity function
----------------------------------
Once we have a mass threshold for haloes hosting clusters, obtaining the cluster galaxy luminosity function is straightforward: we simply sum up the mass function of haloes above this threshold with the mass function of all the subhaloes hosted by them (i.e., use equation (\[shmf\]), but further multiplied by a term to reflect the probability that the halo does indeed host a rich cluster, given by the result shown in figure \[clustprob\]). Then, we transform this into a luminosity function using the CLF. Our result is shown in figure \[cglffig\].
![Luminosity function of galaxies in rich clusters, in the $K$-band. The two curves correspond to the two models for the dispersion used, described in the previous section. Also shown, for comparison, is the global LF. Only galaxies above the mass threshold shown in figure \[clustprob\] were considered.[]{data-label="cglffig"}](fig6.ps){width="84mm"}
Qualitatively, we obtain a good agreement with observed luminosity functions (such as the one of @2dfcluster, although in this particular case a direct comparison is difficult because these results are in a different band; redoing our analysis in the same band produces a good match), particularly in the lower luminosity range. At the bright end, there is some disagreement caused by a particular feature of our result, a bump in the luminosity function at the bright end. It is simple to understand that this bump is caused by the central galaxies. The discrepancy in numbers between central and satellite galaxies comes from the fact that, at high luminosity, the contribution from parent haloes to the total luminosity distribution (shown in figure \[centrallffig\]) completely dominates over the subhalo one. This is a reflection of the fact that haloes are much more abundant at the high mass end than subhaloes (see paper I). In fact, it can be seen from the figure that these central galaxies essentially correspond to the high luminosity end of the global luminosity function. This is hardly surprising, since we can expect the most luminous galaxies to lie at the centre of the most massive clusters.
Such a feature is thus a natural consequence of the model: very luminous galaxies will predominantely be central galaxies of high mass haloes, which will therefore dominate in number over satellite galaxies of the same luminosity; at the same time, since we introduce a lower mass limit to rich cluster hosting haloes, the faint end contribution to the luminosity function of galaxies in such clusters will come entirely from satellites. It is important to note that this is not a particularity of this specific model: any model associating central galaxies with parent haloes and satellite galaxies with subhaloes will show a similar feature, due to the discrepancy in numbers between the two at high mass (though it may also require that this be associated with high luminosity in both cases; or, more particularly, that the same mass-luminosity relation is used for both haloes and subhaloes, as is the case in the model used here).
A note of caution comes from the fact that the shape of the bump depends on the dispersion in the CLF: the smaller it is, the sharper the bump will be. Furthermore, the actual shape of the bump is determined by the cluster definition being used, through the cluster threshold mass discussed in the previous section. This cutoff mass is responsible for the decreasing values of the cluster galaxy luminosity function on the left side of the bump; a lower threshold mass would result in a wider bump. Taking this threshold to lower and lower values (beyond the range where it would be reasonable to assume the presence of clusters) results in the progressive disappearance of the bump as we naturally regain the overall global luminosity function. It should be stressed, however, that the presence of a bump is a fundamental prediction of the model, independent of the precise cluster definition being used, since it is a direct consequence of the discrepancy in numbers between haloes and subhaloes at high mass.
This kind of feature is also present in some recent work dealing with HOD models and the central/satellite galaxy separation. In @zz (see also @zhu), the authors use a semi-analytical model of galaxy formation to obtain the conditional galaxy baryonic mass function. For high mass haloes in the range we are considering here, they also obtain a high mass bump in this function caused by the central galaxy. They show that the baryonic mass function can be described by combining a Schechter function representing the satellite galaxies contribution with a high mass gaussian due to the central galaxy. Likewise, @zehavi build up HOD models from SDSS results, and analyze the central/satellite galaxy split; from this, they build conditional luminosity functions, and show that their results imply that the central galaxies lie far above a Schechter function extrapolation of the satellite population. The observational work also hints at similar features: for example, it is known that cD galaxies are brighter than what is given by the bright end of the cluster galaxy luminosity function (e.g., @cdreview). This is also present in studies of the luminosity function of galaxies in clusters (e.g., @2pigg). All this once again reinforces the notion that central galaxies form a special distribution, essentially separate from the satellite galaxy one.
Building the BCG luminosity distribution
========================================
As discussed above, the non-parametric model used naturally builds a picture of galaxy clusters. This translates itself into a procedure to build up the total luminosity distribution of galaxies within a halo of a given mass. This will be composed of two steps, one dealing with the satellite galaxies in the subhaloes, another with the central galaxy.
Satellites
----------
In this step, we need to sum up the total luminosity in the satellite galaxies contained in the halo. We start by taking the total number of subhaloes in a given halo, as calculated from the SHMF (that is, the occupation number; see paper I) , as an average number for a parent halo of this mass, taking into account the effect of destroyed subhaloes as introduced in section 2.1. In this step it is necessary to specify a minimum mass: we take a low enough value to ensure that we account for all subhaloes massive enough to give a noticeable contribution to the total luminosity of the halo. We then assume that the total number of subhaloes follows a Poisson distribution (as discussed above; e.g., @kravtsov).
For each subhalo, up to a total as calculated from the Poisson distribution, we determine a mass, by assuming the subhaloes follow a random distribution given by the subhalo mass function (\[shmf\]). Then we convert this to the luminosity of the hosted galaxy using the mass luminosity relation.
Finally, once we have the total number of subhaloes (as determined initially from the Poisson distribution), we can sum all of their calculated luminosities to obtain the total in satellite galaxies.
At the same time, the average luminosity of the brightest satellite galaxy can be calculated in a more direct fashion. Using the subhalo mass distribution, we can get the probability distribution of the mass of the most massive subhalo. Analogously to what was done in the previous section for the second most massive subhalo (see equation \[2ndmass\]), this will be given by
$$\label{1stmass}
P_1(m_1,M_h)=N(m_1|M_h) {\rm e}^{-<N>} \, ,$$
where $<N>=\int_m^\infty N(m'|M_h) dm'$ as before. Used together with the mass luminosity relation, the average luminosity of the galaxy hosted in the most massive subhalo (and therefore the most luminous of the satellites) is simply given by $<L_1>(M_h)=\int_0^\infty L(m_1) P_1(m_1,M_h) dm_1$.
Central galaxy {#centbuild}
--------------
The way we have built up the CLF gives us a natural way of obtaining the distribution of the luminosity of first brightest galaxies with cluster luminosity, since we are already introducing a distribution with mass. We use the results of both the lognormal and concentration models for comparison.
The total luminosity is obtained by summing over the BCG and satellite contributions, and taking into account the effect of the destroyed subhaloes from section 2.1. The average total luminosity at any given mass is simply the sum of the average luminosities of the BCG and satellites, and is, by construction, equal to the one shown in figure \[fig:fdest\].
Finally, we can also obtain the global distribution of BCG luminosity over all clusters. To do this, we use the cluster threshold mass, as calculated in the previous section, and simply integrate the conditional distribution we have multiplied by the halo mass function:
$$\label{bcgglobal}
f(L_1)=\int_0^\infty f(L_1|M) n(M) p(M) dM \, ,$$
where $n(M)$ is the halo mass function, given by (\[stmf\]), and $p(M)$ is the probability that a halo of mass $M$ hosts a rich cluster, as given in figure \[clustprob\].
Other models for BCGs
=====================
In this section, we introduce two other simple models to complement the one presented above in order to allow better comparisons with the observational results. The first, and, a priori, best motivated is based on the simple assumption that the BCGs are merely the extreme values of the unique distribution that applies to all cluster galaxies. We do this based on a regular cluster galaxy luminosity function, and build the BCG distribution directly from it. The second is based on assuming some form of cannibalism. We use a simple approach to model this mechanism, that of merging the brightest galaxy with one other, where both are taken from the universal distribution in the first case we consider.
Extremes of a general distribution {#xtremes}
----------------------------------
The simplest assumption possible when studying the distribution of the galaxies in a cluster is that they are all drawn from the same statistical distribution (for example, a Schechter function for luminosity). The galaxies in a cluster would then simply be a random sample drawn from this distribution, with the brightest galaxy simply the extreme value of this sample. This approach has been studied in the literature before (e.g., @tr). In particular, it has been shown that this approach leads to a result from extreme value theory, the Gumbel distribution, for the overall distribution of the magnitudes of the first brightest galaxy [@bb84; @bb]. This is given by
$$\label{gumbel}
f(M)=a e^{a(M-M^*)-e^{a(M-M^*)}} \, ,$$
with $M^*=M_G+\frac{0.577}{a}$, where $M_G$ is the mean of the magnitude values and $a$ is a measure of the steepness of fall of the parent distribution.
In the present paper, we take a slightly different approach, in order to match that which we will take for the other models. This model and subsquent calculations are similar to the ones presented in @tr, although some details, like the luminosity function used, will be different. We begin by assuming that the parent distribution of the luminosity of the galaxies in a cluster is given by a Schechter function, equation (\[schechter\]) (for simplicity, we use the same values for $M_*$ and the faint end slope, $\alpha$, as the global luminosity function).
The only dependence on the actual cluster considered comes in the normalization, which we set so that the total luminosity in all the galaxies equals the cluster luminosity, $L_c$:
$$\label{clusternorm}
\phi_*(L_c)=\frac{L_c}{\Gamma[2-\alpha] L_*} \, .$$
We then take the value of the distribution of the first brightest galaxy at a given luminosity to be the probability that there are no galaxies brighter than that luminosity, times the probability that there is a galaxy at that luminosity. The latter is simply given by (\[schechter\]), while for the former we take a Poisson fluctuation around the average number of galaxies obtained by integrating the parent distribution, (\[schechter\]). Thus, the luminosity distribution for the brightest cluster galaxy is given by:
$$\label{dist_1bg}
f_1(L,L_c)=\phi(L,L_c) e^{-\int_L^\infty \phi(L,L_c)dL} \, ,$$
where the integral in the exponential can be resolved to $\int_L^\infty \phi(L)dL=\phi_*(L_c) \Gamma[1-\alpha,L/L_*]$. Using the same principles as discussed in section \[sect:clmass\] above, it is simple to show that this probability distribution is adequately normalized to 1.
Similarly, the probability for the luminosity of the second brightest galaxy is given by the product of the probability of having a galaxy at a given luminosity by the probability of there being a single galaxy brighter than that luminosity. In general, and again taking Poisson fluctuations around the average number, the distribution of the n-th brightest galaxy will be given by:
$$\label{dist_n}
f_n(L,L_c)=\phi(L,L_c) \big(\int_L^\infty \phi(L')dL'\big)^n e^{-\int_L^\infty
\phi(L')dL'}/n! \, .$$
Likewise, the joint probability of having the first brightest galaxy at luminosity $L_1$ and the second at $L_2$ (given by the product of the probability of a galaxy at $L_2$, another at $L_1$, none in between and none above $L_1$) can also be derived:
$$\label{dist_12bg}
f_{12}(L_1,L_2,L_c)=\phi(L_1,L_c) \phi(L_2,L_c)
e^{-\int_{L_2}^\infty \phi(L)dL} \, .$$
Once we have these distributions, it is then easy to obtain the various statistics we are interested in: the average magnitude of the first and second brightest galaxies, $<m_1>$ and $<m_2>$, the dispersion in first brightest galaxy magnitude, $\sigma_1$, and the average magnitude difference between these two $<\Delta_{12}>=<m_1-m_2>$. Some caution is necessary with the last one, since the fact that $L_1$ and $L_2$ are not independent variables would necessitate the use of the joint distribution; however, it turns out that the integrals over this joint distribution resolve to two different integrals over the two separate distributions, so that $<\Delta_{12}>=<m_1>-<m_2>$ as calculated for each separate, individual distribution.
Cannibalism
-----------
To illustrate the effect of galactic cannibalism, we consider here two simple models, starting with a common distribution like the one discussed in the previous section, and then merging the brightest galaxy with one of the others.
In general, the distribution of the new BCG will have to be taken from the joint distribution of the previous first and n-th brightest galaxies. It is important to note that these variables are not independent, and as such when calculating the average of the sum it will not, in principle, be possible to separate it into integrals over the two individual distributions (except in the particular case when $n=2$, as noted above).
### $L_1+L_2$
The simplest possible model to consider when taking account of cannibalism is to merge the two brightest galaxies from a common distribution. Thus, the luminosity of the brightest galaxy is now given by the sum of the luminoisities of the previous two brightest galaxies, with a distribution given by the joint distribution of equation (\[dist\_12bg\]). The second brightest galaxy is now the old third brightest, with a distribution given by equation (\[dist\_n\]), with $n=3$.
The remaining calculations follow the same pattern as discussed in the previous case. It is to be expected that, due to the fact that the new first brightest luminosity is the result of the sum of two previous variables, the dispersion in first brightest luminosity will be slightly lower than before. Likewise, it is obvious that the difference in magnitude between first and second brightest galaxies will now be much larger.
### $L_1+L_n$
A slightly more realistic toy model to illustrate galactic cannibalism is to proceed similarly as described above, but instead of merging the first brightest galaxy with the second, to take some weighting function to reflect the probability that the merger will occur with any one other of the galaxies in the cluster.
We take the probability of the merger occuring with the n-th brightest galaxy to be proportional to its average luminosity, $L_n$; this gives greater weight to the first few brightest galaxies, but since the average luminosity decreases only slowly with $n$, the probability is split over a wide range. We consider a possible merger down to the 30th brightest galaxy in the cluster, for which the merger probability given by this prescription will be below 1%.
The total probability distribution of the new BCG luminosity is obtained from the joint probability distribution of the different weighted pairs. Since the variables are not independent and therefore this joint distribution cannot be split into a product of terms each dependent only on a single variable, to calculate $<m_1>$, $<m_2>$ and $\sigma_1$ it is necessary to solve complicated integrations. We turn instead to a Monte Carlo method, building up the distribution of the new BCG luminosity by randomly generating merger pairs and the luminosity of their components, and then summing them. The new second brightest galaxy will be either the old one, or the old third brightest, depending on whether the merger occurred with the former or not.
Results
=======
We start by showing the results for average magnitude of first and second brightest galaxies as a function of total cluster luminosity, for each of the models, in figures \[m1avgfig\] and \[m2avgfig\]. The first noticeable thing is that the curves for both the concentration and lognormal models are very similar, which is not too surprising given the similar mass-luminosity relations obtained for each of them (see table 2), even though they were built in independent ways. This is in fact a success for the concentration model, since the lognormal model is by construction made to provide the best fit to the observed BCG magnitude, while the concentration model is not.
Comparing the different sets of curves, it is easy to see the differences between the models. The statistical distribution has the lowest average BCG luminosity, which is considerably higher for the other models. This comes from the fact that all other models take the BCG distribution to be special, like an additional distribution added on to the base Schechter distribution of the satellite galaxies. Looking at the average magnitude of the second brightest galaxy, the most obvious factor is that the one from the more extreme cannibalism model is much lower than the others; once again, this is unsurprising since this is essentially the third brightest galaxy in the statistical model. Likewise, the 1+n cannibalism model gives essentially the same result as the statistical one, since the second brightest galaxy is the same in both in most cases. Both of our models give considerably brighter values for the second brightest galaxy. This probably indicates that the luminosity function we used to generate the statistical and cannibalism models does not have enough bright galaxies (i.e., $L_*$ is too low), which is not very surprising since we are using the parameters of the global one. On the other hand, if this were to be the case then it is quite probable that the cannibalism models would then give BCGs which are too bright.
![Average magnitudes, in the $K$-band, of the first brightest galaxy, as a function of the total cluster luminosity, as calculated for the different models: the ones based on the CLF formalism introduced, the statistical model and two forms of cannibalism: the extreme $L_1+L_2$, and the softer $L_1+L_n$. The data points shown are binned values of cluster galaxy data supplied by Yen-Ting Lin (2006, private communication).[]{data-label="m1avgfig"}](fig7.ps){width="84mm"}
![Same as figure \[m1avgfig\], but for the second brightest galaxy in the cluster.[]{data-label="m2avgfig"}](fig8.ps){width="84mm"}
In any case, this problem should be less of an issue when looking at the magnitude gap $\Delta_{12}$, shown in figure \[delta12fig\]. The values for the cannibalism 1+2 model are obviously much too high to match the observed ones: it is clear that merging the two brightest galaxies leaves too big a gap to the next brightest. The values for the statistical model are too low, in this case probably indicating that it is the BCG which is too faint. The values for the other, 1+n, cannibalism model look rather better, while both of our models show good agreement with the observations. But note the size of the errorbars in the observational data: the scatter in the observed values is quite large (see also @ls [@vdb]). Since the scatter in the BCG magnitude is small, most of the scatter here in $\Delta_{12}$ is likely coming from the second brightest galaxy. The shape seen in the curves of figure \[delta12fig\] is unsurprising: the fact that $\Delta_{12}$ is increasing as the total luminosity goes down is a natural consequence of the decreasing number of satellites at this lower end. In fact, these correspond to haloes of only a few times $10^{13}
h^{-1} {\rm M_\odot}$, and therefore many of these systems will not actually even be clusters (cf figure \[clustprob\]).
![Values for the average magnitude difference between first and second brightest galaxies, $\Delta_{12}$. The data points come are again binned values from the catalogue supplied by Yen-Ting Lin. The large errorbars reflect the fact that the scatter in the values of $\Delta_{12}$ in these clusters is very large. For comparison, another observational value for $\Delta_{12}$, but in the $B$-band, is of $\approx 0.55$ magnitudes [@sgh]. The values we obtain are also qualitatively consistent with the results of @milos [@ls].[]{data-label="delta12fig"}](fig9.ps){width="84mm"}
Figure \[sigfig\] shows the calculated dispersion in the magnitude of the first brightest galaxy. Binning the Lin observational data results in values of $\sigma_1$ of 0.3 to 0.4 magnitudes. A direct comparison of this value with the model results shows that the values we obtain for our model are slightly too low, while the values for the statistical and cannibalism models look reasonable. There is, however, an additional point to bear in mind: these observational values are obtained by binning over a certain cluster luminosity range. Part of this observed scatter then simply comes from the fact that the average magnitude is changing as a function of this. When taking this into account, the values we get from our model are in fact in good agreement with the observed ones. Also, using Bayes’ theorem, it is possible to derive values for the dispersion in the mass of the hosting halo for a given galaxy luminosity. Doing so we obtain values which are in qualitative agreement with the ones found by @vdb, although a direct comparison is complicated by the fact that they use $b_J$-band instead of $K$-band for the galaxy luminosity.
![Dispersion in the magnitude of the first brightest galaxy. The data set used to plot the data points in the previous figures gives a value of between 0.3 and 0.4 magnitudes for the statistical error in each cluster luminosity bin. Another observationally measured dispersion in first brightest magnitude, in the $B$-band, is $\sigma_1\simeq0.24$ [@pl]. Using a CLF approach similar to ours, @coorayc obtains a value of $\sigma_1=0.17$ in the r-band.[]{data-label="sigfig"}](fig10.ps){width="84mm"}
Conclusion
==========
In the present paper we focus on the implications of the mass luminosity relation first introduced in paper I on the properties of clusters, and more in particular on whether BCGs are statistical or special in nature. We expand the model of paper I by introducing scatter into the relation, building a CLF based on two different models: a simple lognormal shape or a model based on the distribution of concentrations in haloes of a given mass. We also introduce a simple model to evaluate the mass fraction in subhaloes which have been completely disrupted since they were accreted.
We have argued that this model naturally gives a separation between central and satellite galaxies in a cluster, with the former having a distinct distribution based on the halo mass function. We have shown that this leads to a characteristic bump in the cluster galaxy luminosity function, qualitatively similar to that seen in some observational work and some semi-analytical HOD based models. This is caused by the fact that, at any given high mass, haloes are considerably more abundant than subhaloes, coupled with the fact that, in any single system, central galaxies will be considerably brighter than the satellites (since the subhaloes are much less massive than the parent halo). Together with this, the faint end is completely determined by the satellite galaxies in the subhaloes, since we put in a minimum mass threshold for the haloes we consider host clusters.
Finally, to look at the question of the nature of BCGs, we study some statistical indicators that may provide a clue to this problem, namely the ratio $r$ between the magnitude difference between first and second brightest galaxies in a cluster, $\Delta_{12}$, and the dispersion of the former, $\sigma_1$. We also introduce two simple models to account for two different possibilities that are usually considered: the statistical hypothesis, that is, that all galaxies in a cluster, including the BCG, are drawn from the same distribution; and galactic cannibalism, where the BCG grows by merging with other galaxies in the cluster. As is already known, any model of the former gives a value for $r$ which is too small compared to what is observed. At the same time, we show that the simplest case of the latter, that of merging the two brightest galaxies from a common distribution, gives a value of $\Delta_{12}$ which is far too large.
From the results we obtain, it is possible to draw some answers to the issue discussed in the introduction about the nature of BCGs. The statistical hypothesis, which assumes that BCGs are drawn from the same universal distribution, can be ruled out. It gives values of $\sigma_1$ which are too big and $\Delta_{12}$ which are too small.
On the other hand, the simplistic model we analyse for galactic cannibalism looks to be far too extreme. Mainly, it gives values of $\Delta_{12}$ which are far too large compared to what is observed. This model mimics the scenario of two similar sized clusters merging, with a final distribution of galaxies which can be well fit by a single distribution, but where the BCG is then built up by merging the two BCGs of the original clusters. From our results, we expect that if such a scenario does occur, a merging of the brightest galaxies is excluded, as it leaves a too bright BCG and too large a gap to the second brightest galaxy (but see the discussion in @lm). A more general cannibalistic scenario, where the BCG is built up by merging with one other galaxy, is however not excluded, nor is the possibility of minor mergers, where one of the merging systems is much smaller than the other such that its brightest galaxy will not be the second brightest galaxy in the resulting cluster. It is worth noting that this fits in well with the results of recent semi-analytic simulations done by @lucia, who find that BCG growth occurs fast enough that major mergers are relatively rare, and that most of the later growth is through minor mergers.
Our model gives results which can be regarded as halfway between the other two: the BCG is in fact the product of a special distribution and is considerably brighter than what would result from a single distribution, but the second brightest galaxy is not as faint as in the cannibalistic scenario. The question remains, however, of what is the BCG formation scenario expected in this case. A satisfactory answer, in the framework of the way the mass luminosity relation is built, would require going back to the simulations and following the behaviour of the halo and its subhaloes.
There is an important assumption which has been implicit throughout this paper: that both the central and satellite galaxies follow the same mass luminosity relation. This may indeed appear to be contradictory with the possibility that the central galaxies are special, since it may seem to imply that they are formed through the same processes. On the other hand, the model is based on structure build up through the merger of dark matter haloes, and we assume that the satellite galaxies were formed in their own independent haloes, prior to being accreted into their present parent halo. This original halo would be the one that determines their properties, since the galaxy stops accreting gas or undergoing mergers of its own once its halo merges into the parent system and it becomes a satellite (and hence the need for some mass loss prescription). Therefore, it is to be expected that at least in some cases, they would have been a BCG in their own system themselves, and therefore it may not be unreasonable to assign them the same mass luminosity relation. Still, this leaves out the very important factor that the formation epoch may well be different, together with subsquent growth of the BCG in the parent system. At the same time, halo numbers completely dominate at high mass (and therefore it is to be expected the same is true of central galaxy numbers at high luminosity), and consequently the total average mass luminosity relation should be pretty much the same as calculated.
We should stress the fact that our concentration models gives quite good results, since unlike the lognormal model, it does not involve any fitting of parameters to BCG results. In fact, it is quite interesting that it gives values for the dispersion in BCG magnitude so close to the ones from the lognormal model, when the latter was set to the value that results in the best fit to the observed BCG magnitudes. In light of the recent discussion about the effects of additional parameters, such as environmental density, halo formation time or concentration (e.g., @wechsler [@berlind]), on the clustering of halos and subsequently on the HOD, this seems to indicate that taking the halo mass as the primary determinant of the hosted galaxy luminosity, and then taking concentration as a secondary variable which determines the scatter around the average value is a good way to proceed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Yen-Ting Lin for making his data on cluster galaxy luminosities available to us. AV acknowledges financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal), under grant SFRH/BD/2989/2000.
[99]{} Benson A. J., Frenk C. S., Baugh C. M., Cole S., Lacey C. G., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 679 Bhavsar S.P., 1989, ApJ, 338, 718 Bhavsar S.P., Barrow J.D., 1985, MNRAS, 213, 857 Berlind A. A., Weinberg D. H., 2002, ApJ, 575,587 Berlind A.A., Kazin E., Blanton M.R., Pueblas S., Scoccimarro R., Hogg D.W., astro-ph/0610524, submitted to ApJ Bernardi M., Hyde J.B., Sheth R.K., Miller C.J., Nichol R.C., 2006, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0607117 Bernstein J.P., Bhavsar S.P., 2000, MNRAS Binggeli B., Sandage A., Tammann G.A., 1988, ARA&A, 26, 509 Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R. S., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Primack, J. R., Dekel, A., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559 Capaccioli M., 1989, in The World of Galaxies, ed. H.G. Corwin& L. Bottinelli, Springer, Berlin, 208 Colless M., 1989, MNRAS, 237, 799 Conroy C., Wechsler R.H., Kravtsov A.V., 2006, ApJ, 647, 201 Cooray A., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 842 Cooray A., Milosavljević M., 2005a, ApJ, 627, L85 Cooray A., Milosavljević M., 2005b, ApJ, 627, L89 De Lucia G., Blaizot J., 2006, MNRAS, accepted, astro-ph/0606519 De Propris R. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 725 Dressler A., 1978, ApJ, 222, 23 Eke V.R. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 769 Gao L., White S.D.M., Jenkins A., Stoehr F., Springel V., MNRAS, 355, 819 Graham A., Lauer T.R., Colless M., Postman M., 1996, ApJ, 465, 534 Hausman M.A., Ostriker J.P., 1978, ApJ, 224, 320 Hoessel J.G., Gunn J.E., Thuan T.X., 1980, ApJ, 241, 486 Hoessel J.G., Schneider D.P., 1985, AJ, 90, 1648 Kochanek C. S., et al., 2001, ApJ, 560, 566 Kravtsov A. V., Berlind A. A., Wechsler R. H., Klypin A. A., Gottl[ö]{}ber A., Allgood B., Primack J. R., 2004, ApJ, 609, 35 Lin Y., Mohr J.J., 2004, ApJ, 617, 879 Lin Y., Mohr J.J., Stanford S.A., 2004, ApJ, 610, 745 von der Linden A., Best P.N., Kauffmann G., White S.D.M., 2006, astro-ph/0611196, submitted to MNRAS Loh Y., Strauss M.A., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 373 Macciò A.V., Dutton A.A., van den Bosch F.C., Moore B., Potter D., Stadel J., 2006, astro-ph/0608157, submitted to MNRAS Milosavljević M., Miller C.J., Furlanetto S.R., Cooray A., 2006, ApJ, 637, L9 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 Norberg P. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 907 Ostriker J.P., Hausman M. A., 1977, ApJ, 217, L125 Ostriker J.P., Tremaine S.D., 1975, ApJ, 202, 113 Peebles, P.J.E., 1968, ApJ, 153, 13 Postman M., Lauer T.R., 1995, ApJ, 440, 28 Sandage, A., 1972, ApJ, 178, 1 Schneider D. P., Gunn J. E., Hoessel J. G., 1983, ApJ, 268, 476 Shaw L., Weller J., Ostriker J.P., Bode P., 2006, ApJ, 646, 815 Sheth R. K., Tormen G., MNRAS, 1999, 308, 119 Spergel D. N. et al., 2006, astro-ph/0603449, submitted to ApJ Tasitsiomi A., Kravtsov A. V., Wechsler R. H., Primack J. R., 2004, ApJ. 614, 533 Tremaine S.D., Richstone D.O., 1977, ApJ, 212, 311 Vale A., Ostriker J. P., 2004, MNRAS, 353, 189 Vale A., Ostriker J. P., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1173 (Paper I) van den Bosch F. C., Tormen G., Giocoli C., 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1029 van den Bosch F.C. et al., 2006, astro-ph/0610686, submitted to MNRAS Wang L., Li C., Kauffmann G., De Lucia G., 2006, MNRAS, 371, 537 Wechsler R.H., Zentner A.R., Bullock J.S., Kravtsov A.V., 2006, ApJ, in press, astro-ph/0512416 Weller J., Ostriker J. P., Bode P., Shaw L., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 823 Yagi M., Kashikawa N., Sekiguchi M., Doi M., Yasuda N., Shimasaku K., Okamura S., 2002, AJ, 123, 87 Yang X.H., Mo H.J., van den Bosch F.C., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1057 Yang X.H., Mo H.J., Jing Y.P., van den Bosch F.C., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 217 Zehavi I. et al., 2005, ApJ, 630, 1 Zentner A.R., Berlind A.A., Bullock J.S., Kravtsov A.V., Wechsler R.H., 2005, ApJ, 624, 505 Zheng Z. et al., 2005, ApJ, 633, 791 Zhu G., Zheng Z., Lin, W.P., Jing Y.P., Kang X., Gao L., 2006, astro-ph/0601120, submitted to ApJ
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Dynamical features of tagged particles are studied in a one dimensional $A+A \rightarrow kA$ system for $k=0$ and 1, where the particles $A$ have a bias $\epsilon$ $(0 \leq \epsilon \leq 0.5)$ to hop one step in the direction of their nearest neighboring particle. $\epsilon=0$ represents purely diffusive motion and $\epsilon=0.5$ represents purely deterministic motion of the particles. We show that for any $\epsilon$, there is a time scale $t^*$ which demarcates the dynamics of the particles. Below $t^*$, the dynamics are governed by the annihilation of the particles, and the particle motions are highly correlated, while for $t \gg t^*$, the particles move as independent biased walkers. $t^*$ diverges as $(\epsilon_c-\epsilon)^{-\gamma}$, where $\gamma=1$ and $\epsilon_c =0.5$. $\epsilon_c$ is a critical point of the dynamics. At $\epsilon_c$, the probability $S(t)$, that a walker changes direction of its path at time $t$, decays as $S(t) \sim t^{-1}$ and the distribution $D(\tau)$ of the time interval $\tau$ between consecutive changes in the direction of a typical walker decays with a power law as $D(\tau) \sim \tau^{-2}$.'
author:
- Reshmi Roy
- Purusattam Ray
- Parongama Sen
title: ' Tagged particle dynamics in one dimensional $A+ A \to kA$ models with the particles biased to diffuse towards their nearest neighbour'
---
Introduction
============
Reaction diffusion systems in their simplest form with diffusion and annihilation of particles have been studied over the years [@privman; @ligget; @krapivsky; @odor]. These are nonequilibrium systems of diffusing particles undergoing certain reactions. Depending on the nature of the problem, the particles could be molecules, chemical or biological entities, opinions in societies or market commodities. Such systems are frequently used to describe various aspects of wide varieties of chemical, biological and physical problems. In the lattice version of the single species problem, the lattice is filled with particles (say $A$) with some probability initially and at each time step, the particles are allowed to jump to one of the nearest neighbouring sites (diffusion) with a certain probability. The simplest form of particle reaction is when a certain number $l$ of the particles meet: $lA \rightarrow kA$ with $k<l$. It is well known that annihilating random walkers with $l=2$ and $k=0$ corresponds to the Ising-Glauber kinetics while the coalescing case with $l=2$ and $k=1$ describes the dynamics of the $q$ state Potts model with $q \to \infty$, both at zero temperature and in one dimension [@derrida_95]. Such systems have been studied in one dimension [@racz; @amar; @avraham; @alcaraz; @krebs; @santos; @schutz; @oliveira] as well as in higher dimensions [@kang; @peliti; @zumofen; @droz]. Depending on the initial condition, whether one starts with even or odd number of particles, the steady state will contain no particles or one particle respectively. The focus in all these analysis is how the system approaches the steady state. In particular, one intends to know how the number of particles decays with time and the distribution of the intervals between the particles evolves with time.
Various reaction diffusion systems have been studied with different values of $k$ and $l$ in the past for different dynamical processes like ballistic annihilation[@krap_ballistic; @bennaim; @krap_ballisticanni_2001], Levy walks [@albano_levy; @krap_bennaim2016] and of course simple diffusion. However, what happens if the dynamical process is intrinsically stochastic and diffusive is an important question which has not been studied much. The idea behind all these studies is to find any universal behaviour in these system and the key factors which determine the universality. Here we ask the same question by introducing a bias which does not alter the existing features like conservation, range and nature of the interaction or the diffusional dynamics in the model.
We have studied the model $A+A\to kA$ where the particle $A$ diffuses with a preference towards its nearest neighbour. Both the annihilating case ($k=0$) and the coalescing case ($k=1$) have been considered. It is important to note that this bias does not affect the annihilation process and retains the Markovian property of the dynamics. This simple extension, indeed, leads to drastic changes in the bulk dynamical features. For $k=0$, the fraction of walkers $\rho(t)$ at time $t$ was found to decay as $\rho(t) \sim t^{-\alpha}$, where $\alpha \approx 1$ when the bias, however small, is introduced [@soham_ray_ps2011; @ray_ps2015]. In the absence of the bias, it is known that $\alpha = 1/2$. The value of $\alpha$ suggests that in the presence of the bias, the walkers, in the long time limit, behave as ballistic walkers.For the coalescing case with bias, the bulk behaviour is identical, i.e., $\alpha \approx 1$ (reported in the present paper).
The model considered in [@soham_ray_ps2011; @ray_ps2015] may thus appear to be equivalent to the system of annihilating ballistic walkers at large times. But several features (e.g., persistence, domain growth etc.) of the dynamics show that it is actually not the same. Hence, to get a better understanding we study the dynamics of a tracer walker in the biased case for both ($k=0$ and $1$), specifically to check whether they perform ballistic motion or not.
In the following we briefly introduce the models and mention the different features studied and also the main results obtained. We have a bunch of walkers on a one dimensional ring. At every time step, the walker hops one step to its left or right with a bias $\epsilon$ to move in the direction of its nearest neighbour. $\epsilon =0$ implies no bias so that the walkers are purely random walkers and $\epsilon=\epsilon_c = 0.5$ implies full bias so that the walker always moves towards its nearest neighbour. Except for this point, the motion is always stochastic.
For the annihilating case with $k=0$, we have a more detailed presentation of the results. First, the probability $P(x,t)$ that a particle is at a distance $x$ from its origin after time $t$ is estimated. We then calculate the probability that a walker changes its direction as a function of time. The distribution of the time intervals over which the walk continues in the same direction is also obtained. A change in the direction of motion can occur either due to diffusion or annihilation of the nearest particle(s). We find that the dynamics of the walkers are controlled by two time regimes. For time $t < t^*$, the dynamics are controlled by the annihilation of the particles. The motion of the walkers, in this regime, is highly correlated and the process is critical in the sense that there is no time scale in it. As a result, the probability $S(t)$ of the change in the direction of the motion of the walker at time $t$ decays with a power law; $S(t) \sim 1/t$. Similarly, the distribution $D(\tau)$ of the time interval $\tau$ spent between two changes in the direction of the motion of the walkers is scale free as $D(\tau) \sim 1/\tau^2$. We have found the full scaling behavior and arguments for the values of the exponents. The crossover time $t^* \sim (\epsilon_c - \epsilon)^{-1}$, so $\epsilon_c$ can be interpreted as a dynamical critical point where a diverging time scale exists.
We have also studied the coalescing model ($k=1$) with similar bias, i.e., $A + A \to A$ model. Without the bias, it is equivalent to the $A + A \to \emptyset$ model as far as the decay of particles in time is concerned. In presence of bias, the scaling of the fraction of surviving particles $\rho(t) \propto t^{-1}$ (details in section \[AAA\]) shows that it is similar to the annihilating model. The dynamics of the particles are indeed different in the coalescing model as the distances between the particles are not much affected by a reaction, except for the surviving particle that remains after the reaction. Here we have focussed on the behaviour of $S(t)$ and $D(\tau)$ and find that the qualitative features of the dynamics of the tagged particle are again the same as in the $A+A \to \emptyset$ model. However, here the crossover to the diffusion behaviour occurs at later times, so that $t^*$ is higher in the $A+A \to A$ model. This is consistent with our inference that the early time regime is annihilation dominated as for $k=1$, the annihilation continues for a longer time.
The Model, dynamics and simulation details {#model}
==========================================
The model consists of walkers denoted by $A$, undergoing the reaction $A+A \to kA$. At each update, a site is selected randomly and if there is a particle on it, it moves towards its nearest neighbour with probability $\epsilon+0.5$ $(0\leq\epsilon\leq0.5)$ and otherwise in the opposite direction. For $k=0$, if there is already another walker located on this neighbouring site, then both particles are annihilated and for $k=1$, one of them survives. Suppose, a walker is at site $i$ and its nearest neighbours are at $i+x$ and $i-y$ on its right and left respectively; the walker will hop one step towards right with probability $0.5+\epsilon$ and to left with probability $0.5-\epsilon$ if $x<y$. In the rare cases where the two neighbours are equidistant, the walker moves in either direction with equal probability.
When the bias $\epsilon = 0.5$, the $k=0$ case corresponds to the spin model introduced in [@soham_ps2009] (see Appendix for details). Hence, the dynamical updating scheme used here for $k=0$ has a one to one correspondence with the original spin dynamics used in [@soham_ps2009]. As the spin system in [@soham_ps2009] was considered to be highly disordered initially, we start with a high density of walkers in this problem; specifically the number of walkers is chosen to be $L/2$ on a one dimensional lattice of size $L$. To maintain the correspondence with spin dynamics, the walkers are updated asynchronously and at each update a site is chosen randomly, rather than a walker, for updating. One Monte Carlo step (MCS) comprises of $L$ such updates. The same dynamical scheme was used in [@ray_ps2015; @soham_ray_ps2011] where the bulk properties of the walker model were studied.
The dynamical scheme allows the possibility that a walker’s state may not be updated at all. This is because if a site is not selected, the position of the corresponding walker will not be updated. It may also happen that a walker is updated more than once in the following manner: if a walker moves to the site $j$ and the site $j$ is selected later, then the position of the same walker is updated again. This signifies that the net displacement of a particular walker may even be zero when it performs more than one movement in the same MCS. For all calculations, the final positions of the walkers after the completion of one MCS are considered. The results reported here are for simulations done on lattices of size 12000 or more and the maximum number of configuration studied was 2000. Periodic boundary condition has been used for all the simulations.
In the $A + A \to A$ model ($k=1$), the same dynamical scheme is used. Here, once two walkers meet, one of them will survive. In order to study the tagged particle dynamics, we need to label the surviving particle. We use the convention that the particle which makes the last movement survives. We have checked that the random convention (either of the two particles is taken to be the survivor randomly) leads to the same results qualitatively.
Results for $A+A \to \emptyset$ $(k=0)$ model {#AA0}
=============================================
To check the movement of individual walkers we took snapshots of the system at different times. Fig. \[snap\_asyn\](a) and (b) show the world lines of the motion of the particles for $\epsilon=0$ and $\epsilon=0.5$. It clearly shows that the motion of the individual particles in the two extreme cases are remarkably different. Annihilation dominates for $\epsilon=0.5$ while for $\epsilon=0$ the walk is diffusive as expected. For the intermediate values of $\epsilon$, both the mechanisms of diffusion and annihilation will be important and thus, as we will see later, give rise to the crossover effect for the system. To probe the dynamics of the particles, we have studied the following three quantities: (i) the probability distribution $P(x,t)$ of finding a particle $A$ at distance $x$ from its origin at time $t$, (ii) the probability $S(t)$ of the change in the direction in the motion of a walker at a time $t$ and (iii) the distribution $D(\tau)$ of the time interval $\tau$ between two successive changes in the direction of the motion of a walker. The results for each of these quantities are described in the following three subsections.
![Snapshots of the system at different times for $\epsilon$=0 (a) and $\epsilon$=0.5 (b) for $A+A \to \emptyset$ model. Lower panel show the snapshots for $A+A \to A $ model for $\epsilon$=0 (c) and $\epsilon$=0.5 (d). The trajectories in different colors represent different particles.[]{data-label="snap_asyn"}](snap_multi.eps){width="9cm"}
Probability distribution $P(x,t)$
---------------------------------
For $\epsilon=0$, the single particle motion is diffusive and the corresponding probability distribution $P(x,t)$ is known to be Gaussian. This remains true even in the presence of annihilation.
For $\epsilon \neq 0$, $P(x,t)$ changes drastically. The distributions are still symmetric as the motion of individual particles can occur in both directions (left and right). However, there is no peak at the origin ($x=0$) and instead a double peak structure emerges with a dip at $x=0$. To obtain a collapse of the data at different times, we note that the scaling variable is $x/\epsilon t$ for all values of $\epsilon$. We find that the collapsed data can be fit to the form
$$P(x,t)\epsilon t =
f(\frac{x}{\epsilon t})
\propto \exp[-\beta\{(\frac{\gamma x}{\epsilon t})^2-1\}^2].
\label{distri_function}$$
The data collapse in the early time regime is shown in Fig. \[probdistri\]a. However, the data collapse as well as the above scaling form seems to be less accurate at later times. On investigating further, we find that while we attempt to fit the data individually for each $\epsilon$ and $t$ by the form given in Eq. (\[distri\_function\]), only in the early regime ($\epsilon t \lesssim 100$), both $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are constants. While $\gamma$ shows negligible dependence on $\epsilon$ and $t$, $\beta$ strongly depends on $\epsilon t$; beyond $\epsilon t = 100$ it is no longer a constant but increases sharply as a function of $\epsilon t$. Hence the distribution scaled in the above manner shows a dip at the center which goes down with time while the peak heights increase such that the data do not collapse well as shown in Fig. \[probdistri\]b.
The above study suggests that at vary late stages, the scaled distribution will assume a double delta functional form and a universal scaling function exists only in the early time regime ($\epsilon t \lesssim 100$). We can relate the breakdown of the universal behaviour to the crossover phenomena that is revealed more clearly in the following subsections.
![(a): Data collapse of ${P(x,t)\epsilon t}$ against ${x/\epsilon t}$ for $\epsilon=0.2$ and $0.3$ are shown at early time regime, (b): Data collapse of ${\it P(x,t)\epsilon t}$ against ${ \it x/\epsilon t}$ are shown for $\epsilon=0.1,0.2,0.5$ at late time regime. These data are for the $A+A \to \emptyset$ model.[]{data-label="probdistri"}](prob_dist3.eps){width="9cm"}
Probability of change in direction {#prob_dirchange}
----------------------------------
The probability of direction change at time $t$ is obtained by estimating the fraction of walkers that change direction at time t. For $\epsilon=0$, as the system is diffusive, the probability of direction change $S(t) = p_0$, a constant independent of time. For a purely diffusive random walk, $p_0= 0.5$. But here asynchronous dynamics have been used and this updating scheme allows the walkers to remain in the same state within a MCS as already discussed in the previous section. This dynamics can only decrease the probability of change in direction. $p_0$ for $\epsilon=0$ actually turns out to be $\approx 0.27$ numerically.
For $0<\epsilon<0.5$, the change in direction of a walker occurs due to two reasons; either due to the annihilation of a neighbouring walker or because of the diffusive component which is large for small $\epsilon$. At earlier times, the walker density is large and so the number of annihilation is considerable. Therefore the change in direction of the walkers is dominated by the annihilation process. However, as time progresses, annihilation becomes rarer and therefore the diffusive component becomes the dominating factor. So a saturation value $S_{sat}$ of $S(t)$ is reached at a later time, typically after a time $t^*$. The data for $S(t)$ is shown in Fig. \[dir\_change\] and the inset shows the variation of $S_{sat}$ with ${\epsilon_c-\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon_c = 0.5$. As expected, $S_{sat}$ decreases as $\epsilon$ is made larger. In fact, we find that unless $\epsilon$ is very close $\epsilon_c$, the saturation is reached very fast, typically within one hundred MC step. $S_{sat}$ shows a linear variation with $\epsilon_c-\epsilon$, shown in inset of Fig. \[dir\_change\].
![Probability of direction change of tagged particle for different $\epsilon$ in the $A + A \to \emptyset$ model. For $\epsilon=0.5$, it decays as $t^{-1}$. Inset shows the variation of $S_{sat}$ with $\epsilon_c-\epsilon$. []{data-label="dir_change"}](dir1new.eps){width="8cm"}
One can obtain a data collapse by plotting $S(t)t$ against $t(\epsilon _c - \epsilon)$, shown in Fig. \[scale\_dir\]. This indicates that one can write $S(t)$ as $$S(t)=\frac{1}{t} g(z),
\label{dirscale}$$ where $z=t(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)$ and $g(z)$ is a scaling function. $g(z)$ is constant for $z<1$ and $g(z) \sim z$ for large $z$. Therefore, $p_\epsilon \equiv S(t \to \infty) \propto (\epsilon_c - \epsilon)$, which is consistent with the variation of $S_{sat}$ with $(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)$ (see inset of Fig. \[dir\_change\]). Hence one can argue that $t^* = (\epsilon _c - \epsilon)^{-1}$ acts as a timescale, below which $S(t) \propto t^{-\delta}$ with $\delta=1$. As $t^*$ diverges at $\epsilon_c$, there is no saturation region for $\epsilon=\epsilon_c$ and $S(t)$ shows a power law decay, $S(t) \sim t^{-1}$ for all times as shown in Fig. \[dir\_change\]. The divergence of $t^*$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon_c$ justifies that $\epsilon_c$ is the dynamical critical point.
One can argue that the value of $\delta$ is unity for the deterministic case $\epsilon = 0.5$, where the walker always moves towards its nearer neighbour. A direction change can occur only if an adjacent walker is annihilated (however, this is a necessary but not sufficient condition). Let $A(t)$ be the number of annihilation taking place at time $t$. If $N(t)$ is the number of walkers at time $t$, $A(t)$ is given by $- \frac {dN}{dt} \propto t^{-\alpha - 1} = t^{-2}$. Since $N(t)$ is proportional to $t^{-1}$ and $S(t)$ is proportional to $A(t)/N(t)$, therefore $S(t) \sim t^{-1}$. It may be added here that $A(t)$ and $N(t)$ have the same behaviour for all $\epsilon \neq 0$, however, for $\epsilon \neq 0.5$, direction change may occur even when there is no annihilation. The above argument is valid only for $\epsilon = 0.5$ for which there is no diffusive component. However, the fact that $S(t) \propto t^{-1}$ in the early time regime for $\epsilon\neq 0.5$ also, shows that the annihilation plays the key role in the dynamics here; the diffusive component is virtually ineffective. Clearly a crossover behaviour occurs in time. The crossover occurs at a time when annihilation becomes rare. This depends on two factors: the density of the walkers and the strength of the bias. In time, the density decreases and beyond the crossover time $t^*$, the bias is not strong enough to cause two particles to come close enough and cause an annihilation. The motion effectively becomes uncorrelated. Obviously, the crossover occurs at later times as $\epsilon$, representing the bias, becomes larger and the inherent diffusive component becomes weaker making annihilations more probable. Therefore, at $\epsilon = 0.5$, the fully biased point, $S(t) \propto t^{-1}$ and the crossover time diverges.
The nature of the walk remains ballistic in all regimes due to the bias, however small, to move towards the nearest neighbours. This is consistent with the conjecture that the probability distribution assumes a double delta form at large times mentioned in the last subsection.
![Variation of $S(t)t$ with $t|\epsilon-\epsilon _c|$ shows a data collapse for both the models $A + A \to \emptyset$ and $A + A \to A$, where $\epsilon _c=0.5$. Data for the $A + A \to A$ model have been shifted along $y$ axis for better clarity. The linear regions in the log-log plot are fitted to power law forms with the exponent very close to unity.[]{data-label="scale_dir"}](scale_dir.eps){width="9.6cm"}
Distribution of time intervals between consecutive change in direction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting quantity is $D(\tau)$, the interval of time $\tau$ spent without change in direction of motion. For random walkers with $\epsilon=0$, the probability that in the time interval $\tau$, there is no direction change is given by
$$D(\tau)={p_0}^{2}({1-p_0})^{\tau}.$$
This reduces to an exponential form: $D(\tau)\propto
\exp[-\tau \ln \{1/(1-p_0)\}]$. Fig. \[timedist\]a shows the data for $D(\tau)$ for $\epsilon=0$. From the numerical simulation, we find $D(\tau) \sim \exp(-\tau \ln 1.38)$ for $\epsilon=0$, which is consistent with $p_0 \approx 0.27$.
For general values of $\epsilon \neq 0$, we note that $D(\tau)$ obeys the following form
$$D(\tau) \sim \frac{1}{\tau^2} \phi(z),
\label{timedist_expo}$$
where $z = \tau(\epsilon_c-\epsilon)$ is the scaling argument and $\phi(z)$ is the scaling function. $\phi(z)$ is constant for $ z<1$ and proportional to $\exp(-z)$ for $z \gg 1$. The data are shown in Fig. \[timedist\]b.
Thus it is indicated that here also a crossover behaviour occurs at $\tau=\tau ^*$ with $\tau^* \propto (\epsilon_c -\epsilon)^{-1}$, beyond which the exponential decay is observed and below which there will be a power law behaviour. Obviously for $\epsilon=0.5$, $\tau^*$ diverges such that only the power law decay will be observed with an exponent 2 which is indeed the case as shown in Fig. \[timedist\]c.
It can be argued why the exponent is $2$ for $\epsilon=0.5$. Suppose the walker moves without direction change in the interval $t_0+1$ to $t_0+\tau$. This means it changes direction at times $t_0$ and $t_0+\tau+1$. Hence, $D(t_0,\tau)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D(t_0,\tau)&=&S(t_0) S(t_0+\tau+1) \prod _{x=1}^{\tau}[1-S(t_0+x)].
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using the variation of $S(t) \propto 1/t$ obtained in the last subsection, $$\begin{aligned}
D(t_0,\tau)& \propto &(t_0^{-1}) (t_0+\tau+1)^{-1} \prod _{x=1}^{\tau}(1-\frac{1}{t_0+x}).
\label{timeeq3} \end{aligned}$$
Taking logarithm of both sides of Eq. (\[timeeq3\]) and converting summation into an integral, one gets
$$\begin{aligned}
\ln D(t_0,\tau)&=&-2 \ln(t_0+\tau),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
apart from a constant factor. One can always choose the origin $t_0$ to be zero, such that $$\begin{aligned}
D(\tau) \sim \tau^{-2}\end{aligned}$$ showing consistency with the numerical results. (Fig. \[timedist\]b).
One can also justify the crossover behaviour for $0<\epsilon<0.5$. Here, the crossover behaviour in $S(t)$ found in Sec. \[prob\_dirchange\], should be taken into account while calculating $D(\tau)$. $S(t)$ decays in a power law manner at short times to a constant value in the late time regime. The relatively larger value of $S(t)$ will be responsible for the behaviour of $D(\tau)$ for small $\tau$. Hence, for small $\tau$, the power law behaviour of $S(t)$ will be relevant for which it has been already shown that $D(\tau) \propto \tau^{-2}$. On the other hand, the constant (lower) value of $S(t)$ will be responsible for contribution to $D(\tau)$ for large values of $\tau$. For $t>t^*$, $S(t) = p_{\epsilon} = a_0(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)$, where $a_0$ is a constant less than unity (see Fig. \[scale\_dir\]). Using this value, one gets therefore $D(\tau)= (p_{\epsilon} )^2 (1-p_{\epsilon})^{\tau} \sim
\exp(\tau \ln (1- a_0(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)))$. As $a_0(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)$ is less than unity, the expression for $D(\tau)$ simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
D(\tau) \sim \exp(-a_0(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)\tau).
\label{expfit}\end{aligned}$$ $D(\tau)$ can indeed be fit to an exponential form for large values of $\tau$ (see Fig. \[timedist\]d): $D(\tau) \sim \exp(-b\tau)$ (as long as $\epsilon$ is not very close to $\epsilon_c$ for reasons that will be clarified later) and $b$ can be fitted to the form $$b=b_0 (\epsilon_c-\epsilon), \label{cfit}$$ where $b_0=0.5$, shown in Fig. \[bvariplot\]. This agrees with the expectation that $b$ should be varying linearly with $(\epsilon _c -\epsilon)$ as indicated by Eq. (\[expfit\]). It is also observed that $b$ approaches the value $\ln 1.38$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ and $b\rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon _c =0.5 $ (Fig. \[bvariplot\]).
Fig. \[timedist\]b shows that for large values of the argument, beyond the crossover, the data collapse is not of very good quality. This is because as $\epsilon$ approaches 0.5 the crossover time increases and the exponential behaviour exists only for very large values of $\tau$ where the statistics is obviously poorer. This is the reason for which the estimation of $b$ for $\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon_c$ becomes less reliable as mentioned before. On the other hand, to show the power law region one has to use values of $\epsilon$ fairly close to 0.5.
![Variation of $b$ and $b^\prime$ with $\epsilon_c-\epsilon$ shown in a log-log plot when $\epsilon$ is very close to 0.5 and inset shows the variation with $\epsilon$ for the full range.[]{data-label="bvariplot"}](b_epsi_both.eps){width="8cm"}
Results for $A+ A \to A$ ($k=1$) model {#AAA}
======================================
For the $A + A \to A$ model, the $\epsilon =0$ case is known to have the scaling form for the fraction of surviving particles as $\rho(t)
\propto t^{-1/2}$ [@krap_ballistic]. In the biased case, with any $\epsilon \neq 0$ we find that the scaling is again like the $A + A \to 0$ case (with bias) as $\rho(t) \propto t^{-1}$ shown in Fig. \[alive\_both\]. Typical snapshots of the walk are shown in Fig. \[snap\_asyn\](c) and (d).
![Variation of $\rho(t)$ with $t$ is shown in a log-log plot for different values of $\epsilon$ for $A+A \to \emptyset$ and $A+A \to A$ models. []{data-label="alive_both"}](alive_both.eps){width="7cm"}
For the motion of the tagged particles in the $A + A \to A$ model, we restrict the study to the probability of direction change and distribution of the time interval of motion executed without direction change. Again we find no significant change from the behaviour for the $A + A \to 0$ case., i.e., here also $S(t) \propto t^{-1}$ for $\epsilon = 0.5$ while for other values of $\epsilon$, there is a crossover to a diffusive behaviour. In fact, when $S(t)t$ is plotted against $t(\epsilon_c -\epsilon)$, we again find that the scaling function has a constant part and a linear variation at larger values of the scaled variable (Fig. \[scale\_dir\]).
One can, in fact, use the same argument to justify the scaling behaviour $S(t) \propto t^{-1}$ for $\epsilon = 0.5$. This is because in this case also, the only way the direction change can take place is through annihilation. However, there is a subtle difference. For the $A + A \to \emptyset$ model, when two particles are annihilated, direction change can take place for their neighbouring particles. On the other hand, in the $A+A \to A $ case, the direction change may occur for the surviving particle while its neighbouring particles usually remain unaffected (see Fig. \[snap\_asyn\]). Another important point to note is that in the scaling function for $S(t)t$, the linear fitting is appropriate beyond a larger value of the scaled variable, i.e., the crossover to diffusive behaviour takes place later in the $A + A \to A$ model in comparison (see Fig. \[scale\_dir\]). This is consistent with our inference that the early time regime is annihilation dominated as the annihilations in the $A + A \to A$ continue for a longer time.
The distribution for the time intervals of motion without change in direction again shows similar scaling. In Fig. \[timedist\](b), we show the comparative behaviour for the two models. The tail of the scaling function is obtained once again as $\exp(-b^\prime \tau)$, where $b^\prime $ shows a linear variation with $(\epsilon_c - \epsilon)$ (Fig. \[bvariplot\]).
DISCUSSIONS
===========
We have studied the motion of the tagged particles $A$, in one dimension, undergoing the reaction $A+A\rightarrow kA$ with $k=0$ and 1 with the additional feature that a particle walks with a probability $0.5+\epsilon$ towards its nearest neighbour and with a probability $0.5-\epsilon$ in the other direction. This is perhaps one of the simplest models which exhibits critical dynamics.
The particles, when $\epsilon =0$, perform normal random walk, so their motions are not correlated. The reaction makes the fraction $\rho$ of particles decay with time $t$ as $N(t) \sim t^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha=1/2$. For any non-zero $\epsilon$, the value of $\alpha$ has been found to be altered to 1. The value of $\alpha=1$ suggests that the particle motion is not random anymore but is ballistic. However, it has to be remembered that $A+A \rightarrow \emptyset$ model with ballistic walkers $A$ do not correspond to $\alpha=1$ and the results depend on the distribution of initial velocities of the particles [@krap_ballistic; @bennaim].
Studying the tagged particles reveal that the effect of $\epsilon$ in conjunction with the annihilation reaction makes the dynamics of the particles correlated over a large time scale. This time scale depends on $\epsilon$ and diverges at $\epsilon=0.5$. Consequently, the dynamics become critical, in the sense that, the probability $S(t)$ of the particles to change the direction of their motions reduces with time as $1/t$ and the distribution $D(\tau)$ of time interval $\tau$ over which the particles on average move along the same direction follows power law: $D(\tau) \sim 1/\tau^2$.
Detailed study of $S(t)$ and $D(\tau)$ shows that there is a crossover from the annihilation dominated regime to a (partially) diffusive regime at time $t^* \propto (\epsilon_c-\epsilon)^{-1}$. Beyond $t^*$, $S(t)$ is a constant for $0 < \epsilon < 0.5$, although the actual value is less compared to the unbiased case $\epsilon =0$. However, the overall motion is still ballistic, $\langle |x| \rangle \sim t$, for any $\epsilon> 0$ because of the presence of the bias. This is supported by the behaviour of the distribution $P(x,t)$ tending towards a double delta function (studied for the $k=0$ model) at very late times while for $\epsilon=0$, the distribution is always Gaussian.
It may be mentioned here that the change in the behaviour of the probability distribution from a Gaussian for $\epsilon =0$ to a bimodal form for $\epsilon \neq 0$ is reminiscent of the order parameter distribution above and below the critical temperature for Ising like systems; the form in Eq. (\[distri\_function\]) is also similar to the case for continuous spins.
In conclusion, we have shown how the bias to move towards nearest neighbours generates correlation in the motion of the particles in a simple $A+A \rightarrow kA$ reaction process. Also, we conclude that the divergences in the timescales and power law behaviour in the relevant dynamical variables indicate that $\epsilon_c = 0.5$ is a dynamical critical point. In the present study we have detected a crossover from a correlated to a individual motion scenario in the presence of the bias. Simultaneously we obtain two new dynamical exponents using Monte Carlo simulation and simple arguments and calculation. The reaction is not dependent on the bias and except for the point $\epsilon=0.5$, the motion is still stochastic. The present study is able to manifest at the individual level the precise role of the bias and how the dynamics are different from simple ballistic motion.
Acknowledgement: The authors thank DST-SERB project, File no. EMR/2016/005429 (Government of India) for financial support. Discussions with Soham Biswas is also acknowledged.
[99]{} Privman V., ed. [*Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics in One Dimension*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997). Ligget T. M., [*Interacting Particle Systems*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, (1985). Krapivsky P. L., Redner S. and Ben-Naim E., [*A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009). Odor G., Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 663 (2004). Derrida B., J. Phys. A Math. Gen. [**28**]{}, 1481 (1995). Racz Z., Phys. Rev. lett. [**55**]{}, 1707 (1985). Amar J. G. and Family F., Phys. Rev. A [**41**]{}, 3258 (1990). ben-Avraham D., Burschka M. A., and Doering C. R., J. Stat. Phys. [**60**]{}, 695 (1990). Alcaraz F. C., Droz M., Henkel M. and Rittenberg V. , Ann. Phys. [**230**]{}, 250 (1994). Krebs K., Pfannmuller M. P., Wehefritz B. and Hinrinchsen H. , J. Stat. Phys. [**78**]{}, 1429 (1995). Santos J. E., Schutz G. M. and Stinchcombe R. B., J. Chem. Phys. [**105**]{}, 2399 (1996). Schutz G. M., Z. Phys. B [**104**]{}, 583 (1997). de Oliveira M. J., Brazilian Journal of Physics, [**30**]{} 128 (2000). Kang K. and Redner S., Phys. Rev. A [**30**]{}, 2833 (1984); [**32**]{}, 435 (1985). Peliti L., J. Phys. A [**19**]{}, L365 (1986). Zumofen G., Blumen A. and Klafter J., J. Chem. Phys. [**82**]{}, 3198 (1985). Droz M. and Sasvari L., Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, R2343 (1993). Krapivsky P. L. and Ben-Naim E., Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 3788 (1997). Ben-Naim E., Redner S. and Leyvraz F., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1890 (1993). Krapivsky L. and Sire C., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2494 (2001). Albano E. V., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**24**]{}, 3351 (1991). Ben-Naim E., Krapivsky P. L. and Randon-Furling J., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**49**]{}, 205003 (2016).
Biswas S., Sen P. and Ray P., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. [**297**]{}, 012003 (2011). Sen P. and Ray P., Phys. Rev. E [**92**]{}, 012109 (2015). Daga B. and Ray P., Phys. Rev. E [**99**]{}, 032104 (2019). Mullick P. and Sen P., Phys. Rev. E [**99**]{}, 052123 (2019).
Biswas S. and Sen P. , Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 027101 (2009).
appendix
========
Here we argue that the spin model proposed in [@soham_ps2009] has a one to one correspondence with the particle/walker model when $\epsilon = 0.5$ for $k=0$. In [@soham_ps2009], spins with state $\pm 1$ are considered on a one dimensional lattice. A spin flips when it sits at the boundary of two domains of oppositely oriented spins. At subsequent times, the state of the spins is determined by the size of the two neighbouring domains; it is simply changed to the sign of the spins in the larger domain. Thus the smaller domain shrinks further and one can have an equivalent picture of a particle which moves towards its nearest neighbour. The scheme is illustrated in Fig. \[spin\_fig\].
![A schematic picture of the dynamics taking place in the model proposed in [@soham_ps2009]. (a) Case I: Here, the highlighted spin changes its state as the neighbouring domain of down spins is of size two while the size of the other neighbouring domain of up spins is five. Equivalently, in the walker picture, the interface $A$ moves towards $B$, which is closer to it compared to $C$.\
(b) Case II: When a down (up) spin is sandwiched between up (down) spins, it will always flip which leads to annihilation of $A$ and $B$.[]{data-label="spin_fig"}](spin.eps){width="10cm"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the paper we present a proof of the local criterion for crystalline structures which generalizes the local criterion for regular systems. A Delone set is called a crystal if it is invariant with respect to a crystallgraphic group. So-called locally antipodal Delone sets, i.e. such sets in which all $2R$-clusters are centrally symmetrical, are considered. It turns out that the local antipodal sets have crystalline structure. Moreover, if in a locally antipodal set all $2R$-clusters are the same the set is a regular system, i.e. a Delone set whose symmetry group operates transitively on the set.'
author:
- |
Nikolay Dolbilin\
Steklov Mathematical Institute\
of the Russian Academy of Sciences\
[email protected]
date:
title: |
**Delone Sets: Local Identity\
and Global Symmetry [^1]**
---
=-0.1cm =-5mm
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
0.3cm
Introduction
============
This paper continues an investigative line started in the pioneering work \[5\] on local conditions in a Delone set $X$ to imply that set $X$ is either a regular system, i.e. a crystallographic orbit of a single point, or a crystal, i.e. the orbit of a few points. On Fig. 1 one can see the set $X_1$ of blue points which sit at nodes of the square grid and the set $X_2$ of red point quadruples. Each of these sets is a regular system because each of them is an orbit of a 2D-crystallographic group p4m (the full group of the standard square grid on the plane). The union $X=X_1\cup X_2$ of the sets $X_1$ and $X_2$ is a crystallographic orbit of two points, i.e. it is an example of a crystal.
So, a mathematical model of an ideal crystal uses two concepts: the concept of the Delone set (which is of local character) and the concept of the crystallographic group (which is of global character). After Fedorov \[8\] a mathematical model of a mono-crystalline matter is defined as a Delone set which is invariant with respect to some crystallographic group. One should emphasize that under this definition the well-known periodicity of crystal in all 3 dimensions is not an additional requirement. By the famous Schönflies-Bieberbach theorem \[3,4\], any space group contains a translational subgroup with a finite index.
Since the crystallization is such a process that results from mutual interaction of nearby atoms, it is believed (R. Feynman, N.V. Belov, at al) that the long-range order of atomic structures of crystals (and quasi-crystals too) comes out of local rules restricting the arrangement of nearby atoms. R. Feynman wrote (\[10\], Ch. 30): “when the atoms of matter are not moving around very much, they get stuck together and arrange themselves in a configuration with as low an energy as possible. If the atoms in a certain place have found a pattern which seems to be of low energy, then the atoms somewhere else will probably make the same arrangement. For these reasons, we have in a solid material a repetitive pattern of atoms. In other words, the conditions in a crystal are this way: The environment of a particular atom in a crystal has a certain arrangement, and if you look at the same kind of an atom at another place farther along, you will find one whose surroundings are exactly the same. If you pick an atom farther along by the same distance, you will find the conditions exactly the same once more. The pattern is repeated over and over again, and, of course, in three dimensions.” The crystallographer N.V. Belov also suggested similar arguments in a problem “on the 501st element”.
However, before 1970’s there were no whatever rigorous results to explain a link between properties of local patterns and the global order in the internal structure of crystals until Delone and his students initiated developing the local theory of crystals \[5\]. One of two main aims of the local theory was (and is) rigorous derivation of space group symmetry of a crystalline structure from the pairwise identity of local arrangements around each atom.
One should mention that the link between the identity of local fragments of a structure and global order of the structure seemed obvious, and searching for an exact wording of this connection and its rigorous proof were
seen a purely abstract goal that would be of interest only to mathematicians.
However, the subsequent discovery of non-periodic Penrose patterns (1977) and the discovery by D. Shechtman of real quasicrystals (1982, Nobel Prize in 2011) have showed that there are non-periodic structures which are as locally identical as crystals. These discoveries suggest that the connection between the local identity and the global order is not so obvious. One of the goals of the local theory of global order was to look for right wordings of statements and then prove them.
The local theory has been developed for Delone sets as well as for polyhedral tilings, including combinatorial aspects of the theory (see e.g. \[11,12,13\]).
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we give definitions of all necessary concepts and short survey of some earlier results. Then we give formulation of the local criterion for a crystal and of several new “local” theorems on locally antipodal Delone sets (Theorems 1– 5), which will be proved in concluding sections of the paper.
Basic Definitions and Results
=============================
**Definition 2.1**. A point set $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is called a *Delone set* with parameters $r$ and $R$, where $r$ and $R>0$, (or an $(r,R)$-*system*, see \[1,2\] ), if two conditions hold: (1) an open $d$-ball $B^o_y(r)$ of radius $r$ centered at an *arbitrary* point $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$ contains at most one point from $X$: $$|B^o_y(r)\cap X|\leq 1; \eqno(r)$$ (2) a closed $d$-ball $B_y(R)$ of radius $R$ centered at an arbitrary point $y$ contains at least one point from $X$: $$|B_y(R)\cap X|\geq 1. \eqno(R)$$ We note that by condition $(r)$ the distance between any two points $x$ and $x'\in X$ is not less than $2r$.
For $x\in X$ we denote $C_x(\rho):=X\cap B_x(\rho)$ and will call the set $C_x(\rho)\subset X$ a $\rho$-*cluster* of point $x$. Thus, a $\rho$-cluster $C_x(\rho)$ consists of all points of $X$ that are placed from $x$ at distance at most $\rho$. It is easy to see that for $\rho<2r$ $C_x(\rho)=\{x\}$. It is well-known that for $\rho\geq 2R$, the $\rho$-cluster $C_x(\rho)$ of any point $x\in X$ has the full rank: the dimension of conv($C_x(\rho))=d$
In principle, the $\rho$-cluster $C_x(\rho)$ is considered as a pair (the center $x$, the point set $C_x(\rho)$). However, since notation $C_x(\rho)$ contains information on the center $x$ we can miss the notation of a cluster as the pair. We emphasize that we distinguish between $\rho$-clusters $C_x(\rho)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho)$ of different points $x$ and $x'$, even if the two sets generally may coincide (see Fig. 1).
**Definition 2.2**. Two $\rho$-clusters $C_x(\rho)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho)$ are called *equivalent*, if there is an isometry $g\in O(d)$ such that
$g:x\mapsto x'$ and
$g: C_x(\rho)\rightarrow C_{x'}(\rho)$.
We emphasize that the requirement of equivalence of two clusters is some stronger than just of congruence of sets of points that enter these clusters. Two clusters depicted on fig.1 around two points $x$ and $x'$ coincide as subsets of $X$. However, since this subset of $X$ surrounds the points $x$ and $x'$ in different ways it is natural to distinguish between the $\rho$-clusters $C_x(\rho)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho)$. Indeed, the clusters $C_x(\rho)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho)$ are non-equivalent because there is no isometry that moves both point $x$ and cluster $C_x(\rho)$ into point $x'$ and cluster $C_{x'}(\rho)$, respectively.
In a Delone set for any $\rho>0$ a set of clusters is partitioned into classes of equivalent $\rho$-clusters. For any given $\rho$ if $\rho<2r$, $\rho$-cluster at any point of $X$ consists of a single point: $C_x(\rho)=\{x\}$, i.e. all “small” $\rho$-clusters in $X$ are equivalent. Given Delone set $X$, we denote by $N(\rho)$ the cardinality of a set of equivalence classes of $\rho$-clusters in $X$.
We have in any Delone set $X$ $N(\rho)=1$ for $\rho<2r$. However, for larger $\rho$, $\rho > 2r$, $N(\rho)$ can be generally infinite.
**Definition 2.3**. A Delone set $X$ is said to be *of finite type* if for each $\rho>0$ the number $N(\rho)$ of classes of $\rho$-clusters is finite.
As we said, for any Delone set $X$ function $N(\rho)$ is always defined and equal to 1 for all $\rho<1$. It is not hard to prove the following:
**Statement 2.1**. *Function $N(\rho)<\infty$ for all $\rho>0$ if $N(2R)< \infty $.*
The key reason of this fact is as follows. Given $X$, the condition $N(2R)<\infty$ implies, that in a Delone tiling for set $X$ (see \[2\]) there are just finitely many pairwise non-congruent tiles. Next, we note that in the Delone tiling, that is, importantly, face-to-face, any two convex finite $d$-polyhedra $P$ and $Q$ that share a common $(d-1)$-face can form just finitely many non-congruent pairs $(P,Q)$. From here it follows in the Delone tiling with $N(2R)<\infty $ for any $\rho$ there are just finitely many non-congruent fillings of a ball $B_x(\rho)$. The finiteness of different parts of the tiling of size $\rho$ implies the finiteness of $N(\rho)$.
Now we take a point $x\in X$ and the cluster $C_x(2R)$. Points of the cluster uniquely determine all Delone cells for $X$ that meet at point $x$. Now, since $N(2R)<\infty$ the number of non-congruent Delone cells in a Delone tiling for $X$ is finite. Due to this finiteness and also to above-mentioned finiteness of the number of pairs of $P$ and $Q$ glue along their common hyperface. These two sorts of finiteness imply just finite number of non-congruent fillings of a ball of radius $\rho$ with Delone tiles. It follows that every $2R$-cluster $C_x(2R)$ admits just a finite number of non-congruent extensions to a $\rho$-cluster $C_x(\rho)$. Since, by assumption, there are finitely many pairwise non-congruent $2R$-clusters, then there are finitely many $\rho$-clusters for any given $\rho>0$.
From now on, we will consider Delone sets of finite type only. We note that in such a Delone set the number $N(\rho)$ of $\rho$-clusters is a positive, integer-valued, non-decreasing, piece-wise constant function, continuous on the right.
Very important examples of Delone sets are the so-called *regular systems* and *crystals*. The concept of the regular system was studied by E.S.Fedorov \[8\]. Regular systems are discrete homogenous sets which looks the same up to infinity from any its point. Here is an equivalent definition in terms of a Delone set.
**Definition 2.4** A *regular system* is a Delone set $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ whose symmetry group acts transitively, i.e. for any two points $x$ and $x'\in X $ there is an isometry $g\in Iso(d)$ such that
$g:x\mapsto x'$ и $g: X\rightarrow X$
.
Recall that a group $G\subset Iso(d)$ is called a *crystallographic group* if (1) $G$ operates discontinuously at each point $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$, i.e. if for any point $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$ orbit $G\cdot y$ is a discrete set; (2) $G$ has a compact fundamental domain.
One can reformulate the definition of a regular set in terms of a crystallographic group. We emphasize that in the following statement we do not require that $X$ is a Delone set. This condition results from properties of a crystallographic group.
**Statement 2.2**. *A set $X\subset
\mathbb{R}^d$ is a regular system if and only if the set $X$ is an orbit of a point $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ with respect to a crystallographic group $G\subset Iso(d)$.*
A regular set is an important particular case of the more general concept of a *crystal*.
**Definition 2.5**. A *crystal* is a Delone set $X$ such that $X$ is a finite collection of orbits with respect to its symmetry group Sym$(X)$: $X=$Sym$(X)\cdot X_0$, where $X_0$ is a finite point set.
It is not hard to prove that the symmetry group of a crystal is a crystallographic group. Thus we have the following statement.
**Statement 2.3**. *A set $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a crystal if and only if it is an orbit of a finite set $X_0$ with respect to a crystallographic group $G$, i.e. $X=G\cdot X_0$.*
These classes of Delone sets can be described via the cluster counting function $N(\rho)$ as follows. A Delone set of finite type is a regular system if and only if $N(\rho)\equiv 1$ on $R_+$. A Delone set is a crystal if and only if its cluster counting function is bounded: $$N(\rho)\leq m <\infty, \,\,\, \hbox{ where } m\leq |X_0|.$$ If $m=1$, then a crystal is a regular system.
The above-mentioned definitions of a regular system and a crystal go back to Fedorov, \[8\]. Earlier, before Fedorov’s work, a crystal had been considered as a set of pairwise congruent and parallel lattices. The definition of a crystal in terms of regular systems seemed to generalize the Haui-Bravais concept of a crystal as a 3D periodic Delone set.
However, indeed, due to the Schönflis-Bieberbach theorem, the more general structure of a regular system is also the union of lattices. Therefore, due to the Fedorov definition, a crystal is the union of several lattices exactly as in the Haui-Bravais approach.
Indeed, let $h$ be the index of the translational subgroup of a crystallographic group $G\subset Iso(d)$, $|X_0|$ the number of points in $X_0$, then a crystal $G\cdot X_0$ splits into $m$ pairwise congruent and parallel lattices of rank $d$: $$G\cdot X_0= \cup_i^m (T\cdot x_i \cup T \cdot g_2(x_i) \cup \ldots
\cup T\cdot g_h(x_i)), \,\,\, x_i\in X_0.$$ We note that $m$ is strictly smaller than $h\cdot |X_0|$ if some points $x_i$ and $x_j$ in $X_0$ belong to one $G$-orbit.
Now we define the *group* $S_x(\rho)$ of $\rho$-cluster $C_x(\rho)$ as a subgroup of Iso$(d)$ to consist of those isometries $s$, such that $$s:x\mapsto x, \, s: C_x(\rho)\longrightarrow C_x(\rho).$$ Let us denote by $M_x(\rho)$ the order of the group $S_x(\rho)$. Since the rank of $C_x(2R)$ in a Delone set $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ equals $d$, the order $1\leq M_x(\rho)
<\infty$, i.e. the function $M_x(\rho)$ is defined for all $\rho\geq 2R$.
The function $M_x(\rho)$ for all $\rho\geq 2R$ takes positive integer values, is continuous on the left and non-increasing. Moreover, the ratio $M_x(\rho):M_x(\rho')$ is integer if $\rho'>\rho$. In fact, it is obvious that the group $S_x(\rho')$ of a bigger cluster $C_x(\rho')$ either coincides with $S_x(\rho)$, or it is a proper subgroup of $S_x(\rho)$, $\rho'>\rho$.
Let $X$ be a Delone set of finite type. Then for any positive $\rho $ the set $X$ splits into a finite number $N(\rho)$ of subsets $X_1, X_2, \ldots , X_{N(\rho)}$, such that points $x$ and $x'$ from every one subset $X_i$ have equivalent $\rho$-clusters $C_x(\rho)$ и $C_{x'}(\rho)$, but at points from different subsets $X_i$ and $X_j$ the $\rho$-clusters are not equivalent. The groups of equivalent $\rho$-clusters are conjugate in $Iso(d)$ and consequently have the same order $M_i(\rho)$, where $i$ is the index of a subset $X_i$, $i\in
[1,N(\rho)]$.
One of main goals of the local theory of regular systems is to determine a radius $\hat \rho$ such that any Delone set $X$ (with parameters $r$ and $R$) with $N(\hat \rho)=1$ is a regular system. Certainly, the answer may depend on the dimension. So, for $d=1$ it is easy to see that a Delone set on a line is a regular system if $N(2R)=1$. The value $2R$ cannot be improved: in fact, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there are Delone sets with $N(2R-\varepsilon)=1$ that are not regular systems. The first important result in the local theory of regular systems was obtained in \[5\].
**Theorem 2.1** (Local criterion for regular systems). *A Delone set $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ (with parameters $r$ and $R$ is a regular system if and only if for some $\rho_0>0$ the following conditions hold:* (I) $N(\rho_0+2R)=1$; (II) $M(\rho_0)=M(\rho_0+2R)$.
Condition (I) means that $(\rho_0+2R)$-clusters at all points $x\in X$ are equivalent. Therefore the groups $S_x(\rho_o+2R)$ of the clusters are pairwise conjugate. Due to condition (II) for each point $x\in X$ the groups $S_x(\rho_0)$ and $S_x(\rho_0+2R)$ coincide.
Let us select among Delone sets with $N(2R)=1$ *locally asymmetric* sets, i.e. such that the group $S_x(2R)$ is trivial. From the local criterion follows a theorem for locally asymmetric Delone sets.
**Theorem 2.2** \[Locally asymmetric sets\]. *Let a Delone set $X\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be locally asymmetric set and $N(4R)=1$. Then $X$ is a regular system, i.e. $N(\rho)\equiv 1, \forall
\rho>2R$.*
The theorem immediately follows from the criterion for $\rho_0=2R$.
It is amazing that due to the following theorem the condition $N(4R)=1$ can not be reduced.
**Theorem 2.3** ($(4R-\varepsilon)$-theorem ). *For any given $\varepsilon>0$ and any dimension $d$, $d\geq 2$ there is a Delone set $X\subset
\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $N(4R-\varepsilon)=1$, but $X$ is not a regular system.*
The theorem is proved by means of an explicit construction. Below we present such a design for dimension $d=2$. This construction can be easily extended to any dimension $d$.
We start constructing the design with a rectangular lattice $\Lambda$ (Fig. 2, on the left). The lattice $\Lambda$ has a fundamental rectangle with side length $a$ and $b$ where $a<<b$. It is clear that the parameter $R=\sqrt{b^2+a^2}/2$. Since $a<<b$ we have $$2R\sim b(1+a/2b)=b+a/2.$$
Horizontal rows of the $\Lambda$ form a bi-infinite sequence with indices $i\in \mathbb{Z}$. The set of the rows splits into couples $P_{2i}$ of rows with sequel indices $(i,i+1)$ where the first one $i$ is even. Let us take $c$ so that $0<c<a/2$ and shift **each** couple $P_{i+1}$ relatively to the previous couple $P_i$ by $c$ to the left or to the right.
We get a sequence of mutually shifted rows that can be encoded a bi-infinite sequence $l=\ldots RLLRL\ldots$. There are uncountably many different bi-infinite binary sequences $\{l\}$. The corresponding Delone sets $X_l$ have the same parameters $r$ and $R$. Among the sequences $\{l\}$ there are exactly 3 ones such that the corresponding Delone sets are regular systems. Two sequences $\ldots LLLL \ldots $ and $\ldots RRRR \ldots $ generate two congruent each other regular systems. The third bi-infinite sequence $\ldots RLRLRL\ldots $ encodes one more regular system to be mirror symmetrical to itself. All the other Delone sets from the family are not regular systems, though as it is easy to see that all of them have the same $b$-clusters $C_x(b)$. Since $b\sim 2R-a/2$ and $a>0$ can be chosen arbitrarily small, we get the theorem.
$\cdots RRR\cdots$ $\cdots
RLRL\cdots$ $\cdots RLL\cdots $
Fig.2
In this context it is particularly interesting to note that there are the following results for Delone sets in an Euclidean plane and in 3D space:
**Theorem 2.5** (Regular systems, $d=2,3$).
\(1) *Let $X\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a Delone set in plane, if $N(4R)=1,$ then $X$ is a regular system.*
\(2) *Let and $X\subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a Delone set, if $N(10R)=1,$ then $X$is a regular system.*
This result was obtained by M. Stogrin and by N. Dolbilin independently years ago; however a (complete) proof remains unpublished if one does not take into account publications on key ideas. As for point (1) of theorem 2.5, case $d=2$, here we just mention that the part of the theorem can be derived from the following theorem:
**Theorem 2.6** \[15\]. *A tiling of Euclidean plane by convex polygons is regular, i.e. a tiling with a transitive symmetry group, if all first coronas are equivalent*.
Details of the proof of the $10R$-theorem for regular systems in $\mathbb{R}^3$ will appear in \[14\]. Here we just mention that, due to the $(4R-\varepsilon)$-theorem, the estimate $4R$ for plane is the best estimate. As for the estimate $10R$ for 3D-space, it looks much higher than the actual one. The difficulty lies in the fact that we can not deal effectively with the $4R$-cluster group.
In this regard, it is especially remarkable that in the case where the $2R$-cluster group contains the central symmetry, a sufficient condition on regular systems becomes extremely simple and holds for any dimension.
**Definition 2.6**. A Delone set $X$ is called a *locally antipodal* set if the $2R$-cluster $C_x(2R)$ for each point $x\in X$ is centrally symmetrical about the cluster center $x$.
Now we present several theorems to be proved in the next sections.
**Theorem 1** . *If $X$ is a locally antipodal set and $N(2R)=1$, then $X$ is a regular system.*
**Theorem 2**. *A locally antipodal Delone set $X$ is centrally symmetrical about each point $x\in X$ globally.*
We emphasize that in either theorem 2 or in the following theorem 3, no condition on the cluster counting function $N(\rho)$ is required. Moreover, we do not require even that a Delone set $X$ is of finite type.
**Theorem 3**. *A locally antipodal Delone set $X\subset
\mathbb{R}^d$ is a crystal. Moreover, $X$ is the disjoint union of at most $2^d-1$ congruent and parallel lattices:* $$X = \bigsqcup\limits_{i = 1}^n (x + \lambda _i/2 + \Lambda),$$ where $\Lambda$ is the maximum lattice for $X$ such that $X+\Lambda=X$, $\lambda_i\in \Lambda$ and $\lambda_i\equiv \lambda_j (\mod 2)\Leftrightarrow i=j$, $n<2^d$.
Theorems 1– 3 have been published in part in \[7\] and \[8\]. In this paper theorems 1 and 2 are easily derived from the following theorem.
**Theorem 4** (Uniqueness theorem). *Let $X$ and $Y$ be Delone sets with the parameter $R$, suppose they have a point $x$ in common. Let the $2R$-clusters of $X$ and $Y$ centered at this point $x$ coincide, i.e. $C_x(2R)=C'_x(2R)$, where $C_x(\rho)$ stands for a cluster in $X$ and $C'_y(\rho )$ for a cluster in $Y$. Then $X=Y$.*
In the conclusion to this section we present a local criterion for a crystal. This criterion generalizes the local criterion for regular systems. It was announced \[6\] and proved a while ago but a full proof was published recently \[7\] (in Russian). The proof in this paper is a slight improvement of the proof in \[7\].
**Theorem 5** (Local criterion for a crystal). *A Delone set $X$ of finite type is a crystal which consists of $m$ regular systems if and only if there is some $\rho_0>0$ such that two conditions hold*: 1) $N(\rho_0)=N(\rho_0+2R)=m;$ 2) $S_x(\rho_0)=S_x(\rho_0+2R), \forall x\in X.$ .
The local criterion for regular systems (theorem 2.1) is a particular case of theorem 5. Indeed, the condition $N(\rho_0+2R)=1$ implies $N(\rho_0)=N(\rho_0+2R)=1$. The cluster groups $S_x(\rho)$ for all $x\in X$ are pairwise conjugate, hence it suffices to require $S_x(\rho_0)=S_x(\rho_0+2R)$ for one point from $X$ only.
Proof of the Local Criterion for a Crystal
===========================================
First of all we make some comments on conditions 1) and 2) of theorem 5. Condition 1) means that with increasing radius $\rho$ the number of cluster classes on segment $[\rho_0,\rho_0+2R]$ does not increase, i.e. remains unchanged: $N(\rho)= N(\rho+2R)$.
In addition, due to condition 2), the cluster group $S_x(\rho_0)$, $\forall x\in X$, does not get smaller under the $2R$-extension of $\rho_0$-cluster: $S_x(\rho_0)=S_x(\rho_0+2R)$. The key point of theorem 5 is that the stabilization of these two parameters (the number of cluster classes and the order of cluster groups) on segment $[\rho_0,\rho_0+2R]$ implies their stabilization on the rest of the half-line $[\rho_0+2R, \infty)$.
For any pair of points $x$ and $x'\in X$, where $X$ is a Delone set, in $X$ there is a finite sequence $x_1=x, x_2, \ldots,
x_k=x'$, such that $|x_ix_{i+1}|<2R$ дл€ $i\in [1, k-1].$
We omit a proof of the lemma which can be found in, e.g. \[5\].
We recall that $X$ splits into disjoint subsets $X=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^m X_i$, where $X_i$ is a subset of all points of $X$ whose $\rho_0$-clusters are pairwise equivalent and belong to the $i$-th class.
Let a Delone set $X$ fulfil conditions 1) and 2) of theorem $5$ and $x$, $x'\in
X_i$. Let $f\in Iso(d)$ be an isometry such that $$f:x\mapsto x' \hbox{ and } f: C_x(\rho_0)\rightarrow C_{x'}(\rho_0).
\eqno(1)$$ Then the same isometry $f$ superposes the concentrically bigger cluster $C_x(\rho_0+2R)$ onto cluster $C_{x'}(\rho_0+2R)$: $$f: C_x(\rho_0+2R)\rightarrow C_{x'}(\rho_0+2R). \eqno(2)$$
**Proof**. If the $\rho$-clusters $C_x(\rho)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho)$ are equivalent, by condition 1) of theorem 5, the corresponding $(\rho_0+2R)$-clusters are equivalent too. Therefore there is an isometry $g$ such that $$g: C_x(\rho_0+2R)\rightarrow C_{x'}(\rho_0+2R).$$ If $g=f$ the lemma is already proved. Now we assume $f\neq g $ we consider the superposition of isometries $f^{-1}\circ g$. The order here is from the right to the left: $g$ is applied first, followed by $f^{-1}$. $$f^{-1}(g(C_x(\rho_0)))= f^{-1}(C_{x'}(\rho_0))=C_x(\rho_0).$$ We have: $$f^{-1}\circ g:x\mapsto x \hbox{ and } f^{-1}\circ g: C_x(\rho_0)\rightarrow
C_x(\rho_0). \eqno(3)$$
Relationship (3) shows that $f^{-1}\circ g$ is a symmetry $s$ of the $\rho$-cluster $C_x(\rho_0)$: $s\in S_x(\rho_0)$. By condition 2) of theorem 5 we also have $s\in S_x(\rho_0+2R)$. The relation $f^{-1}\circ g=s$ implies $g\circ s^{-1}=f$. Therefore one gets $$f(C_x(\rho_0+2R))=(g\circ
s^{-1})(C_x(\rho_0+2R))=$$ $$= g(s^{-1}(C_x(\rho_0+2R)))=
g(C_x(\rho_0+2R))=C_{x'}(\rho_0+2R).$$
\[Main Lemma\]. Let a Delone set $X$ fulfil conditions $1)$ and $2)$ of theorem 5 and $X_i$ a subset of $X$ of all points whose $\rho_0$-clusters belong to the $i$-th class, $i\in [1,m]$. Let a group $G_i=<f>$ be generated by all isometries $f$ such that $f:C_x(\rho_0)\rightarrow
C_{x'}(\rho_0)$, $\forall x,x'\in X_i$. Then $G_i$ operates transitively on every set $X_j$, $\forall j\in [1,m].$ Moreover, the group $G_i$ does not depend on $i$, $G_i=$Sym$(X)$.
**Proof**. In fact, since for $x$ and $x'\in X_i$ the $\rho_0$-clusters $C_x(\rho_0)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho_0)$ are equivalent, there are several isometries superposing these clusters. The number of these isometries is equal to the order $|S_x(\rho_0)|$ of the cluster group.
We prove that if $f$ is one of these isometries, then $f$ is a symmetry of the whole $X$. First we take an arbitrary point $y\in X$ and prove that its image $f(y)$ belongs to $X$ (see Fig.3). Let us connect points $x$ and $y$ with a $2R$-chain $\cal L$: $${\cal L}=\{x_1=x,x_2, \ldots , x_n=y \,: \,|x_ix_{i+1}|<2R, \forall i\in[1,n-1]|\}.$$
Since $f(C_{x_1}(\rho_0))=C_{x'_1}(\rho_0)$, then by Lemma 3.2 $$f(C_{x_1}(\rho_0+2R))=C_{x'_1}(\rho_0+2R). \eqno(4)$$ Since $|x_1x_2|<2R$ we have $$C_{x_2}(\rho_0)\subset C_{x_1}(\rho_0+2R).$$ Therefore relation (4) implies: $$f:C_{x_2}(\rho_0)\rightarrow C_{x'_2}(\rho_0).$$ By lemma 3.2 we have $$f: C_{x_2}(\rho_0+2R)\rightarrow C_{x'_2}(\rho_0+2R). \eqno(5)$$ From the inequality $|x_2x_3|<2R$ it follows that $$C_{x_3}(\rho_0)\subset C_{x_2}(\rho_0+2R).$$ Therefore due to (5) we have: $$f:C_{x_3}(\rho_0)\rightarrow C_{x'_3}(\rho_0).$$ By Lemma 3.2 we have again: $$f:C_{x_3}(\rho_0+2R)\rightarrow C_{x'_3}(\rho_0+2R).$$ Moving along chain $\cal L$ and repeating this argument finitely many times we get that the $2R$-chain ${\cal L} \subset X$ is moved by isometry $f$ into a $2R$-chain ${\cal L}'\subset X$. The endpoint $y$ of the first chain $\cal L$ moves into the endpoint $y'$ of the second one. Thus, it is shown that the isometry $f$ maps $X$ **into** $X$: $f(X)\subseteq X$.
We show now that this map is a map **onto** the whole $X$: $f(X)\supseteq X$. Let us take an arbitrary point $y''\in X$ and show that its pre-image $f^{-1}(y'')$ also belongs to $X$. For the inverse mapping $f^{-1}$ from relation (4) it follows: $$f^{-1}: C_{x_1'}(\rho_0+2R))\rightarrow C_{x_1}(\rho_0+2R).$$ Let us again connect points $x_1'$ and $y''$ with a $2R$-chain. Moving along the chain by means of the same argument we get $f^{-1}(y'')=x''\in X $. Finally, the mapping $f$ moves some point $x''$ into the a priori chosen point $y''$: $f(x'')=y''$.
Now we take a group $G_i=<f>$, where $f$ are all isometries of $Iso(d)$ which superpose the clusters $C_x(\rho_0)$ and $C_{x'}(\rho_0)$, $x, x'\in X_i$. We have proved that $G_i$ belongs to the group $G:=$Sym$(X)$ (i.e. $G_i\subseteq G$) and the group $G_i$ operates on $X_i$ transitively. In order to complete the proof of Lemma 3.3 one needs to show that $G_i\supseteq G$ for each $i\in[1,m]$. Indeed, we show that if $g\in G$, then $g\in G_i$. It is the case because $g$ is a symmetry of $X$ and, hence, moves any point $y\in X_i$ and its $\rho_0$-cluster $C_y(\rho_0)$ into a point $g(y)\in X_i$ and the cluster $C_{g(y)}(\rho_0)$, respectively. By the above-proved, the symmetry $g$ belongs to the group $G_i$, i.e. $G_i\supseteq G$. So, we proved that $G_i=$Sym$(X)$.
So, we have proved that a Delone set $X$ with conditions 1) and 2) of Theorem 5 is partitioned into the union of $m$ disjoint discrete sets $X_i$ such that each subset $X_i$ is a $Sym(X)$-orbit of some point. In order to prove Theorem 5 we need to make sure that $Sym(X)$ is a crystallographic group. A proof of this fact is divided into two lemmas:
Assume that a group $G\subset Iso(d)$ is such that for some point $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$ its orbit $G\cdot x$ is a Delone set, then $G$ is a crystallographic group.
In a partition $X=\bigsqcup_i^m X_i$ each subset $X_i$ is a Delone set.
From these two lemmas it follows that $X$ is a crystallographic orbit of finite set of $m$ points, i.e. that $X$ is a crystal with respect to the group $G$. In fact, let us take a Delone subset $X_i$, which exists by lemma 3.5, and a group $G=G_i=$Sym$(X)$ generated by all possible isometries $f$ as in Lemma 3.3. Since $G\cdot x=X_i$ where $x\in X_i$, by Lemma 2.4 the group $G$ is crystallographic. Let a finite point set $X_0$ consist of $m$ representatives of subsets $X_i$, $i\in [1,m]$. Then $ X=G\cdot
X_0$, We get that that $X$ is a crystallographic orbit of the finite set $X_0$, i.e. $X$ is a crystal. This completes the proof of the local criterion.
Now we prove the last two lemmas.
**Proof** of Lemma 3.4. Let $X:=G\cdot x$, (in Lemma 3.4 $G$ is not assumed necessarily to be the full symmetry group Sym$(X)$ of $X$, i.e. $G\subseteq Sym(X)$). Let ${\cal V}$ denote the Voronoi tiling of space $\mathbb{R}^d $ with respect to $X$. A Voronoi domain $V_x$ for the point $x\in X$ is a cell of the tiling $\cal V$. $V_x$ is a convex $d$-polytope with a finite number of facets. This number of facets can be easily estimated from above in terms of parameters $r$ and $R$. Therefore the symmetry group Sym$(V_x)$ of $V_x$ is also finite. Moreover, the order |Sym$(V_x)$| of this group can be also bounded from above depending on the same parameters $r$ and $R$.
Every symmetry of the Delone set $X$ leaves the Voronoi tiling ${\cal V}$ invariant. Therefore, since the group $G$ operates on the $X$ transitively, this group also operates transitively on the set of all cells of the tiling ${\cal V}$. It is obvious that the following inclusions are true: $G\subseteq $Sym$(X)\subseteq$Sym$({\cal V}).$
The orbit Sym$({\cal V})\cdot y$ of any point $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is a discrete set because the orbit Sym$({\cal V})\cdot y$ and Voronoi polytope $V_x$ intersect in a finite set: $$|\hbox{Sym}({\cal V})\cdot y\cap V_x|\leq |\hbox{Sym}(V_x)|<c(r,R,d).$$ Therefore Sym$(X)$ is discrete. Since $G$ is a subgroup of Sym$(X)$, it is also discrete.
As for the fundamental domain $F(G)$, it can be chosen as $V_x/\hbox{stab}(x)$ where stab$(x)$ is the stabilizer of the point $x$ in $G$. In particular, if the stabilizer is trivial then the fundamental domain $F(G)$ is the Voronoi polytope $V_x$. Thus, the fundamental domain $F(G)$ is compact and hence $G$ is a crystallographic group.
**Proof** of Lemma 3.5. First of all, we note that since $X$ is a Delone set with parameter $r$, any subset $X_i$ fulfils the (r)-condition of Delone set with a parameter $r'$, where $r'\geq
r$.
We suppose that there is a subset $X_i$ which does not satisfy the second condition of Delone set for any finite value $R'$. In this case there is an infinite sequence of balls $B_1,B_2,\ldots
, B_k,\ldots $ empty of points of $X_i$ with infinitely increasing radii: $R_1<R_2<\cdots<R_k<\dots \rightarrow \infty$. Since the set $X_i$ is discrete, each of these balls $B_k$ can be moved so that on its boundary there is a point $x_k\in X_i$. Since all the points $x_k\in X_i$ belong to the $G$-orbit, one can move every point $x_k$ along with the ball $B_k$ to some given point $x\in
X_i$ by means of an appropriate isometry $f_k\in G$. Thus, one can assume that the point $x$ is on the boundary of an empty ball $B'_k$ of radius $R_k$ for every $k=1,2,\ldots $. Let $\textbf{n}_k$ denote a unit vector $$\textbf{n}_k:=\frac{1}{|xO_k|}\overrightarrow{xO_k},$$ where $O_k$ is the center of ball $B'_k$. Now we select from sequence $\{\textbf{n}_k\}$ a subsequence $\textbf{n}_{k_j}\rightarrow \textbf{n} $ that converges to a unit vector $\textbf{n}$.
Let $\Pi$ be a hyperplane through point $x$ orthogonal to a vector $ \textbf{n}$, $\Pi^+$ the **open** half-space where the normal vector $\textbf{n}$ points in. The half-space $\Pi^+$ contains no points of $X_1$. In fact, given a point $z\in \Pi^+$, in the subsequence of balls with infinitely increasing radii one can find a ball $B_{k_j}$ which contains point $z$. Since all balls $B_{k_j}$ are empty of points of $X_i$, $z\notin X_i$.
Thus, all points of $X_i$ are in a **closed** half-space $\Pi^-$. We admit that all the points of $X_i$ can lay on the hyperplane $\Pi$ itself. Since $X$ is a Delone set, the open half-space $\Pi^+$ also contains points of $X$.
Given $i\in[1,m]$ and $x\in X_i$, we take $\j\neq i$ and choose in $X_j$ a point $y$ closest to $x\in X_i$. One should note that since $X_j$ is a discrete set, such a point $y$ does exist. Generally, there can be several but always finitely many closest points. Let us denote $\delta (x,X_j):=\min_{y\in Y_j}|xy|$. Since $G$ operates transitively on both sets $X_i$ and $X_j$, the minimum $\delta (x, X_j)$ does not depend on the choice of point $x\in Y_i$, i.e. for any other point $x'\in X_i$ there is a point $y'\in X_j$ with condition $\delta(x',X_j):=\delta_{ij}.$ It is clear also that $\delta_{ij}=\delta_{ji}.$ Now one can denote $$\delta_i:=\max_{j\in [1,m], j\neq i}\delta_{ij}.$$ It is clear that for every $j\in [1,m]$, $j\neq i$, and $\forall
y\in X_j$ there is a point $x$ of $X_i$ at distance from $y$ of no bigger than $\delta_i$.
Therefore, since the subset $X_i$ is supposed to be located in the closed half-space $\Pi^-$ the whole set $X$ is located in a half-space $(\Pi+\delta_i
\textbf{n})^-$ determined by hyperplane $\Pi+\delta_i \textbf{n}$. The obtained contradiction to the $R$-condition of the Delone set $X$ completes a proof of Lemma 3.5.
Proof of Theorem 4
==================
At first we will prove Theorem 4. This theorem easily implies Theorems 1 and 2. The proof of Theorem 3 is based, in part on Theorem 2. We note that in Theorem 4 the locally antipodal Delone sets $X$ and $Y$ a priori are not required to be sets of finite type.
Let us take an arbitrary point $x\in X$ and define the *distance spectrum* at the $x$ as the taken in ascending order set of distances between the point $x$ and the other points of $X$: $$\Re_{x}: =
\{\rho\in R_+| \exists x'\in X,\, |xx'|=\rho\}.$$ By the $r$-condition for $X$ the spectrum $\Re_x$ is discrete and has no limit points (with the exception of $\infty$) for any given $x\in
X$. Now we consider the union $\cup_{x\in X}\Re_x$ over all $x\in
X$. It is easy to see that the union $\cup_{x\in X}\Re_{x}$ of the spectra over all points of $X$ is a discrete set with no proper limit point if and only if the Delone set $X$ is of finite type.
Recall conditions for Delone sets $X$ and $Y$: $x\in X\cap Y$ and $C_x(2R)=C'_x(2R)$. $C'_y(\rho)$ stands for the $\rho$-cluster in the set $Y$). We take the point $x$ and the two distance spectra $\Re_x=\{\rho_1<\rho_2<\ldots \}$ and $\Re'_x=\{\rho_1',\rho_2',\ldots \}$ in $X$ and in $Y$, respectively, and prove the total coincidence of the spectra $\Re_x$ and $\Re '_x$ and the sets $X$ and $Y$ by induction along numbers $k$ of distance sequences $\rho_k$ and $\rho_k'$.
Due to the condition $C_x(2R) = C'_x(2R)$, some initial portions of the spectra $\Re_x$ and $\Re'_x$ coincide. Assume that we have already proved the equality of the first $k$ distances $\rho_1=\rho'_1, \ldots , \rho_k=\rho'_k$ in the spectra and the coincidence of the clusters $C_x(\rho_k)=C'_x(\rho_k)$.
Now we prove that $\rho_{k+1}=\rho'_{k+1}$ and $C_x(\rho_{k+1})=C'_x(\rho'_{k+1})$. Let $\rho_{k+1}\leq
\rho'_{k+1}$, then the ball $B_x(\rho_{k+1})$ has on its boundary at least one point $x_1\in X$, $|xx_1|=\rho_{k+1}$ (see Fig. 4). Let $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$ be such that $z\in [xx_1]$ and the length $|zx_1|=R$. We note that point $z$, generally, does not belong to $X$. The ball $B_z(R)$ centered at $z$ of radius $R$ touches the sphere $\partial B_x(\rho_{k+1})$ at point $x_1$. Now let $h$ be the homothety with the center $x_1$ and the coefficient 2 and $B_{z'}(2R):=h(B_z(R))$ (see Fig. 4). It is obvious that we have $$B_z(R)\subset B_{z'}(2R)\subset B^o_x(\rho_{k+1})\cup \{x_1\}. \eqno(2)$$ Here $B^o$ means an open ball.
By the $R$-condition, in $B_z(R)$ there is at least one point $x_2\in X$, $x_2\neq x_1$. Since $x_1$ is the only point of the ball $B_z(R)$ which is located on the boundary $\partial
B_x(\rho_{k+1})$, all other points of $B_z(R)$, including the point $x_2$, lay in the interior of $B_x(\rho_{k+1})$. Therefore $|xx_2|<|xx_1|=\rho_{k+1}$, i.e. $|xx_2|\leq \rho_k|$, and, by the induction assumption, $x_2\in X\cap Y$. Since $|x_1x_2|\leq
2R$ the point $x_1$ belongs to the cluster $ C_{x_2}(2R)$.
Since the cluster $C_{x_2}(2R)$ is antipodal about $x_2$, in this cluster there is a point $x_3$ which is antipodal to $x_1$. We recall that the coefficient of the homothety $h$ equals 2, hence $$x_3\in B_{z'}(2R)\subset B^o_x(\rho_{k+1})\cup\{x_1\}.$$ Therefore, $|xx_3|\leq \rho_k$, as well as $|xx_2|\leq \rho_k$, and, by the inductive assumption, $x_2,x_3\in Y$. Since $|x_2x_3|\leq 2R$ , we have that $x_3\in C'_{x_2}(2R)$. Now, since $x_1$ is antipodal to $x_3$ about $x_2$ and the cluster $C'_{x_2}(2R)$ is antipodal about $x_2$, $x_1$ also belongs to $C'_{x_2}(2R)$. Hence we have also $x_1\in Y$. This inclusion is true for any $x_1'\in X$ with $|xx_1'|=\rho_{k+1}$. Thus, it has been proved that if $\rho_{k+1}\leq \rho'_{k+1}$ we actually have $\rho_{k+1}=\rho'_{k+1}$. Therefore we just proved $C_x(\rho_{k+1})\subseteq C'_x(\rho_{k+1})$. However, in the case $\rho_{k+1}=\rho'_{k+1}$ one can also take any point $y_1\in Y$ with $|xy_1|=\rho_{k+1}$ and by the same argument prove that $y_1\in X$. Thus, the inductive step is established: one has proved that $C_x(\rho_{k+1})= C'_x(\rho_{k+1})$.
Proofs of Theorems 1,2, and 3
=============================
Theorems 1 and 2 easily follow from Theorem 4.
**Proof of Theorem 1**. By the requirement $N(2R)=1$, for any $x'$ and $x\in X$ there is an isometry $g$ such that $g(x')=x$ and $g(C_{x'}(2R))=C_x(2R)$. Let us denote $Y:=g(X)$. We have two local antipodal sets $X$ and $Y$ such that $X\cap Y \supseteq C_x(2R)$. By Theorem 4, the relationship $C_x(2R)=C'_x(2R)$ implies $X=Y$, i.e. $g$ is a symmetry of $X$. Thus Sym$(X)$ possesses transitive symmetry group.
**Proof of Theorem 2**. $X$ is a locally antipodal Delone set. Let $\sigma_x$ be the inversion about a point $x$ such that $\sigma_x: C_x(2R)\rightarrow C_x(2R)$. Let us denote $Y:=\sigma
(X)$. Then we have again two sets $X$ and $Y$ with a $2R$-cluster $C_x(2R)$ in common. By Theorem 4 we have $X=Y$, i.e. the inversion $\sigma_x$ leaves the set $X$ invariant.
**Proof of Theorem 3**
Given a locally antipodal set $X\subset \mathbb{R}^d $, let $\Lambda$ be a set of vectors $\lambda$ such that $X+\Lambda =X$. Since $X$ is discrete the vector set $\Lambda$ is a lattice.
Now we show that the lattice $\Lambda$ is a lattice of rank $d$. Indeed, let $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_{x'}$ be inversions of clusters $C_x(2R)$ and $C_{x'}(2R)$ at points $x$ and $x'$, respectively. Then, by Theorem 2, they are both symmetries of the whole $X$. On the other hand, the superposition $\sigma_x\circ\sigma_{x'}$ is a translation by the vector $2(x-x')$. Since the set $X$ is a Delone set, the translational group $\Lambda$ generated by all possible $2(x-x')$, where $x,x'\in X$, is a lattice of the rank $d$. $\Lambda $ is the maximum lattice to leave $X$ invariant, i.e. such that $X+\Lambda=X$.
The Delone set $X$ is the union of finitely many lattices which are congruent and parallel to the lattice $\Lambda$, i.e. $$X = \bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^n (x_i + \Lambda).$$ As proved above, for $i = 2, 3, \ldots, n$ we have $x_i - x_1
\in \Lambda / 2$.
By putting $x := x_1$, $\lambda_i/2 = x_i - x_1$ ($i =
1, 2, \ldots, n$) we come to: $$X=\bigsqcup\limits_{i=1}^n(x+\lambda_i/2+\Lambda), \hbox{ where } \lambda_i\in \Lambda. \eqno(6)$$ Now, if $\lambda_i\equiv \lambda_j\mod 2$, i.e. if $\lambda_i-\lambda_j=2\lambda,$ where $\lambda\in \Lambda$, then subsets $x+\lambda_i + \Lambda$ and $x+ \lambda_j + \Lambda$ obviously coincide. Therefore in (6) $n\leq 2^d$. Moreover, the value $n$ cannot be equal to $2^d$ because in this case $X=\Lambda/2$ and hence $X+\Lambda/2=X$. This contradicts the assumption that $\Lambda$ is the maximum lattice with the condition $X+\Lambda$. So, $n\leq 2^d-1$.
0.3cm The author is very grateful to Nikolay Andreev (Moscow) for making drawings and to Andrey Ordine (Toronto) for his help in editing the English text.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
.
\[1\] B. Delaunay, Sur la sphere vide. A la memoire de Georges Voronoi. Bulletin de l’Academie des Sciences de l’URSS. Classe des sciences mathematiques et na, 1934, Issue 6, Pages 793Ц800.
\[2\] B.N. Delone, Geometry of positive quadratic forms, Uspekhi Matem. Nauk, 1937, 3, 16Ц62 (in Russian).
\[3\] A. Schöflies, Kristallsysteme und Kristallstruktur, Leipzig, 1891 - Druck und verlag von BG Teubner
\[4\] L.Bieberbach, Üeber die Bewegungsgruppen des n-dimensionalen Euklidischen Räumes I, Math. Ann. 70 (1911), 207-336; II, Math. Ann. 72 (1912), 400-412.
\[5\] B. N. Delone, N.P. Dolbilin, M.I. Stogrin, R.V. Galiuilin, A local criterion for regularity of a system of points, Soviet Math. Dokl., 17, 1976, 319Ц322.
\[6\] N. P. Dolbilin, M. I. Shtogrin, A local criterion for a crystal structure, Abstracts of the IXth All-Union Geometrical Conference, Kishinev, 1988, p. 99 (in Russian).
\[7\] N.P. Dolbilin, A Criterion for crystal and locally antipodal Delone sets. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo Gos. Universiteta, 2015, 3 (358), 6–17 (in Russian).
\[8\] N.P. Dolbilin, A.N. Magazinov, Locally antipodal Delauney Sets, Russian Math. Surveys.70:5 (2015), 958-960.
\[9\] E.S. Fedorov, Elements of the Study of Figures, Zap. Mineral. Imper. S.Peterburgskogo Obschestva, 21(2), 1985, 1-279.
\[10\] R. Feynman, R. Leighton, M. Sands, Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, Addison-Wesley, 1964.
\[11\] N.P. Dolbilin, J.C. Lagarias, M. Senechal, Multiregular point systems. Discr. and Comput. Geometry, 20, 1998, 477Ц498.
\[12\] N. Dolbilin, E. Schulte, The local theorem for monotypic tilings, Electron. J. Combin., 11:2 (2004), Research Paper 7 , 19 pp.
\[13\] N. Dolbilin, E. Schulte, A local characterization of combinatorial multihedrality in tilings, Contrib. Discrete Math., 4:1 (2009), 1Ц11.
\[14\] N. Dolbilin, Regular systems in 3D space. Chebyshev Sbornik, (2016) (in print).
\[15\] D. Schattschneider, N. Dolbilin, One corona is enough for the Euclidean plane. Quasicrystals and Discrete Geometry, Fields Inst. Monogr., 10, American Math. Soc. Providence RI, 1998, 207-246.
[^1]: work is supported by the RNF grant 14-11-00414
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The systematics of the giant dipole resonance (GDR) widths in hot and rotating nuclei are studied in terms of temperature T, angular momentum J and mass A. The different experimental data in the temperature range of 1 - 2 MeV have been compared with the thermal shape fluctuation model (TSFM) in the liquid drop formalism using a modified approach to estimate the average values of T, J and A in the decay of the compound nucleus. The values of the ground state GDR widths have been extracted from the TSFM parametrization in the liquid drop limit for the corrected T, J and A for a given system and compared with the corresponding available systematics of the experimentally measured ground state GDR widths for a range of nuclei from A = 45 to 194. Amazingly, the nature of the theoretically extracted ground state GDR widths matches remarkably well, though 1.5 times smaller, with the experimentally measured ground state GDR widths consistently over a wide range of nuclei.'
author:
- Srijit Bhattacharya
- Deepak Pandit
- 'S. Mukhopadhyay'
- Surajit Pal
- 'S. R. Banerjee'
title: Scaling of the giant dipole resonance widths in hot rotating nuclei from the ground state values
---
introduction
============
The collective excitations in nuclei, in particular, the giant dipole resonance (GDR) have been studied in great detail over the years to understand the complex quantal nuclear many body systems. The phenomenon of GDR oscillations in nuclei, has been studied extensively in cold as well as in hot and fast rotating nuclei. In the case of GDR vibrations in cold nuclei, i.e. for the case of GDR built on nuclear ground state, very well established systematics for the resonance energy and its width as a function of nuclear mass exist. The understanding of the mechanism for such a large width of the resonance is of particular importance as it gives an insight into the strong damping mechanism of the collective dipole oscillations in nuclei. A systematic study of the resonance widths at higher temperatures in nuclei in the cases of GDR built on excited states gives us clues regarding the damping mechanisms in hot nuclei and the interplay of the temperature and angular momentum effects. In a particular nucleus, the resonance energy remains more or less constant but its width (or FWHM) increases as the temperature or the excitation energy of the nucleus increases. There had been a lot of experimental [@Hara01; @Gaard01; @Snov01; @Kelly01; @Thoe01] as well as theoretical [@Dang01; @Orma01] activities to understand this increase of the GDR width with temperature in the past years. The main experimental approach had been the heavy ion fusion reactions populating the compound nucleus at different excitations and spins. The temperature dependence of the GDR width to some extent has been explained in terms of adiabatic, large amplitude thermal fluctuations of the nuclear shape – the thermal shape fluctuation model (TSFM). Though TSFM is successful to some extent, (in the temperature range 1 - 2 MeV and for low spins) it does not explain the results of [@Thoe01; @Rathi01; @Chak01; @Rathi02], particularly those at the lowest T (near T=1.0 MeV) for $^{120}$Sn.
In the past there have been several attempts to understand the global features of the temperature and spin dependence of the measured GDR widths in a comprehensive manner, by parametrizing the GDR widths in terms of the relevant macroscopic parameters, i.e. temperature, angular momentum, nuclear mass etc. [@Chak02; @Kasagi01; @Brog01]. The most notable among them is the work of Kusnezov et al [@Kus01] in which the GDR width $\Gamma(T, J, A)$ at a finite temperature (T) and spin (J) is parametrized in terms of a reduced width, from a liquid drop (LD) free energy consideration, $$\Gamma_{red} = \left[\frac{\Gamma_{exp}(T, J, A)}{\Gamma(T, J=0, A)}\right]^{\frac{T+3T_0}{4T_0}} = 1 + \frac{1.8}{\left[1+e^{(1.3-\xi)/0.2}\right]}$$ where, $\Gamma_{exp}(T, J, A)$ is the experimental width, the reduced scaling parameter $\xi = J/A^{5/6}$ and $$\Gamma(T, J=0, A) = \left(6.45-\frac{A}{100}\right) \ln\left(1+\frac{T}{T_0}\right) + \Gamma_0(A) \label{eqn2}$$ According to the authors, $\Gamma_0(A)$ is usually extracted from the measured gound state GDR and T$_0$ is taken as a reference temperature (=1 MeV). Surprisingly, they used a value of $\Gamma_0$ = 3.8 MeV for $^{120}$Sn and $^{208}$Pb data (after recalculating the nuclear temperatures) which was smaller than an earlier description (5 MeV) [@Orma01]. For other nuclei the authors themselves and others [@Rathi01; @Chak01; @Rathi02] used the same parametrization with a wider range of values for $\Gamma_0$ (2.5 - 5.2 MeV), which were less than the ground state values, for describing the experimental GDR widths at different temperatures and spins. This simple parametrization, however failed to explain the data at low temperature and highest spins.
The important points, as they stand now, for the explanation of the temperature dependence of the GDR width in general and particularly within the framework of TSFM in the LD regime, are 1) a proper characterization of the nuclear temperature as shown by Kelly and others [@Kelly01] and 2) using a proper $\Gamma_0$ parameter in a uniform way throughout the nuclear mass, temperature and angular momentum range. Lately, there have been attempts, [@Chak01] to properly characterize the nuclear temperature in a heavy ion fusion reaction. In this paper we have tried to estimate the proper nuclear temperature for the GDR $\gamma$-emission in heavy ion fusion - CN $\gamma$-decay experiments for our recent measurements [@Srij01] as well as for other published results [@Rathi01; @Chak01; @Srij01; @Kici01; @Wiel01; @Dreb01; @Kici02; @Brac01; @Baum01; @Kmie01; @Brac02; @Brac03; @Brac04; @Matt01; @Came01; @Came02; @Schi01; @Noor01] in a unified treatment and compared them in the light of TSFM calculations of Kusnezov et al with a uniform description of the $\Gamma_0$ parameter in accordance with the measured systematics of the ground state GDR widths over the entire nuclear mass range.
The same procedure is adopted while explaining our recently measured GDR widths in $^{113}$Sb populated with high angular momenta ($\leq$ 60 $\hbar$) and at temperatures $\leq$ 2 MeV [@Srij01] using a $\Gamma_0$ = 3.8 MeV.
Data Analysis
=============
In heavy ion fusion - evaporation reactions, high energy $\gamma$-photons are emitted from various stages of the decay cascade. At high excitation energies, the compound nucleus decays through a large number of steps and therefore, the excitation energy (E$^*$), angular momentum (J), mass (A) and charge (Z) should be averaged over all the decay steps. The average values of E$^*$, J, A and Z should be different and less than those of the initial compound nucleus. While most authors consider an average temperature $\langle T\rangle$ for the corresponding measured GDR widths, the averaging of J, A and Z has not been addressed to. Though the averaging of A and Z does not change significantly the representation, the same is not true for J, since a small change in $\langle J\rangle$ modifies the representation of the data in terms of reduced parameters in Kusnezov’s description of TSFM [@Chak01]. Two basic approaches are generally taken in the existing literatures for the estimation of $\langle T\rangle$ for the GDR $\gamma$-emission in a compound nucleus. In the first, $\langle T\rangle = [d ln(\rho)/ dE]^{-1}$ is evaluated at $E^* = E_{CN} - \langle E_{rot}\rangle - E_{GDR} -\Delta_p$, where $E_{CN}$ is the initial CN excitation energy, $\langle E_{rot}\rangle$ is the average rotational energy computed at the mean J of the experimental J distribution and $\Delta_p$ is the pairing energy. This procedure is incorrect since there is no averaging over E$^*$ in the CN decay chain. In the other approach, the average temperature is estimated as, $\langle T\rangle = [(\langle E^*\rangle -\langle E_{rot}\rangle - E_{GDR} -\Delta_p)/a(\langle E^*\rangle)]^{1/2}$, where a($\langle E^*\rangle$) is the energy dependent level density parameter. In this case, though the averaging is done over all the decay steps, $\langle E_{rot}\rangle$ is calculated for the mean J of the initial CN. It is also not proper to include each step in the CN decay chain for the averaging. Instead, only that part contributing to the GDR $\gamma$-emission [@Wiel01] in the decay cascade should be taken for averaging, thereby, setting a lower limit for the excitation energy in the CN decay cascade. Recently, Wieland et al [@Wiel01] used the same procedure of averaging over a part of the decay cascade in their analysis of highly excited $^{132}$Ce data for a re-estimation of temperature of the nucleus emitting GDR photons. We have followed this second scheme of averaging to recalculate the average parameters in our work. This lower limit in the excitation energy amounts to approximately 50% of the total high energy $\gamma$-yield in the CN decay chain and does not affect the GDR $\gamma$-rays in the region E$_\gamma$ = 12 - 25 MeV. $\langle E_{rot}\rangle$ is evaluated with the average J ($\langle J \rangle$), re-estimated using the above mentioned lower limit in E$^*$. $\langle E^*\rangle$ is calculated by averaging $E^*$ with corresponding weights over the daughter nuclei in the CN decay cascade for the $\gamma$-emission in the GDR energy range 12 - 25 MeV, $\langle E^*\rangle = \sum_i (E_i^* \omega_i) / \sum_i \omega_i$, where $E_i^*$ is the excitation energy of the $i$-th nucleus in the decay cascade and $\omega_i$ is the corresponding yield in the GDR energy region 12 - 25 MeV. The corresponding $\langle A\rangle$ and $\langle Z\rangle$ are calculated in the same way. Fig.\[Average\] demonstrates the effect of averaging over the part of the decay cascade on the GDR strength distribution for the excited $^{113}$Sb nucleus at an initial excitation energy and angular momentum of 122 MeV and $\sim$ 60 $\hbar$ respectively. It is clear that this averaging leaves the GDR strengths and high energy photon emissions unchanged, except at very low energies without affecting the width. The CN particle evaporation widths ($\Gamma_{ev}$) have been incorporated in the TSFM calculation for the temperature dependence of the GDR widths to take into consideration the effect of evaporation of particles and the corresponding energy loss before the GDR $\gamma$-emission in the CN decay chain. The $\Gamma_{ev}$ is calculated using the modified statistical model code CASCADE [@Cascade] and folded with the GDR width parameter ($\Gamma_0$) in TSFM calculation. In this low temperature region (T $\leq$ 2 MeV and with $\tilde{a}$ = A/8.0), the particle decay width is rather small ($\sim$ 0.2 MeV at T = 2.0 MeV) and its inclusion within the TSFM marginally improves the prediction.
![\[Average\] The top panel shows the CASCADE predictions for $^{113}$Sb populated at 122 MeV excitation and 60$\hbar$ spin, with an averaging over the full (100%) (symbols) and part (50%) (line) of the decay cascade. The bottom panel shows the divided plots for the corresponding GDR strength distributions.](figure1_new.eps){height="8.5" width="7"}
![\[Temp\]The measured GDR widths at different extracted average temperatures are plotted for various nuclei studied. The solid lines are the predictions of the TSFM calculations for different average angular momenta. The shaded curves show the change in the calculation for different J values.](figure2_new.eps){height="8.5" width="7"}
The same procedure has been used for the estimation of $\langle T\rangle$ and $\langle J\rangle$ for nuclei in the broad mass range of 45 - 194 and temperature range of 1 - 2 MeV (shown in tables \[tab:nucl\], \[tab:nucl1\] and \[tab:nucl2\]). All calculations have been done with a modified version of the statistical model code CASCADE [@Cascade]. In almost all the nuclei, we have adopted Ignatuyk-Reisdorf level density prescription [@Igna01; @Reis01] keeping the asymptotic level density parameter $\tilde{a}$ = A/8 MeV$^{-1}$, except in the case of $^{86}$Mo. The level density parameter for $^{86}$Mo [@Rathi01] was measured experimentally and was kept fixed at $\tilde{a}$=A/7.5 MeV$^{-1}$ as suggested by the authors. The sensitivity of the average values has been checked by changing the parameter $\tilde{a}$ from A/8 to A/9, resulting in a change in $\langle T\rangle \leq $ 5% without affecting $\langle J\rangle$ and is less than the experimental uncertainties in measuring GDR widths. Thus it is clear that the extracted average quantities do not change much due to uncertainties in the level density parameters.
![\[Jred\]The reduced GDR widths are plotted against the reduced parameter $\xi = J/A^{5/6}$ for different nuclei and grouped in different panels so that the data points from different nuclei show a minimum overlap. The references for the corrosponding data points are indicated alongside the legends in the respective plots.](figure3_new.eps){height="8.5" width="7"}
![\[Gam\]The calculated $\Gamma_0$ values are compared with the measured ground state GDR widths (open circles) (taken from refs. [@Gaard01; @Carl01; @Diet01]) as a function of the nuclear mass numbers. The extracted $\Gamma_0$ values are also plotted (filled symbols) after multiplying by a factor of 1.5.](figure4_new.eps){height="5" width="7"}
The calculations were done for all the data points following the prescription just described in the framework of TSFM for the LD regime as suggested by Kusnezov et al. The parameter $\Gamma_0$ was extracted for each of the nuclei studied by simultaneously fitting the measured GDR widths at the recalculated $\langle T\rangle$ for various ranges of $\langle J\rangle$ (as shown in Fig.\[Temp\]) and the reduced GDR widths $\Gamma_{red}$ at the recalculated reduced parameter $\langle J\rangle /A^{5/6}$ for different temperatures (as shown in Fig.\[Jred\]). Almost all the data points follow the respective calculations quite well. The extracted $\Gamma_0$ values for different nuclei are plotted against the corresponding mass numbers and are shown in Fig.\[Gam\] alongwith the measured ground state values of the GDR widths (open circles) [@Gaard01; @Carl01; @Diet01]. It is clear from Fig.\[Gam\] that the nature of the dependence of the extracted $\Gamma_0$ values at different nuclear masses matches remarkably well with the measured ground state GDR values. For comparison with the ground state GDR widths, the extracted $\Gamma_0$ values were multiplied by a factor of 1.5. The $\Gamma_0$ parameter in Kusnezov’s formalism is interpreted as “the width for a spherical shape”. It is clear from the present representation that these $\Gamma_0$ values exactly follow the mass dependence of the measured ground state GDR widths, reproducing even the effects of shell closure and nuclear shapes. The discrepancies mentioned in Ref.[@Chak01] for the $^{147}$Eu and $^{154}$Dy nuclei after re-analysis by the authors match quite well in this case. Except for one particular data point for $^{154}$Dy [@Noor01] at the highest angular momentum (J=50$\hbar$) (shown as an open circle in the middle panel of Fig.\[Jred\]) the corresponding GDR width seems quite large than the predicted systematics. This could be due to a rotation induced large change in the shape of the nucleus at high excitation. The extracted $\Gamma_0$ matches remarkably well with the ground state systematics though. The cases of $^{86}$Mo and $^{120}$Sn are particularly interesting. In the case of $^{86}$Mo the analysis reported in Ref[@Thoe01] uses J$_{CN}$ for calculating E$_{rot}$ and for Kusnezov’s representation. Although, later, an averaging over the entire CN decay chain was done [@Chak01] for evaluating $\langle J \rangle$ improving the agreement with TSFM. However, the same approach could not explain the data for $^{110}$Sn. Our unified approach (averaging over a part of the decay chain for evaluating E$^*$, J, A, Z) along with a proper choice of $\Gamma_0$ explains both the data throughout. In the case of $^{120}$Sn, however, our averaging along with the corresponding $\Gamma_0$ values in accordance with the experimental ground state GDR width improves the fit overall except the points at the lowest temperatures (around T$\sim$1 MeV). It is surprising, though, the measured width at around T$\sim$ 1 MeV is smaller than that at T=0 MeV, the experimental ground state GDR width.
The method of averaging adopted in this work, in a unified way, applied over a range of nuclei, is more appropriate for nuclei populated with a large angular momentum and excitation energy. Table \[part\] shows the extracted average values for the two nuclei $^{86}$Mo and $^{113}$Sb populated at the two extremes of excitation energy and angular momentum within our data samples, with a partial and a full average over the decay cascade. The extracted $\Gamma_0$ values obtained from a simultaneous description of the dependence of experimental GDR widths in terms of $\langle T\rangle$ and $\langle J\rangle/A^{5/6}$ (obtained with a partial average over the decay cascade) match quite well with the systematic dependence of experimental ground state GDR widths as a function of nuclear mass (A).
Summary and Conclusion
======================
In conclusion, we have studied the systematics of the GDR widths at different spins and particularly in the temperature range of 1 - 2 MeV over a broad range of nuclear masses in the framework of the liquid drop thermal shape fluctuation theory. The phenomenological description given by Kusnezov et al [@Kus01] describes quite well all the data from various experiments done earlier even at low temperature and highest spins, provided the temperature and the angular momentum of the decaying nucleus populated in such a heavy ion reaction is characterized properly using the averaging procedure discussed here and using a $\Gamma_0$ parameter which is 1.5 times smaller than the ground state GDR width for that particular nucleus. The extracted values of $\Gamma_0$ match exactly in shape and form (apart from a normalization factor of 1.5) with the measured systematics of the ground state GDR widths in spite of using a thermal fluctuation model in the liquid drop limit. The reason remains an interesting question to investigate.
---------------- ------------ ------- ---------- --------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------
CN E$_{beam}$ Ex J$_{CN}$ FWHM $\overline{J}$ $\overline{T}$ Width ($\Gamma$) $\Gamma_0$
(MeV) (MeV) $\hbar$ $\hbar$ $\hbar$ (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)
$^{45}$Sc 72.5 66.6 18.5 20 17.5 1.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.15}$ 13.5 $\pm$ 0.5
Ref.[@Kici01] 89.9 76.7 21.4 20 20.4 2.0$^{+0.15}_{-0.5}$ 16.1 $\pm$ 0.7 6.2
109.6 88.9 23.5 20 22 2.25$^{+0.15}_{-0.1}$ 18.1$\pm$0.9
$^{59}$Cu 175 93.2 27.5 20 26.5 2.0$^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$ 13.6$\pm$ 0.7 4.9
Ref.[@Dreb01] 215 111.4 31.5 20 30 2.1$^{+0.05}_{-0.11}$ 14.4$\pm$0.8
16 16.0 14 1.35$^{+0.05}_{-0.13}$ 8.8$\pm$0.5
100 49 13 16.0 11 1.42$^{+0.02}_{-0.15}$ 8.5$\pm$0.8
$^{86}$Mo 17 17.0 15 1.32$^{+0.02}_{-0.15}$ 7.7$\pm$0.7 3.5
Ref.[@Rathi01] 125 66 38 20.0 35 1.23$^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$ 8.8$\pm$0.6
39 20.0 36 1.24$^{+0.06}_{-0.11}$ 8.7$\pm$0.6
$^{100}$Mo 49.1 48.1 9.3 20 6 1.28$^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ 9.79$\pm$0.62
Ref.[@Kici02] 63.4 59.8 19.5 20 17 1.40$^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$ 9.90$\pm$0.63 5.1
72.8 67.5 24.0 20 23 1.49$^{+0.06}_{-0.10}$ 10.06$\pm$0.64
$^{109}$Sn 197 80.2 40 18 34 1.60$^{+0.13}_{-0.05}$ 10.8$\pm$0.60 4.8
Ref.[@Brac04] 49 16 46 1.40$^{+0.08}_{-0.03}$ 11.4$\pm$0.60
$^{110}$Sn 212 90.1 44 16 40 1.76$^{+0.15}_{-0.02}$ 11.7$\pm$0.60 4.8
Ref.[@Brac04] 54 14 50 1.57$^{+0.12}_{-0.01}$ 12.8$\pm$0.60
---------------- ------------ ------- ---------- --------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------
: \[tab:nucl\] The re-estimated parameters using our modified approach shown along with experimental GDR widths (of A=45-113) in CN reactions.
--------------- ------------ ------- ---------- --------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------
CN E$_{beam}$ Ex J$_{CN}$ FWHM $\overline{J}$ $\overline{T}$ Width ($\Gamma$) $\Gamma_0$
(MeV) (MeV) $\hbar$ $\hbar$ $\hbar$ (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)
145 109 49 24 41 1.94$^{+0.06}_{-0.1}$ 11.5$\pm$0.25
53 22 48 1.87$^{+0.06}_{-0.1}$ 11.8$\pm$0.25
57 18 50 1.81$^{+0.03}_{-0.1}$ 12.4$\pm$0.25
$^{113}$Sb 60 16 54 1.72$^{+0.03}_{-0.1}$ 12.8$\pm$0.25 4.4
Ref.[@Srij01] 160 122 50 24 44 1.98$^{+0.14}_{-0.05}$ 11.9$\pm$0.25
54 20 47 1.90$^{+0.13}_{-0.04}$ 12.5$\pm$0.25
59 18 53 1.86$^{+0.09}_{-0.14}$ 13.0$\pm$0.25
$^{132}$Ce 300 100 45 20 35 1.63$^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ 8.0$\pm$1.5 3.0
Ref.[@Wiel01]
37 30 34 1.58$^{+0.01}_{-0.13}$ 8.0$\pm$0.2
160 73.8 42 20 38 1.56$^{+0.01}_{-0.14}$ 8.4$\pm$0.2
46 20 41 1.51$^{+0.04}_{-0.11}$ 8.7$\pm$0.4
$^{147}$Eu 38 30 34 1.56$^{+0.02}_{-0.16}$ 8.24$\pm$0.2
Ref.[@Kmie01] 165 77.6 44 20 42 1.55$^{+0.02}_{-0.13}$ 8.34$\pm$0.3 3.4
49 22 45 1.50$^{+0.05}_{-0.15}$ 8.55$\pm$0.29
39 30 36 1.59$^{+0.03}_{-0.10}$ 8.53$\pm$0.26
170 81.4 45 20 42 1.56$^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$ 8.37$\pm$0.25
50 26 47 1.52$^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ 8.54$\pm$0.28
$^{154}$Dy 32 18 28 1.42$^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ 9.4$\pm$1.2 4.8
Ref.[@Noor01] 167 69 41 26 39 1.33$^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ 10.3$\pm$1.2
50 18 45 1.25$^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ 14.5$\pm$1.3
$^{176}$W 147 73.4 36 16 33 1.46$^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ 8.9$\pm$0.6
Ref.[@Matt01] 42 15 40 1.41$^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$ 8.4$\pm$0.6
47 15 43 1.39$^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ 8.6$\pm$0.6 4.2
55 19 52 1.35$^{+0.08}_{-0.1}$ 8.9$\pm$0.8
--------------- ------------ ------- ---------- --------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------
: \[tab:nucl1\] The re-estimated parameters using our modified approach shown along with experimental GDR widths (of A=113-176) in CN reactions.
--------------------------------- ------------ ------- ---------- --------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------
CN E$_{beam}$ Ex J$_{CN}$ FWHM $\overline{J}$ $\overline{T}$ Width ($\Gamma$) $\Gamma_0$
(MeV) (MeV) $\hbar$ $\hbar$ $\hbar$ (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)
$^{194}$Hg 142 60 24 14 23 1.4$^{+0.05}_{-0.15}$ 6.5$\pm$1.0
Ref.[@Came01; @Came02; @Chak02] 36 8 34 1.35$^{+0.03}_{-0.10}$ 5.5$\pm$1.0 5.1
34.4 8 1.16$^{+0.04}_{-0.11}$ 5.5$\pm$1.0
44.4 8 1.36$^{+0.04}_{-0.14}$ 7.5$\pm$1.0
54.4 8 1.60$^{+0.02}_{-0.15}$ 7.5$\pm$1.0
64.4 6 1.70$^{+0.08}_{-0.13}$ 8.5$\pm$1.0
$^{120}$Sn 200 74.5 10 7 1.85$^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ 8.5$\pm$1.0 3.4
Ref.[@Baum01] 84.5 6 1.92$^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$ 9.5$\pm$1.0
94.5 6 2.08$^{+0.14}_{-0.15}$ 10.0$\pm$1.0
104.5 6 2.15$^{+0.15}_{-0.11}$ 10.5$\pm$1.0
44.7 6.36 4 1.42$^{+0.05}_{-0.10}$ 7.50$\pm$1.0
55.2 7.68 6 1.73$^{+0.04}_{-0.12}$ 7.42$\pm$1.0
$^{120}$Sn 160 65.1 9.34 7 1.85$^{+0.04}_{-0.11}$ 8.52$\pm$1.0
Ref.[@Rama01] & 74.7 11.05 3 9 2.04$^{+0.06}_{-0.13}$ 8.97$\pm$1.0 3.4
200 84.5 12.70 10 2.11$^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ 9.55$\pm$1.0
94.9 14.56 10 2.22$^{+0.10}_{-0.15}$ 9.92$\pm$1.0
104.8 16.46 11 2.36$^{+0.10}_{-0.12}$ 9.92$\pm$1.0
--------------------------------- ------------ ------- ---------- --------- ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------
: \[tab:nucl2\] The re-estimated parameters using our modified approach shown along with experimental GDR widths of A=194 in CN reaction and of A=120 in inelastic scattering reaction.
---------------- ------- ----------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------
CN E\* J$_{CN}$ $\overline{J}$ 100% $\overline{J}$ 50% $\overline{T}$ 100% $\overline{T}$ 50%
(MeV) ($\hbar$) ($\hbar$) ($\hbar$) (MeV) (MeV)
16 12 14 1.20 1.35
$^{86}$Mo 49 13 10 11 1.22 1.42
Ref.[@Rathi01] 17 13 15 1.18 1.32
50 40 44 1.84 1.98
$^{113}$Sb 122 54 44 47 1.80 1.90
Ref.[@Srij01] 59 49 53 1.78 1.86
---------------- ------- ----------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------
: \[part\] The average values of J and T calculated with a partial (50%) and full (100%) average over the decay cascade for the two nuclei populated at about the two extremes of excitation energy and angular momentum.
[99]{} M. N. Harakeh and A. van der Woude, Giant Resonances, Fundamental High-frequency Modes of Nuclear Excitation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2001. J.J. Gaardhoje, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**42**]{} (1992) 483. K. Snover, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**36**]{} (1986) 545. M. P. Kelly et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{} (1999) 3404. M. Thoenessen et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A731**]{} (2004) 131. N. Dinh Dang et al, Phys. Rev. C [**61**]{} (2000) 027302. W. E. Ormand et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} (1996) 607 ; W. E. Ormand et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A614**]{} (1997) 549. S.K.Rathi et al., Phys.Rev. C [**67**]{} (2003) 024603. D. R. Chakrabarty, Phys.Rev. C [**74**]{} (2006) 017601. S. K. Rathi et al, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{} (2006) 024608. D. R. Chakrabarty et al., Phys. Rev. C [**36**]{} (1987) 1886. J. Kasagi et al., Nucl. Phys. [**A538**]{} (1992) 585c. R.A. Broglia et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**28**]{} (1992) 517. D. Kusnezov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 542. Srijit Bhattacharya et al., Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{} (2008) 024318. M. Kicińska-Habior et al, Phys. Lett. B [**308**]{} (1993) 225. O. Wieland et al, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**97**]{} (2006) 012501. Z. M. Drebi et al, Phys. Rev. C [**52**]{} (1995) 578. M. Kicińska-Habior et al, Phys. Rev. C [**45**]{} (1992) 569. A. Bracco et al, Z. Phys. A [**349**]{} (1994) 213. T. Baumann et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A635**]{} (1998) 248. M. Kmiecik et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A674**]{} (2000) 29. A. Bracco et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A682**]{} (2001) 449c. A. Bracco et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A687**]{} (2001) 237. A. Bracco et al, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 3748. M. Mattituzzi et al, Phys. Lett. B [**364**]{} (1995) 13. F. Camera et al, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{} (1999) 014306. F. Camera et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A649**]{} (1999) 115c. A. Schiller and M. Thoenessen, Atomic Data Nuclear Data Tables [**93**]{} (2007) 549. R. F. Noorman et al, Phys. Lett. B [**292**]{} (1992) 257. F. Puhlhofer, Nucl. Phys. [**A280**]{} (1977) 267. A. V. Ignatuyk, G. N. Smirekin, and A. S. Tishin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**21**]{} (1975) 255. W. Reisdorf et al, Z. Phys. A [**300**]{} (1981) 227. P. Carlos et al, Nucl. Phys. [**A219**]{} (1974) 61. S. S. Dietrich and B. L. Berman, Atomic Data Nuclear Data Tables [**38**]{} (1988) 199. E. Ramakrishnan et al, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 2025.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The VIMOS VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) is underway to study the evolution of galaxies, large scale structures and AGNs, from the measurement of more than 100000 spectra of faint objects. We present here the results from the first epoch observations of more than 20000 spectra. The main challenge of the program, the redshift measurements, is described, in particular entering the “redshift desert” in the range $1.5<z<3$ for which only very weak features are observed in the observed wavelength range. The redshift distribution of a magnitude limited sample brighter than $I_{AB}=24$ is presented for the first time, showing a peak at a low redshift $z\sim0.7$, and a tail extending all the way above $z=4$. The evolution of the luminosity function out to $z=1.5$ is presented, with the LF of blue star forming galaxies carrying most of the evolution, with L\* changing by more than two magnitudes for this sub-sample.'
author:
- 'O. Le Fevre$^1$, G. Vettolani$^2$, D. Maccagni$^3$, J.P. Picat$^4$, C. Adami$^1$, M. Arnaboldi$^5$, S. Bardelli$^{10}$, M. Bolzonella$^{10}$, M. Bondi$^2$, D. Bottini$^3$, G. Busarello$^5$, A. Cappi$^2$, P. Ciliegi$^2$, T. Contini$^4$, S. Charlot$^7$, S. Foucaud$^3$, P. Franzetti$^3$, B. Garilli$^3$, I. Gavignaud$^4$, L. Guzzo$^8$, O. Ilbert$^1$, A. Iovino$^8$, V. Le Brun$^1$, B. Marano$^2$, C. Marinoni$^1$, H.J. McCracken$^2$, G. Mathez$^4$, A. Mazure$^1$, Y. Mellier$^6$, B. Meneux$^1$ P. Merluzzi$^5$, S. Paltani$^1$, R. Pellò$^4$, A. Pollo$^8$, L. Pozzetti$^2$, M. Radovich$^5$, D. Rizzo$^8$, R. Scaramella$^9$, M. Scodeggio$^3$, L. Tresse$^1$, G. Zamorani$^{10}$, A. Zanichelli$^2$, E. Zucca$^{10}$'
title: Early results from the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Understanding how galaxies and large scale structures formed and evolved is one of the major goals of modern cosmology. In order to identify the relative contributions of the various physical processes at play and the associated timescales, a comprehensive picture of the evolutionary properties of the constituents of the universe is needed over a large volume and a large time base. Samples of high redshift galaxies known today reach less than a few thousand at redshifts $1-3$, and statistical analysis suffer from small number statistics, small explored volumes, selection biases, which prevent detailed analysis. In the local universe, large surveys like the 2dFGRS and the SDSS, will contain from $2.5\times10^5$ up to $10^6$ galaxies to reach a high level of accuracy in measuring the fundamental parameters of the galaxies and AGNs populations. Similarly, we need to gather large numbers of galaxies at high redshifts to accurately describe the various populations in environments ranging from low density to the dense cluster cores, and relate the properties observed at different redshifts to identify the main processes driving evolution.
This goal can only be achieved through massive observational programs assembling galaxies and QSO samples representative of the universe at the various look-back times explored. As the observed galaxies are at large distances and therefore very faint, instruments have to be conceived to combine wide field, high throughput, and high multiplex gain in order to efficiently observe large samples. Multi-object spectrographs are routinely in operation since $\sim$15 years, and the new generation now in place on the $6-10$m telescopes, like DEIMOS on the Keck-10m or VIMOS on the VLT-8m, allows to explore large volumes of the distant universe through the observations of many tens of thousand of objects.
Because of this leap forward in instrument performances, several large deep surveys are now in progress. We are presenting here the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey (VVDS). It is combining a common observing strategy to assemble more than 100000 redshifts in 3 large galaxy datasets observed over more than 16deg$^2$ in 5 equatorial fields, selected in magnitude from $I_{AB}\leq22.5$ to $I_{AB}\leq25$. The general strategy of the survey has been presented in e.g. Le Fèvre et al. (2001).
Survey observations status
==========================
The first survey observations have been conducted during the dark time of November and December 2002. A total of 29 nights have been allocated from the garanteed time, out of which 18 have been clear. The survey priority was set to accumulate as much observations as possible on the VVDS-0226-04 deep field, to a depth $I_{AB}=24$. The remaining time was spend on the 2217+00 and the 1002+03 fields, as part of the VVDS-wide survey. Targets have been selected from the deep imaging survey we have conducted in these fields (Le Fèvre et al., 2003). The VIMOS observations have been performed using 1 arcseconds wide slits and the LRRed grism. This provides a spectral resolution of $R=210$. The length of spectra at this resolution allows to pack on average 350–400 spectra for the “wide” $I_{AB}\leq22.5$ survey on the 4 VIMOS detectors, and 500 to 600 spectra (figure 1) for the “faint” $I_{AB}\leq24$, a key factor to accumulate redshifts in a very efficient way.
For a magnitude limited sample potentialy going to redshifts up to $\sim5$, the choice of the observed wavelength range is difficult: too blue and the rest frame domain around OII-4000$\AA$ break which contains strong features, disappears from the band already for $z\sim1$, too red and the UV domain comes into the band for quite high redshifts. We have compromised with a wavelength domain $5500-9400\AA$, which allows to follow \[OII\] up to $z=1.5$, at the expense of having to deal with the faint absorption features present in the rest frame domain corresponding to the redshift range $1.5<z<3$.
A total of 49 pointings (one pointing is a set of 4 masks in each of the 4 VIMOS quadrants) have been observed, and a total of 20741 spectra have been obtained, some objects being observed in two different pointings to measure the redshift measurement errors associated to the observational process.
Data processing and redshift measurement
========================================
The data processing is conducted in two steps. First the large number of raw data frames are organised in the object data and various calibration categories. This is followed by 2D spectra extraction, sky correction, sum/combine, and then by 1D optimal spectra extraction, wavelength and flux calibration. This is performed very efficiently with the VVDS consortium pipeline VIPGI with a minimum of human interaction (Scodeggio et al., in preparation).
The KBRED environment developed under IDL is then used to compute redshifts (Scaramella et al., in preparation). KBRED is run automatically on the whole sample, followed by systematic examination of each single spectrum by eye in the VIPGI environment. KBRED basically works by cross-correlation of observed spectra with a set of library template spectra followed by a reconstruction of each spectrum on a base of template vectors (Principal Component Analysis, PCA). There are two main limitations for this process to be fully automated. Because the range of possible redshift solutions to explore is large, with objects as diverse as stars, galaxies with redshifts possibly up to z=5 or more, or AGNs, it is essential to assemble as complete as possible a set of star templates, galaxies and AGN templates covering the full rest frame wavelength range from Ly$\alpha-1216$ to H$\alpha-6562\AA$, for early to late spectral types. Because of the lack of observed template spectra in the literature in the range between CIV-1548 and OII-3727, critical for redshifts $1.5-3$ given our wavelength range, we had to devise a scheme to go through this so called “redshift desert”, which is obviously only produced by the observational bias of spectroscopy set-ups. We have taken an iterative approach, creating templates from VIMOS spectra, and updating them along the reduction process as new galaxies are identified at redshifts $z>1.3$. This process is helping to significantly reduce the first-pass incompletness, and we are identifying several hundred galaxies beyond z=1.5 (Le Fèvre et al., in preparation). The second limitation is linked to the residuals of the sky subtraction and fringing correction still present in the reduced spectra which produce a noise pattern highly non linear, variable from spectra to spectra. Eye examination of both the 2D and 1D spectra are therefore sometimes required to validate a redshift proposed by KBRED. We are currently working at computing a two 2D noise model in each slit to help reduce this limitation.
Example spectra processed through VIPGI and KBRED are shown in Figures 6 and 7.
Redshift distribution to $I_{AB}=22.5$ and $I_{AB}=24$
======================================================
The redshift distribution of the $I_{AB}=24$ sample is presented in Figure 2, the first time such a distribution is observed to this depth. At the time of this writing, this distribution is affected by incompletness above $z\sim1.5$, waiting for a complete treatment of the as yet unidentified spectra as described in the previous section. However, there are two main features to be noted: the mean redshift is $<z>=0.7$, and there is a small but significant high redshift tail of galaxies identified up to z=5. In comparison, our $I_{AB}=22.5$ sample shows a mean redshift of $<z>=0.6$ (Figure 2). Most semi-analytic models make predictions for a higher mean redshift and a more numerous high redshift tail above z=1.5 for a $I_{AB}=24$ limited sample. While our current incompletness is most probably caused by objects at $z>1$ as identified from photometric redshifts estimates, unidentified objects cannot significantly affect the mean redshift of the full sample. This is dicussed in more details in Le Fèvre et al. (in preparation).
Evolution of the luminosity function
====================================
With the current sample, we can compute the luminosity function out to $z\sim1.5$ although our current incompletness starts to kick in at $z>1.2$. Figure 3 shows the luminosity function of a $I_{AB}=24$ sample of 4015 galaxies, as a function of redshift out to z=1.5. There is an overall brightening of the luminosity by about 1 magnitude at $z\sim1$, with a strong steepening of the faint end slope clearly identified (see Zucca et al., in preparation).
Since we have sufficient number statistics, we can for the first time break up the evolution of the LF by galaxy spectral types with the current data set reliably up to redshifts $z\sim1.2$ and $M_{B_{AB}}\leq-19$. Each galaxy can be assigned a spectral type based on the SED model fitting of the photometric data (covering a larger wavelength base than the spectra themselves). With all galaxies classified in 4 types, the LF build for the two extreme types of the sample, early types and blue star forming spectral types is shown in Figure 4 & 5. While the LF of the early type population seems not to be evolving my more than 0.5 mag., the LF of the blue star forming galaxies is strongly evolving with redshift, with the L\* luminosity measured from the Schechter function fit increasing by more than two magnitudes by redshift $\sim1$. This strong differential evolution vs. spectral type is discussed in Ilbert et al., in preparation.
We will aim to describe the evolution of the population vs. type as well as vs. local galaxy density when the processing of the current sample is complete.
Other VVDS products
===================
The luminosity density and the star formation rate history are being produced from the luminosity functions. We will be computing the correlation function $\xi(r_p,\pi,z)$ and $w(r_p,z)$ projections for the full sample as well as per each galaxy spectral type to map the evolution of the clustering vs. redshift.
Several other data products are directly available from the VVDS because it is a magnitude limited survey. About 100 type 1 AGNs have been identified in the current sample, the highest redshift QSO being at $z=5.000$ (Figure 5), this faint AGN sample is highly complementary to other surveys to date since it is surveying AGNs $2-3$ magnitudes deeper. Several clusters of galaxies are being identified and their properties studied.
The high redshift population observed in the VVDS is a unique sample assembled from a purely magnitude selected photometric sample. This galaxy census, when complete, will enable to derive evolution out to $z\sim4$ [*from within the same, large, homogeneous sample*]{}.
The VVDS is extending to multiwavelength observations: we have been conducting a deep radio survey (Bondi et al., 2003), and are associated with other teams conducting observations at other wavelengths: Galex, XMM, SIRTF. Furthermore, the VVDS-10h field is now the target of the COSMOS program with a 640 orbits HST-ACS coverage of 2 deg$^2$, with extensive multi-wavelength coverage (P.I.: N. Scoville).
Summary
=======
The VVDS is on-going. The preliminary first epoch results show:\
– a mean redshift lower than anticipated for a $I_{AB}\leq24$ sample, despite a high redshift tail reaching $z\sim5$.\
– a strong evolution of the global LF out to $z\sim1.5$, with the blue star forming galaxies identified as the population carrying most of the evolution, while the LF of the early type (“redder”) galaxies does not seem to evolve much.
Many different properties of the sample are being currently being explored.
Bondi, M., Ciliegi, P., et al., 2003, A&A, 403, 857 Le Fèvre, O., Vettolani, G., et al., 2001, ESO Astrophysics Symposia Series “Deep Fields”, Cristiani, Renzini, Williams, Eds, Springer, p.231 Le Fèvre, O., Mellier, Y., McCracken, H.J., et al., 2003, A&A, in press
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[DSEs, THE PION, AND RELATED MATTERS]{}\
ANDREAS KRASSNIGG$^{1}$ AND CRAIG D. ROBERTS$^{\,1,2}$\
$^1$[*Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL 60439, USA*]{}\
$^2$[*Fachbereich Physik, Universität Rostock, D-18051 Rostock, Germany*]{}
We recapitulate on aspects of Dyson-Schwinger equation studies relevant to pseudoscalar mesons: lattice confirmation of the DSE prediction that propagators are nonperturbatively dressed in the infrared; and exact results, e.g., in the chiral limit the leptonic decay constant vanishes for every pseudoscalar meson except the pion.
: 12.38.Aw, 14.40.Aq, 14.65.-q, 24.85.+p
: Dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, Dyson-Schwinger Equations, Pion properties.
[*1. Gap equation*]{}
The vast body of pion data available provides compelling evidence that this composite particle is a Goldstone mode of the strong interaction associated with the dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry. Therefore a legitimate understanding of pion observables, including its mass, decay constants and form factors, requires that an approach possess a well-defined and valid chiral limit. This is impossible without a detailed grasp of the connection between current- and constituent-quarks.
In QCD the running quark mass is obtained from the solution of $$\label{gendse} S^{-1}(p) = Z_2 \,(i\gamma\cdot p + m_{\rm bare}) +\, Z_1
\int^\Lambda_q \, g^2 D_{\mu\nu}(p-q) \frac{\lambda^a}{2}\gamma_\mu\, S(q)\,
\Gamma^a_\nu(q;p) \,.$$ This is the Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE) for the dressed-quark self energy or, equivalently, QCD’s *gap equation*, and it is a keystone in understanding dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (DCSB) and the relation between current- and constituent-quarks. On the right hand side of Eq.(\[gendse\]): $D_{\mu\nu}(k)$ is the dressed-gluon propagator; $\Gamma^a_\nu(q;p)$ is the dressed-quark-gluon vertex; $m_{\rm bare}$ is the $\Lambda$-dependent current-quark bare mass; and $\int^\Lambda_q :=
\int^\Lambda d^4 q/(2\pi)^4$ represents a translationally-invariant regularisation of the integral, with $\Lambda$ the regularisation mass-scale. In addition, $Z_{1,2}(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)$ are the quark-gluon-vertex and quark wave function renormalisation constants, which depend on $\Lambda$ and the renormalisation point, $\zeta$, as does the mass renormalisation constant $
Z_m(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2) = Z_4(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)/Z_2(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2) $. The solution of Eq. (\[gendse\]) has the form $$S^{-1} (p) = i \gamma\cdot p \, A(p^2,\zeta^2) + B(p^2,\zeta^2) \\
\equiv \frac{1}{Z(p^2,\zeta^2)}\left[ i\gamma\cdot p + M(p^2)\right],
\label{sinvp}$$ where $M(\zeta^2) \equiv m(\zeta):= m_{\rm
bare}(\Lambda)/Z_m(\zeta^2,\Lambda^2)$ is the running quark mass.
The behaviour of the nonperturbative solution of QCD’s gap equation is a longstanding prediction of DSE studies \[\[revbasti\],\[revreinhard\],\[revpieter\]\], and typical results are illustrated in Fig. \[mandarcflattice\]. One critical feature is that so long as the kernel of the gap equation has sufficient integrated strength at infrared momenta, one obtains a nonzero running quark mass even in the chiral limit: $$\label{chirallimit} Z_{4}(\zeta,\Lambda) \, m(\zeta) \equiv 0\,,\; \Lambda \gg
\zeta \,.$$ This effect is DCSB. It is impossible at any finite order of perturbation theory and apparent in Fig. \[mandarcflattice\].
The dressed-quark propagator can be calculated in lattice-regularised QCD. Results are available in the quenched truncation, and depicted in Fig.\[mandarcflattice\] are those of Ref. \[\[bowman2\]\] obtained with the current-quark masses ($\zeta = 19\,$GeV) $$\label{amvalues}
\begin{array}{l|lll}
a\,m_{\rm lattice} & 0.018 & 0.036 & 0.072 \\\hline m(\zeta) ({\rm GeV}) &
0.030 & 0.055 & 0.110
\end{array}\,.$$ The precise agreement with DSE results is not accidental. The essential agreement between lattice results and DSE predictions was highlighted in Refs.but Ref. \[\[mandar\]\] pursued a different goal. Only recently has reliable information about the gap equation’s kernel at infrared momenta begun to emerge, in the continuum \[\[alkofer\]\] and on the lattice \[\[latticegluon\]\]. Reference \[\[mandar\]\] therefore employed an *Ansatz* for the infrared behaviour of the gap equation’s kernel in order to demonstrate that it is possible to correlate lattice results for the gluon and quark Schwinger functions via QCD’s gap equation. This required the gap equation’s kernel to exhibit infrared enhancement over and above that observed in the gluon propagator alone, which could be attributed to an amplification of the dressed-quark-gluon vertex whose magnitude is consistent with that observed in quenched lattice estimates of this three-point function \[\[ayse\]\].
[*2. Hadrons*]{}
It is evident that reliable knowledge of QCD’s two-point functions (the propagators for QCD’s elementary excitations) is available. Direct comparison with experiment requires an equally good understanding of bound states. Progress here has required the evolution of an understanding of the intimate connection between symmetries and DSE truncation schemes. The best known scheme is the weak coupling expansion, which reproduces every diagram in perturbation theory. This scheme is valuable in the analysis of large momentum transfer phenomena because QCD is asymptotically free. However, it precludes any possibility of obtaining nonperturbative information, and bound state phenomena are intrinsically nonperturbative.
The properties of the pion are profoundly connected with DCSB, and chiral symmetry and its breaking are expressed through the axial-vector Ward-Takahashi identity ($k_\pm = k \pm P/2$, $\{\tau^j,j=1,2,3\}$ are the Pauli matrices) $$\label{avwtim} P_\mu \Gamma_{5\mu}^j(k;P) = {\cal S}^{-1}(k_+) i
\gamma_5\frac{\tau^j}{2} + i \gamma_5\frac{\tau^j}{2} {\cal S}^{-1}(k_-) - i
{\cal M}(\zeta) \,\Gamma_5^j(k;P) - \Gamma_5^j(k;P)\,i {\cal M}(\zeta).$$ This identity connects the axial-vector vertex: $\Gamma_{5\mu}^j(k;P)$, $P$ is the total momentum, with the dressed quark propagator: ${\cal S} = {\rm
diag}[S_u,S_d]$, the pseudoscalar vertex: $\Gamma_{5}^j(k;P)$, and the current-quark mass matrix: ${\cal M}(\zeta) = {\rm
diag}[m_u(\zeta),m_d(\zeta)]$. The propagator satisfies the gap equation but the vertices are determined by inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equations; e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{genave} \left[\Gamma_{5\mu}^j(k;P)\right]_{tu} &= &Z_2 \,
\left[\gamma_5\gamma_\mu \frac{\tau^j}{2}\right]_{tu} \,+ \int^\Lambda_q \,
[\chi_{5\mu}^j(q;P)]_{sr} \,K^{rs}_{tu}(q,k;P)\,,
$$ wherein $\chi^j_{5\mu}(q;P):= {\cal S}(q_+) \Gamma^j_{5\mu}(q;P) {\cal S}(q_-)$ and $K(q,k;P)$ is the dressed-quark-antiquark scattering kernel. The importance of DCSB entails that any truncation useful in understanding low energy phenomena must be nonperturbative and preserve Eq. (\[avwtim\]), without fine tuning. This nontrivial constraint cannot be satisfied without an intimate connection between $K(q,k;P)$ and the gap equation’s kernel.
One systematic truncation scheme has been identified that explicates this connection and hence preserves QCD’s global symmetries \[\[detmold\]\]. It is a dressed-loop expansion of the dressed-quark-gluon vertices that appear in the half-amputated dressed-quark-antiquark scattering matrix: $S^2 K$. The leading order term is the renormalisation-group-improved rainbow-ladder truncation, which underlies a one-parameter model of the quark-quark interaction used successfully in *ab initio* calculations of vector and flavour nonsinglet pseudoscalar meson properties \[\[revpieter\]\].
The existence of a nonperturbative, systematic and symmetry preserving truncation scheme enables exact results to be proved. For example, it is a general feature of QCD that the axial-vector and pseudoscalar vertices exhibit poles whenever $P^2= - m^2_{\pi_n}$, where $m_{\pi_n}$ is the mass of the pion or any of its radial excitations.[^1] This can be expressed for the axial-vector vertex via $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \left. \Gamma_{5 \mu}^j(k;P)\right|_{P^2+m_{\pi_n}^2 \approx 0} &=&
\frac{\tau^j}{2} \gamma_5 \left[ \gamma_\mu F_R(k;P) + \gamma\cdot k k_\mu
G_R(k;P) - \sigma_{\mu\nu} \,k_\nu\, H_R(k;P)
\right]\\
& & + \, \tilde\Gamma_{5\mu}^{j}(k;P) + \frac{f_{\pi_n} \, P_\mu}{P^2 +
m_{\pi_n}^2} \Gamma_{\pi_n}^j(k;P)\,, \label{genavv}\end{aligned}$$ where: $F_R$, $G_R$, $H_R$ and $\tilde\Gamma_{5\mu}^{i}$ are regular as $P^2\to
-m_{\pi_n}^2$, $P_\mu \tilde\Gamma_{5\mu}^{i}(k;P) \sim {\rm O }(P^2)$ and nonsingular; $\Gamma_{\pi_n}^j(k;P)$ is the $0^{-+}$ bound state’s Bethe-Salpeter amplitude: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \Gamma_{\pi_n}^j(k;P)& =& \tau^j \gamma_5 \left[ i E_{\pi_n}(k;P)
+ \gamma\cdot P F_{\pi_n}(k;P) \right. \\
&& \left. +\, \gamma\cdot k \,k \cdot P\, G_{\pi_n}(k;P) +
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,k_\mu P_\nu \,H_{\pi_n}(k;P) \right], \label{genpibsa}\end{aligned}$$ which is determined by the homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{genbsepi} \left[\Gamma_{\pi_n}^j(k;P)\right]_{tu} &=& \int^\Lambda_q
\,[\chi_{\pi_n}^j(q;P)]_{sr} \,K^{rs}_{tu}(q,k;P)\,;\end{aligned}$$ and $f_{\pi_n}$ is the pseudoscalar meson’s leptonic decay constant $$\label{fpin} f_{\pi_n} \,\delta^{ij} \, P_\mu = Z_2\,{\rm tr} \int^\Lambda_q
{\mbox{\footnotesize $\frac{1}{2}$}} \tau^i \gamma_5\gamma_\mu \chi_{\pi_n}^j(q;P)\,,$$ where the trace is over colour, flavour and spinor indices. Equation (\[fpin\]) is the expression in quantum field theory for the pseudo*vector* projection of the meson’s Bethe-Salpeter wave function onto the origin in configuration space.
The analogous expression in the case of the pseudoscalar vertex is $$\begin{aligned}
\left. i \Gamma_{5}^j(k;P)\right|_{P^2+m_{\pi_n}^2 \approx 0} &= &
\mbox{regular\ terms} + \frac{ \rho_{\pi_n} }{P^2 + m_{\pi_n}^2}\,
\Gamma_{\pi_n}^j(k;P)\,,\label{genpvv}\\
\label{cpres} i \rho_{\pi_n}\!(\zeta)\, \delta^{ij} & = &Z_4\,{\rm tr}
\int^\Lambda_q {\mbox{\footnotesize $\frac{1}{2}$}} \tau^i \gamma_5 \chi_{\pi_n}^j(q;P)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[cpres\]) expresses the pseudo*scalar* projection of the meson’s Bethe-Salpeter wave function onto the origin in configuration space.
Inserting Eqs. (\[genavv\]), (\[genpvv\]) into Eq. (\[avwtim\]), and subsequently equating pole terms, one obtains the model-independent result \[\[mrt98\]\] $$\label{gmorgen} f_{\pi_n} m_{\pi_n}^2 = [ m_u(\zeta) + m_d(\zeta) ] \,
\rho_{\pi_n}(\zeta)\,.$$
In the chiral limit, Eq. (\[chirallimit\]), the axial-vector Ward-Takahashi identity becomes $$\label{avwti0} P_\mu \Gamma_{5\mu}^j(k;P) = {\cal S}^{-1}(k_+) i
\gamma_5\frac{\tau^j}{2} + i \gamma_5\frac{\tau^j}{2} \,{\cal S}^{-1}(k_-) .$$ Assume that chiral symmetry is dynamically broken so that the dressed-quark propagator has a nonzero Dirac-scalar term; viz., $B\neq 0$ in Eq.(\[sinvp\]). It then follows \[\[mrt98\]\] that there is a massless pseudoscalar bound state, $m_{\pi_0}=0$, for which $$\label{gtrelation} f_{\pi_0}^0 E_{\pi_0}(k;0) = B(k^2)\,,$$ with similar relations for the other scalar functions in Eq. (\[genpibsa\]). This is clearly the ground state and finiteness of the right hand side in Eq.(\[gtrelation\]) entails $f_{\pi_0}^0\neq 0$. Moreover, for the ground state pion in the chiral limit \[\[mrt98\]\] $$\rho_{\pi_0}(\zeta) \to \rho_{\pi_0}^0(\zeta)= \frac{1}{f_{\pi_0}^0}\,
Z_4\,{\rm tr} \int^\Lambda_q S^0(q) = - \frac{1}{f_{\pi_0}^0}\,\langle \bar q q
\rangle_\zeta^0\,,$$ where $\langle \bar q q \rangle^0$ is the vacuum quark condensate. Hence the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner relation for the ground state pion appears as a corollary of Eq. (\[gmorgen\]). Another important corollary of Eq. (\[gmorgen\]), valid for pseudoscalar mesons containing at least one heavy-quark, is described in Ref..
It is plain that $m_{\pi_{n\neq 0}}> m_{\pi_{n=0}}$ for all radial excitations and hence in the chiral limit $m_{\pi_{n\neq 0}}>0$. In this limit it is impossible to avoid the fact that the absence of a pole contribution on the right hand side of Eq. (\[avwti0\]) forces $$f^0_{\pi_{n\neq 0}} = 0 \,;$$ viz., in the chiral limit the leptonic decay constant vanishes for every one of the pion’s radial excitations.[^2] In general $$\label{fpinfpi0} \frac{f_{\pi_{n}}}{f_{\pi_{0}}} =
\frac{m_{\pi_{0}}^2}{m^2_{\pi_{n}}} \, \frac{\rho_{\pi_n}}{\rho_{\pi_0}}\,.$$
[*3. Quantitative illustration*]{}
The manner in which these results are realised in QCD can be illustrated using the one-parameter renormalisation-group-improved ladder model for the quark-antiquark scattering kernel introduced in Ref. \[\[maristandy1\]\], and reviewed in Ref. \[\[revpieter\]\]. One first solves the gap equation, Eq.(\[gendse\]), whose solution is required to complete the specification of the Bethe-Salpeter equation, Eq. (\[genbsepi\]), and then solves this for the pion and and its first radial excitation.
The homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation is an eigenvalue problem, with the bound state masses: $P^2=-m_{\pi_n}^2$, being the eigenvalues. We want only the first two eigenvalues and eigenvectors. They can be obtained from the modified equation $$\label{genbsepilambda} l(P^2)\, \left[\Gamma_{\pi_n}^j(k;P)\right]_{tu} =
\int^\Lambda_q \,[\chi_{\pi_n}^j(q;P)]_{sr} \,K^{rs}_{tu}(q,k;P)\,,$$ with $l(P^2)$ a scalar, which has a solution for every value of $P^2$ and can therefore be solved by iteration. To explain this, consider the equation written in the form $$l (P^2) \, |g\rangle = M(P^2)\, |g\rangle \,,$$ where the matrix $M(P^2)$ denotes the full kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equation. One fixes a value of $P^2$ and “guesses” a solution: $ |g(0)\rangle
$. The kernel, $M(P^2)$, has a complete set of real eigenvectors $|g_i\rangle$ with eigenvalues $\lambda_i$, ordered such that $\lambda_0 > \lambda_1
> \ldots$, and therefore $$|g(0)\rangle = \sum_{i=0}^\infty\, a_i |g_i\rangle\,,$$ where $a_i$ are real constants and the vector is canonically normalised. It is clear that $$M(P^2)^N\,|g(0)\rangle = \sum_{i=0}^\infty\, \lambda_i^N\, a_i |g_i\rangle\ =
\lambda_0^N \, \left\{ a_0 |g_0\rangle\ + \sum_{i=1}^\infty\,
\frac{\lambda_i^N}{\lambda_0^N} \, a_i |g_i\rangle\right\}$$ and hence for sufficiently large $N$, $$M(P^2)^{N+1}\,|g(0)\rangle \approx \lambda_0 \, M(P^2)^{N}\,|g(0)\rangle .$$ Thus repeated operation of the kernel on the initial “guess” produces the largest eigenvalue, $l_0 (P^2)=\lambda_0$, and its associated eigenvector to any required accuracy.
One completes this exercise for a range of values of $P^2$ and thereby obtains a trajectory $l_0(P^2)$ that maps the $P^2$-evolution of the integral equation’s largest eigenvalue. It is then straightforward to find that $P^2$ for which $l_0(P^2)=1$. This is the solution of Eq. (\[genbsepi\]) so that $P^2= -m_{\pi_0}^2$ and the associated eigenvector is the ground state pion’s Bethe-Salpeter amplitude.
The procedure can also be applied to determine the first excited state. One fixes $P^2 < -m_{\pi_0}^2$, and finds the largest eigenvalue and associated eigenvector for this new mass-scale. That completed, one again “guesses” the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude but now projects out the eigenvector associated with the largest eigenvalue at this $P^2$: $$\label{project} |\tilde g(0)\rangle = |g(0) \rangle- | g_0 \rangle
\,\frac{1}{\langle g_0 | g_0\rangle} \, \langle g_0 |g(0)\rangle\,.$$ The iterative procedure then applied as before to $|\tilde g(0)\rangle$ yields the second largest eigenvalue and its associated eigenvector. One thereby obtains the $P^2$-evolution of the second largest eigenvalue, $l_1(P^2)$. The solution of $l_1(P^2)=1$ gives the mass of the first excited state and at this $P^2$ the eigenvector is that state’s Bethe-Salpeter amplitude. Any finite number of excited states can be studied in this way.
We have not yet specified the meaning of the inner product used implicitly in Eq. (\[project\]). For models in the class characterised by the rainbow-ladder truncation $$\langle h| g \rangle := {\rm tr} \int_q^\Lambda\, h(q;-P) \,S(q_+)\, g(q;P)\,
S(q_-)\,.$$ The condition $\langle h | g \rangle = 0$ then expresses a statement that the momentum-dependent $g\to h$ vacuum polarisation (overlap amplitude) vanishes at $P^2$, which is akin to saying that the $P^2$-dependent mass-mixing matrix for the states $g$, $h$ does not possess off-diagonal terms.
We have obtained the mass and amplitude for the ground state pion, using the complete expression in Eq. (\[genpibsa\]), and found: $ f_{\pi_0} =
0.092$[GeV]{}; $m_{\pi_0} = 0.14$[GeV]{}; $\rho_{\pi_0} = (0.81\,{\rm
GeV})^2$, at a current-quark mass $m_d(1\,{\rm GeV})= m_u(1\,{\rm GeV})=
5.5\,$MeV, reproducing the results in Ref. \[\[maristandy1\]\].
Our study of the first excited state is in its early stages and hitherto we have only employed the leading amplitude, $E_{\pi_1}$, in Eq.(\[genpibsa\]), and therewith obtained an estimate for the mass: $$m_{\pi_{n=1}} \approx 1.1\,{\rm GeV}.$$ Assuming $\rho_{\pi_{n=1}} \leq \rho_{\pi_0}$, which is supported by our preliminary estimates, it follows from Eq. (\[fpinfpi0\]) that at the physical current-quark mass $$f_{\pi_{n=1}} \leq 0.016\,f_{\pi_{n=0}} = 1.5\,{\rm MeV}.$$
[*4. Epilogue*]{}
We have necessarily been brief. There are many other applications of interest to this community, among them the *ab initio* calculation of electromagnetic and transition pion form factors, and a calculation of the pion’s valence-quark distribution function whose discrepancy with extant data raises difficult questions. These and other studies are reviewed in Ref.. A pressing contemporary challenge is the extension of the framework to the calculation of baryon observables, aspects of which are beginning to be understood \[\[piN\]\].
*Acknowledgments*
CDR thanks the organisers for their assistance and, in particular, Dubravko Klabučar for his kindness and hospitality. We acknowledge useful conversations with D.B. Blaschke, P.C. Tandy, M.K. Volkov and V.L.Yudichev. This work was supported by: the Austrian Research Foundation FWF, Erwin-Schrödinger-Stipendium no. J2233-N08; the Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, contract no. W-31-109-ENG-38; and the A.v.Humboldt-Stiftung via a F.W. Bessel Forschungspreis.
References
1. \[revbasti\] C.D. Roberts and S.M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl.Phys. **45**, S1 (2000).
2. \[revreinhard\] R. Alkofer and L.v. Smekal, Phys. Rept. [**353**]{}, 281 (2001).
3. \[revpieter\] P. Maris and C.D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**12**]{}, 297 (2003).
4. \[mandar\] M.S. Bhagwat, M.A. Pichowsky, C.D. Roberts and P.C.Tandy, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 015203 (2003).
5. \[bowman2\] P.O. Bowman, U.M. Heller, D.B. Leinweber and A.G. Williams, “Modelling the quark propagator,” hep-lat/0209129.
6. \[pctlattice\] P. Maris, A. Raya, C.D. Roberts and S.M. Schmidt, “Facets of confinement and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking,” nucl-th/0208071; P.C. Tandy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**50**]{}, 305 (2003).
7. \[alkofer\] C.S. Fischer and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 094020 (2003); and references therein.
8. \[latticegluon\] P.O. Bowman, U.M. Heller, D.B. Leinweber and A.G. Williams, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 074505 (2002); and references therein.
9. \[ayse\] J.I. Skullerud, P.O. Bowman, A. [Kizilersü]{}, D.B. Leinweber and A.G. Williams, JHEP [**0304**]{}, 047 (2003).
10. \[detmold\] A. Bender, W. Detmold, C.D. Roberts and A.W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C **65**, 065203 (2002).
11. \[mrt98\] P. Maris, C.D. Roberts and P.C. Tandy, Phys.Lett. B**420**, 267 (1998).
12. \[hqlimit\] M.A. Ivanov, Yu.L. Kalinovsky and C.D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D[**60**]{}, 034018 (1999).
13. \[volkov\] M.K. Volkov and V.L. Yudichev, Phys. Part. Nucl. [**31**]{}, 282 (2000) \[Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra [**31**]{}, 576 (2000)\].
14. \[maristandy1\] P. Maris and P.C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{}, 055214 (1999).
15. \[piN\] J.C.R Bloch, A. Krassnigg and C.D. Roberts, “Regarding proton form factors,” nucl-th/0306059, and references therein.
[^1]: The hadron spectrum exhibits a sequence of $J^{PC}=0^{-+}$ mesons, with $\pi(140)$ being the lowest mass entry. In quantum mechanical models the other members of this sequence: $\pi(1300)$, $\pi(1800)$, …, are described as radial excitations of the $\pi(140)$. Aspects of this interpretation persist in Poincaré covariant studies in quantum field theory and hence we retain the nomenclature.
[^2]: A discussion of this result in chiral quark models is presented in Ref. \[\[volkov\]\]. We thank M.K.Volkov and V.L. Yudichev for bringing this to our attention.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove the ideal-adic semi-continuity of minimal log discrepancies on surfaces.'
address: 'Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
author:
- Masayuki Kawakita
title: 'Ideal-adic semi-continuity of minimal log discrepancies on surfaces'
---
De Fernex, Ein and Mustaţă in [@dFEM10] after Kollár in [@Kl08] proved the ideal-adic semi-continuity of log canonicity effectively, to obtain Shokurov’s ACC conjecture [@S96] for log canonical thresholds on smooth varieties. Mustaţă formulated this semi-continuity for minimal log discrepancies.
\[cnj:mld\] Let $(X,\Delta)$ be a pair, $Z$ a closed subset of $X$ and ${\mathcal{I}}_Z$ its ideal sheaf. Let ${\mathfrak{a}}=\prod_{j=1}^k{\mathfrak{a}}_j^{r_j}$ be a formal product of ideal sheaves ${\mathfrak{a}}_j$ with positive real exponents $r_j$. Then there exists an integer $l$ such that the following holds if ${\mathfrak{b}}=\prod_{j=1}^k{\mathfrak{b}}_j^{r_j}$ satisfies ${\mathfrak{a}}_j+{\mathcal{I}}_Z^l={\mathfrak{b}}_j+{\mathcal{I}}_Z^l$ for all $j$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})=\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{b}}).\end{aligned}$$
The case of minimal log discrepancy zero is the semi-continuity of log canonicity. Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] is proved in the Kawamata log terminal (klt) case in [@K10 Theorem 1.6]. It is however inevitable to treat log canonical (lc) singularities in the study of limits of singularities; for example, the limit of klt pairs $({\mathbb{A}}^2_{x,y},(x,y^n){\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{A}}^2})$ indexed by $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is the lc pair $({\mathbb{A}}^2,x{\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathbb{A}}^2})$. The purpose of this paper is to settle Mustaţă’s conjecture for surfaces.
\[thm:surface\] Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] holds when $X$ is a surface.
We must handle a non-klt triple $(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ which has positive minimal log discrepancy, but unlike the klt case, the log canonicity is no longer retained once when ${\mathfrak{a}}$ is expanded. However for surfaces, we are reduced to the purely log terminal (plt) case in which ${\mathfrak{a}}$ has an expression ${\mathfrak{a}}'{\mathcal{O}}_X(-C)$, then we can expand only the part ${\mathfrak{a}}'$ to apply the result on log canonicity.
We work over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. We use the notation below for singularities in the minimal model program.
A *pair* $(X,\Delta)$ consists of a normal variety $X$ and an effective ${\mathbb{R}}$-divisor $\Delta$ such that $K_X+\Delta$ is an ${\mathbb{R}}$-Cartier ${\mathbb{R}}$-divisor. We treat a *triple* $(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ by attaching a formal product ${\mathfrak{a}}=\prod_j{\mathfrak{a}}_j^{r_j}$ of finitely many coherent ideal sheaves ${\mathfrak{a}}_j$ with positive real exponents $r_j$. A prime divisor $E$ on a normal variety $X'$ with a proper birational morphism $\varphi\colon X'\to X$ is called a divisor *over* $X$, and the image $\varphi(E)$ on $X$ is called the *centre* of $E$ on $X$ and denoted by $c_X(E)$. We denote by ${\mathcal{D}}_X$ the set of divisors over $X$. The *log discrepancy* $a_E(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ of $E$ is defined as $1+\operatorname{ord}_E(K_{X'}-\varphi^*(K_X+\Delta))-\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{a}}$. The triple $(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ is said to be *log canonical*, *Kawamata log terminal* if $a_E(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})\ge0$, $>0$ respectively for all $E\in{\mathcal{D}}_X$, and said to be *purely log terminal*, *canonical*, *terminal* if $a_E(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})>0$, $\ge1$, $>1$ respectively for all exceptional $E\in{\mathcal{D}}_X$. A centre $c_X(E)$ with $a_E(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})\le0$ is called a *non-klt centre*. Let $Z$ be a closed subset of $X$. The *minimal log discrepancy* $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ over $Z$ is the infimum of $a_E(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ for all $E\in{\mathcal{D}}_X$ with centre in $Z$. We say that $E\in{\mathcal{D}}_X$ *computes* $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ if $c_X(E)\subset Z$ and $a_E(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})=\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ (or negative when $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})=-\infty$).
Prior to the proof of Theorem \[thm:surface\], we collect standard reductions and known results on Conjecture \[cnj:mld\].
\[lem:standard\] Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] is reduced to the case when $X$ has ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorial terminal singularities, $\Delta=0$ and $Z$ is irreducible and it suffices to prove the inequality $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{a}})\le\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{b}})$.
\[thm:collection\] Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] holds in each of the following cases.
1. \[itm:coll.known.nonlc\] $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{a}})=-\infty$.
2. \[itm:coll.known.lc\] $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{a}})=0$.
3. \[itm:coll.known.klt\] $(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$ is klt about $Z$.
\[rmk:effective\] In (\[itm:coll.known.lc\]) above, one can take as $l$ any integer greater than the maximum of $\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{a}}_j/\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathcal{I}}_Z$, by fixing $E\in{\mathcal{D}}_X$ which computes $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$. The estimate of $l$ in (\[itm:coll.known.klt\]) involves the log canonical threshold of ${\mathfrak{a}}$.
Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] for surfaces is reduced to the plt case.
\[lem:reduction\] One may assume the following for Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] for surfaces.
1. $X$ is a smooth surface, $\Delta=0$ and $Z$ is a closed point.
2. $(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$ is plt with unique non-klt centre $C$.
3. $C$ is a smooth curve.
We may assume that $X$ is smooth with $\Delta=0$ by Lemma \[lem:standard\], and may assume $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{a}})>0$ by Theorem \[thm:collection\](\[itm:coll.known.nonlc\]), (\[itm:coll.known.lc\]). Let $C$ be the non-klt locus of $(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$. By Theorem \[thm:collection\](\[itm:coll.known.klt\]), we have only to work about $Z\cap C$. The assumption $\operatorname{mld}_Z(X,{\mathfrak{a}})>0$ means that $Z$ contains no non-klt centre, whence $Z\cap C$ consists of finitely many closed points. By replacing $Z$ with $Z\cap C$ and working locally, we may assume that $Z$ is a closed point $x$, and $(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$ has the non-klt locus $C$ which is a curve. The exceptional divisor $E$ of the blow-up of $X$ at $x$ has positive log discrepancy $a_E(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$, but it is at most $a_E(X,C)=2-\operatorname{mult}_xC$. So $C$ must be smooth at $x$.
We work locally about the closed point $x=Z$ with the assumptions in Lemma \[lem:reduction\]. We denote by ${\mathfrak{m}}$ the maximal ideal sheaf at $x$, and use the notation similar to [@K10 Definition 1.3].
For ${\mathfrak{b}}=\prod_j{\mathfrak{b}}_j^{r_j}$ and $l\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we write ${\mathfrak{a}}\equiv_l{\mathfrak{b}}$ if ${\mathfrak{a}}_j+{\mathfrak{m}}^l={\mathfrak{b}}_j+{\mathfrak{m}}^l$ for all $j$.
Set $c:=\operatorname{mld}_x(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$. The non-trivial locus of ${\mathfrak{a}}$ is a divisor of form $C+D$. Since $(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$ is plt, we can fix $s,t>0$ and $t'\ge0$ such that $\operatorname{mld}_x(X,sD,{\mathfrak{a}}{\mathfrak{m}}^{t'})=\operatorname{mld}_x(X,{\mathfrak{a}}{\mathfrak{m}}^t)=0$. We fix a log resolution $\varphi\colon\bar{X}\to X$ of $(X,{\mathfrak{a}}{\mathfrak{m}})$, that is, $\prod_j{\mathfrak{a}}_j{\mathfrak{m}}{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}$ defines a divisor with simple normal crossing support. Let $\bar{C},\bar{D}$ denote the strict transform of $C,D$. Since $C$ is smooth, $\bar{C}$ intersects only one prime divisor $F$ in $\varphi^{-1}(x)$. This will play a crucial role in the proof. By blowing up $\bar{X}$ further, we may assume that every divisor $E$ in $\varphi^{-1}(x)$ intersecting $\bar{D}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ord.D}
\operatorname{ord}_ED\ge s^{-1}c-1.\end{aligned}$$ We take an integer $l$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ord.a}
l>\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{a}}_j/\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{m}}\end{aligned}$$ for all $j$ and $E\subset\varphi^{-1}(x)$. The lemma below is an application of Theorem \[thm:collection\](\[itm:coll.known.lc\]) and Remark \[rmk:effective\], with the inequality (\[eqn:ord.a\]).
\[lem:lc\] $\operatorname{mld}_x(X,sD,{\mathfrak{b}}{\mathfrak{m}}^{t'})=\operatorname{mld}_x(X,{\mathfrak{b}}{\mathfrak{m}}^t)=0$ for any ${\mathfrak{b}}\equiv_l{\mathfrak{a}}$.
We write $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{a}}_j{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}={\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}(-H_j-V_j)\end{aligned}$$ with divisors $H_j,V_j$ such that $\operatorname{Supp}H_j\subset\bar{C}+\bar{D}$ and $\operatorname{Supp}V_j\subset\varphi^{-1}(x)$. Let ${\mathfrak{b}}\equiv_l{\mathfrak{a}}$. For $E\subset\varphi^{-1}(x)$, we have $\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{a}}_j<\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{m}}^l$ by (\[eqn:ord.a\]), and $\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{a}}_j=\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{b}}_j$ by ${\mathfrak{a}}_j+{\mathfrak{m}}^l={\mathfrak{b}}_j+{\mathfrak{m}}^l$. Hence we can write $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak{b}}_j{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}={\mathfrak{b}}'_j{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}(-V_j),\qquad{\mathfrak{m}}^l{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}={\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}(-M_j-V_j),\end{aligned}$$ with an ideal sheaf ${\mathfrak{b}}'_j$ and an effective divisor $M_j$ such that $\operatorname{Supp}M_j=\varphi^{-1}(x)$. Then the equality ${\mathfrak{a}}_j+{\mathfrak{m}}^l={\mathfrak{b}}_j+{\mathfrak{m}}^l$ induces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:support}
{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}(-H_j)+{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}(-M_j)={\mathfrak{b}}'_j+{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}(-M_j).\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma shows $\operatorname{mld}_x(X,{\mathfrak{b}})\ge c$, which with Lemma \[lem:standard\] completes Theorem \[thm:surface\].
\[lem:centre\] $a_G(X,{\mathfrak{b}})\ge c$ for any ${\mathfrak{b}}\equiv_l{\mathfrak{a}}$ and $G\in{\mathcal{D}}_X$ with $c_X(G)=x$.
We divide into three cases according to the position of $c_{\bar{X}}(G)$.
1. \[itm:notCD\] $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\not\subset\bar{C}+\bar{D}$.
2. \[itm:D\] $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\subset\bar{D}$.
3. \[itm:C\] $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\subset\bar{C}$.
(\[itm:notCD\]) By (\[eqn:support\]), $\operatorname{Supp}H_j\cap\operatorname{Supp}M_j=\operatorname{Supp}{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}/{\mathfrak{b}}'_j\cap\operatorname{Supp}M_j$, whence $\operatorname{Supp}{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}/{\mathfrak{b}}'_j\cap\varphi^{-1}(x)\subset\bar{C}+\bar{D}$. In particular, $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\not\subset\operatorname{Supp}{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{X}}/{\mathfrak{b}}'_j$. This implies $\operatorname{ord}_G{\mathfrak{b}}_j=\operatorname{ord}_GV_j=\operatorname{ord}_G{\mathfrak{a}}_j$, so $a_G(X,{\mathfrak{b}})=a_G(X,{\mathfrak{a}})\ge c$.
(\[itm:D\]) Take a prime divisor $E$ in $\varphi^{-1}(x)$ such that $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\subset E$. By (\[eqn:ord.D\]), $\operatorname{ord}_GD=\operatorname{ord}_ED\cdot\operatorname{ord}_GE+\operatorname{ord}_G\bar{D}\ge\operatorname{ord}_ED+1\ge s^{-1}c$. Lemma \[lem:lc\] for $(X,sD,{\mathfrak{b}}{\mathfrak{m}}^{t'})$ implies $a_G(X,{\mathfrak{b}})\ge s\operatorname{ord}_GD$. These two inequalities induce $a_G(X,{\mathfrak{b}})\ge c$.
(\[itm:C\]) $c_{\bar{X}}(G)$ is in the unique divisor $F\subset\varphi^{-1}(x)$ intersecting $\bar{C}$. There exists a divisor $E$ in $\varphi^{-1}(x)$ with $a_E(X,{\mathfrak{a}}{\mathfrak{m}}^t)=0$. Let $L$ be the union of all such $E$. Then $L\cup\bar{C}$ is connected by the connectedness lemma [@Kl+92 Theorem 17.4]. Hence $F\subset L$, that is, $a_F(X,{\mathfrak{a}}{\mathfrak{m}}^t)=0$, so $\operatorname{ord}_F{\mathfrak{m}}^t=a_F(X,{\mathfrak{a}})\ge c$ (actually $=c$ by precise inversion of adjunction [@EMY03]). Lemma \[lem:lc\] for $(X,{\mathfrak{b}}{\mathfrak{m}}^t)$ implies $a_G(X,{\mathfrak{b}})\ge\operatorname{ord}_G{\mathfrak{m}}^t$. With $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\subset F$, we obtain $a_G(X,{\mathfrak{b}})\ge\operatorname{ord}_G{\mathfrak{m}}^t\ge\operatorname{ord}_F{\mathfrak{m}}^t\ge c$.
The case division in the proof of Lemma \[lem:centre\] is in terms of the union $H$ of divisors $E$ with $\operatorname{ord}_E{\mathfrak{a}}>0$ and $c_X(E)\not\subset Z$, on a suitable log resolution $\bar{X}$. We write $H=H'+H''$ so that $H'$ is the union of those $E$ with $a_E(X,{\mathfrak{a}})=0$. Then the cases (\[itm:notCD\]), (\[itm:D\]), (\[itm:C\]) correspond to the conditions (\[itm:notCD\]) $c_{\bar{X}}(G)\not\subset H$, (\[itm:D\]) $\subset H''$ and $\not\subset H'$, (\[itm:C\]) $\subset H'$ respectively. The proof of (\[itm:notCD\]) works in any dimension, and (\[itm:D\]) works as long as $(X,{\mathfrak{a}})$ is plt (or more generally, dlt). However, (\[itm:C\]) would not work unless $H'$ intersects only one divisor in $\varphi^{-1}(Z)$.
In [@K10], Conjecture \[cnj:mld\] is formulated for $(X,\Delta,{\mathfrak{a}})$ with ${\mathfrak{a}}$ an ${\mathbb{R}}$-ideal sheaf as an equivalence class of formal products of ideal sheaves. Our proof is valid also for this formulation.
This paper was generated in the discussions during the workshop at American Institute of Mathematics. I am grateful to Professor T. de Fernex for his suggestion of the connectedness lemma after increasing the boundary. I thank Mr Y. Nakamura for his interest in the surface case and Professor M. Mustaţă for his conjecture. American Institute of Mathematics supported my participation financially. The research was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) 24684003.
[9]{} T. de Fernex, L. Ein and M. Mustaţă, Shokurov’s ACC conjecture for log canonical thresholds on smooth varieties, Duke Math. J. **152** (2010), 93-114 L. Ein, M. Mustaţă and T. Yasuda, Jet schemes, log discrepancies and inversion of adjunction, Invent. Math. **153** (2003), 519-535 M. Kawakita, Ideal-adic semi-continuity problem for minimal log discrepancies, arXiv:1012. 0395 J. Kollár, Which powers of holomorphic functions are integrable?, arXiv:0805.0756 J. Kollár et al, *Flips and abundance for algebraic threefolds*, Astérisque **211** (1992) V. Shokurov, $3$-fold log models, J. Math. Sci. **81** (1996), 2667-2699
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate that an undamped few-body precursor of the Higgs mode can be investigated in a harmonically trapped Fermi gas. Using exact diagonalisation, the lowest monopole mode frequency is shown to depend non-monotonically on the interaction strength, having a minimum in a crossover region. The minimum deepens with increasing particle number, reflecting that the mode is the few-body analogue of a many-body Higgs mode in the superfluid phase, which has a vanishing frequency at the quantum phase transition point to the normal phase. We show that this mode mainly consists of coherent excitations of time-reversed pairs, and that it can be selectively excited by modulating the interaction strength, using for instance a Feshbach resonance in cold atomic gases.'
author:
- 'J. Bjerlin'
- 'S. M. Reimann'
- 'G. M. Bruun'
title: 'Few-body precursor of the Higgs mode in a Fermi gas'
---
The transition from few-body quantum physics to the thermodynamic limit with increasing particle number is a fundamental problem in science. A systematic investigation of this question is complicated by the fact that the few-body systems existing in nature, such as atoms and nuclei, have limited tunability. Artificially created clusters [@deHeer1993; @brack1993] or semiconductor quantum dots [@reimann2002] offer more flexibility, but they are often strongly coupled to their surroundings making a study of pure quantum states difficult. The creation of highly controllable few-fermion systems using cold atoms in microtraps [@Serwane2011; @Zurn2013], however, has opened new perspectives. Tunneling experiments in the few-body limit demonstrated single-atom control [@zurn2012; @Rontani2012]. One has already observed the formation of a Fermi sea [@Wenz2013], as well as pair correlations in one-dimensional (1D) few-body atomic gases [@Zurn2013] that have also been studied extensively theoretically [@Sowinski2015a; @Sowinski2015b; @Grining2015a; @Grining2015b; @DAmico2015]. The few- to many-body transition is arguably even more interesting in higher dimensions, where quantum phase transitions with varying degrees of broken symmetry are ubiquitous [@Sachdevbook]. A key question concerns the few-body fate of the order parameter, which describes a broken symmetry phase in the thermodynamic limit.
Another fundamental problem concerns the properties of the Higgs mode, which corresponds to oscillations in the size of the order parameter for a given broken symmetry phase [@Goldtone1961; @Higgs1964]. Elementary particles acquire their mass from the presence of a Higgs mode [@Ryder1996Quantum], which was famously observed at CERN [@CMS2012; @ATLAS2012]. The Higgs mode also leads to collective modes in condensed matter and nuclear systems [@Sachdevbook; @BohrMottelson]. Despite its fundamental importance, the list of table top systems where it has been observed is short, mainly because it is typically strongly damped, and because it couples only weakly to experimental probes [@Pekker2015; @Cea2014; @Cea2015]. Experimental evidence for the existence of a Higgs mode has been reported in disordered and niobium selenide superconductors [@Sherman2015; @Sooryakumar1980; @Measson2014; @Littlewood1981]. Also, neutron scattering experiments for a quantum anti-ferromagnet [@Ruegg2008] are consistent with the presence of a broad Higgs mode, and lattice experiments combined with theoretical models for bosonic atoms in an optical lattice, indicate that a threshold feature can be interpreted in terms of a strongly damped Higgs mode [@Endres2012; @Liu2015].
Here, we show how one can explore both these fundamental questions, the few- to many-body transition and the nature of the Higgs mode, using an atomic Fermi gas in a new generation of microtraps. We calculate the few-body spectrum using exact diagonalisation and show that for closed-shell configurations, the lowest monopole excitation energy depends non-monotonically on the interaction strength, having a minimum in a cross-over region, which deepens with increasing particle number. By comparing with a many-body theory, we demonstrate that the mode is the few-body precursor of the Higgs mode in the superfluid phase, which exhibits a vanishing frequency at a quantum phase transition to a normal phase. The mode mainly consists of time-reversed pair excitations, and it can be selectively excited by modulating the interaction strength.
We consider $N/2$ fermions of mass $m$ in each of two hyperfine (spin) states $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$ in a 2D harmonic trap $m\omega^2r^2/2$. Particles with opposite spin interact via an attractive delta function interaction (suitably regularised, see below) $g\delta({\mathbf r}-{\mathbf r}')$ with $g<0$, whereas particles of the same spin do not interact. The Hamiltonian is $$\hat H=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(-\frac{\hbar^2\nabla_i^2}{2m}+\frac12m\omega^2{\mathbf r}_i^2\right)+g\sum_{k,l}\delta({\mathbf r}_k-{\mathbf r}_l)
\label{Hamiltonian}$$ where ${\mathbf r}_i=(x_i,y_i)$ is the spatial coordinate of particle $i$, $\nabla_i^2=\partial_{x_i}^2+\partial_{y_i}^2$, and $k$ and $l$ in the second sum denote particles with spin $\uparrow $ and spin $\downarrow $, respectively.
In order to make rigorous predictions unbiased by any assumptions, we calculate the eigenstates of (\[Hamiltonian\]) by exact diagonalisation using a basis of harmonic oscillator states with energy $(2n+ \left| m \right| + 1)\hbar\omega$, where $n=0, 1, 2, 3, \dots $, and $m=0,\pm1,\pm2\ldots$ is the angular momentum. This method has been extensively applied to attractive fermion systems, mainly in 1D [@Sowinski2015a; @Sowinski2015b; @Grining2015a; @Grining2015b; @DAmico2015] but also in 2D [@Rontani2008; @Rontani2009]. As explained in the Supplementary Material [^1], we employ a two-parameter cut-off scheme for the basis states in order to reach maximum convergence. Using a sparse representation of the resulting matrix, we find the eigenvectors using the implicitly restarted Arnoldi iteration method [@arpack]. This generally allows for a significantly larger number of basis states, $\sim10^7$, as compared to other available diagonalisation methods, which is crucial, since we need a very large basis set for an accurate calculation of the low-lying collective modes.
As it stands, the spectrum of $\hat H$ depends logarithmically on the energy cut-off $E_{\text{cut}}$. To cure this UV divergence, we eliminate the coupling constant $g$ and cut-off $E_{\text{cut}}$ in favour of the two-body binding energy $\epsilon_b$ per particle. This is defined as $E_2=2\hbar\omega-2\epsilon_b$, where $E_2$ is the ground state energy of one $\uparrow$- and one $\downarrow$-particle in the trap. In practice, we calculate $\epsilon_b$ and the many-body spectrum as a function of $g$ for the same $E_{\text{cut}}$, and then we plot the spectrum as a function of $\epsilon_b$. Since the two-body problem contains the same logarithmic divergence as the many-body problem, this procedure yields a well-defined theory for $E_{\text{cut}}\rightarrow\infty$ [@Randeria1990; @Zollner2011; @Rontani2008]. A similar UV divergence appears for the system in 3D, where it has been regularised using a variety of methods [@Galitskii1958; @Gorkov1961; @Leggett1980; @Bruun1999; @Stetcu2007; @Alhassid2008; @Zinner2009].
Figure \[SpectrumMagicFig\] shows the lowest monopole (zero angular momentum) excitation spectrum as a function of the two-body binding energy $\epsilon_b$ for a 3+3 system, consisting of three $\uparrow$-particles and three $\downarrow$-particles. The non-interacting ground state is a closed-shell configuration with the two lowest harmonic oscillator shells filled. For no interaction, the excitations all have the energy $2\hbar\omega$, and they are formed either by pair excitations taking two particles with opposite angular momenta one shell up, see Fig. \[TimereverseFig\](a)-(b), or by single particle excitations taking one particle two shells up, see Fig. \[TimereverseFig\](c). We see that all excitation energies, except the lowest, increase with increasing attraction since the attractive mean-field interaction potential increases the effective trapping frequency thereby increasing the single particle excitation energies. The lowest mode is however qualitatively different: The excitation energy first *decreases* reaching a minimum at a “critical” two-body binding energy $\epsilon_b^{c}$ (we will justify this name shortly), after which it increases for stronger attraction. This non-monotonic behaviour cannot be understood from a single-particle picture. Instead, it is due to pair correlations. The energy cost of exciting a pair of time-reversed states across the energy gap, as illustrated in Fig. \[TimereverseFig\](a)-(b), initially decreases with increasing attraction, since the two excited particles can use the available states in the empty shell to increase their overlap. In Fig. \[SpectrumMagicFig\], we normalise $\epsilon_b$ by $\epsilon_b^{c}$, defined as the two-body binding energy which gives the minimum monopole excitation energy, so that we can compare results for different particle numbers and for the thermodynamic limit. Exact values of $\epsilon_b^{c}$ are given in the Supplementary Material [@Note1].
![\[SpectrumMagicFig\] The lowest monopole excitation for $3+3$ fermions (dashed red line) and for $6+6$ fermions (red solid line) obtained by numerical diagonalisation of Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\]). The blue dashed line is the second excited state, and the gray solid lines are higher excitations for the $3+3$ system. The black solid (dotted) lines show the numerical (analytic) many-body Higgs-mode energy [@BruunHiggs2014] (see Supplementary Material [@Note1]). ](HiggsFig1_Jan.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
![\[TimereverseFig\] Panels (a) and (b) show a schematic sketch of an excitation of a time-reversed pair $(n,m,\uparrow)$ and $(n,-m,\downarrow)$ one shell up. The energy of such excitations decreases with increasing attraction. Panel (c) shows an example of a single-particle monopole excitation two shells up. The energy of such excitations grows with increasing attraction. ](HiggsFig2_July23.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
To link the few-body spectrum to the thermodynamic limit, we also plot in Fig. \[SpectrumMagicFig\] the lowest monopole mode obtained from a many-body calculation, which includes fluctuations around the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) solution [@BruunHiggs2014] (see Supplementary Material [@Note1]). Due to the energy gap in the single particle spectrum for a closed-shell configuration, there is a normal to superfluid quantum phase transition at a critical binding energy $\epsilon_b^{c}$. The system is in the normal phase for $\epsilon_b<\epsilon_b^c$, and the lowest monopole mode corresponds to vibrations in the pairing energy $|\Delta|$ around the $\Delta=0$ equilibrium value. The frequency of this mode decreases with increasing attraction and vanishes at $\epsilon_b^{c}$, signalling a quantum phase transition to a superfluid phase. In the superfluid phase, the minimum energy is obtained for $|\Delta|>0$, and the Higgs mode corresponds to vibrations in $|\Delta|$ around this minimum. Its energy is approximately given by $2|\Delta|$ (The deviation is due to the breaking of particle-hole symmetry), increasing from zero at the critical point. When $|\Delta|\ll\hbar\omega$, the Cooper pairs are predominantly formed by time-reversed states in the same shell [@BruunHiggs2014]. Importantly, the Higgs mode is *undamped* in this regime due to the discrete nature of the trap level spectrum, which is in sharp contrast to the other table top systems mentioned above, where the damping is significant.
Comparing the 3+3 and the many-body spectrum in Fig. \[SpectrumMagicFig\] clearly shows that the lowest monopole mode for the 3+3 system becomes the few-body precursor of the Higgs mode with increasing attraction. The non-monotonic behaviour of its energy is the smooth few-body analogue of the sharp thermodynamic normal to superfluid quantum phase transition with a vanishing Higgs mode frequency at the critical point. We also show in Fig. \[SpectrumMagicFig\] the lowest monopole mode for the 6+6 system corresponding to a closed-shell configuration with the three lowest shells filled. The non-monotonic behaviour of the lowest excitation energy is now even more pronounced with a deeper minimum, reflecting the gradual few- to many-body transition with increasing particle number.
In the Supplementary Material [@Note1], we illustrate further the few- to many-body transition by calculating the spectrum for the closed shell configurations up to 15+15 particles. Since it is numerically intractable to perform exact diagonalisations of Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\]) beyond 6+6 particles, we use a simplified model, which includes only the highest filled and the lowest two empty shells. This calculation clearly shows a pronounced deepening of the minimum of the excitation energy with increasing particle number.
In Fig. \[SpectrumOpenFig\], we plot the lowest monopole excitations for a $4+4$ system, which corresponds to an open-shell configuration where there is a pair of $\uparrow\downarrow$ particles in the third shell. Contrary to the closed-shell configuration, all excitation energies now increase monotonically with the attraction. This is because there is pairing for *any* attractive interaction so that the lowest excitations involve pair breaking,
![\[SpectrumOpenFig\]Monopole excitations of an open-shell system. The lowest excitations are intra-shell excitations, which do not exhibit a minimum. The grey lines show higher excitations (which correspond to inter-shell transitions). *Inset:* Sketch of time-reversed intra-shell pair-excitations.](Higgs_MethodsFig1_July23.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
and it demonstrates that the non-monotonic behaviour of the lowest mode energy is characteristic of a closed-shell configuration, where there is a quantum phase transition in the thermodynamic limit.
In order to investigate further the connection between the few- and many-body physics, we quantify the amount of time-reversed pairing correlations in a given state by $$P= \sum \limits_{i } \left| C^{tr}_i \right|^2.
\label{PairCorr}$$ Here, $C_i$ are the expansion coefficients in the many-body basis for a given eigenstate. The sum runs over all basis states formed from the non-interacting ground state by excitations of time-reversed (“[*tr*]{}”) pairs. In Fig. \[CoeffsFig\], we plot $P$ for the ground state and the two lowest excited states.
![\[CoeffsFig\] Pairing correlations of the few-body states as defined by Eq. (\[PairCorr\]) for $N=3+3$ fermions (dashed lines) and $N=6+6$ fermions (solid lines). The green lines show the ground state and the red lines show the first excited state. The blue line shows the second excited state (only for $3+3$). ](HiggsFig3_July23.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Comparing the first excited state with the ground state and with the second excited states clearly shows that below the critical binding energy $\epsilon_b^c$, the wavefunction of the lowest mode is mainly formed by coherent excitations of time-reversed pairs. It is consistent with the canonical many-body picture of vibrations in $|\Delta|$, since such excitations give rise to fluctuations in the pairing field. The higher mode has a significantly smaller proportion of pair correlations, and it mainly consists of single-particle excitations two shells up. The pairing correlations in the ground state increase with increasing attraction, as it becomes more favorable to excite time reversed pairs across the energy gap. This smooth increase of ground state pair correlations is the few-body analogue of the normal to superfluid quantum phase transition, where excitations of time-reversed pairs cost zero energy at the critical coupling strength making the system spontaneously form Cooper pairs. The pair correlated part of the few-body Higgs mode decreases for $\epsilon_b>\epsilon_b^c$, since it is orthogonal to the ground state.
We now address how one can detect the few-body Higgs mode in atomic gas experiments using microtraps. Two experimental probes are widely used: Periodic modulations of the trapping frequency and of the interaction strength. From Fermi’s golden rule, the transition rate from the ground state $|G\rangle$ to an excited state $|E\rangle$ is proportional to the transition matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{E}_\text{trap}&=|\langle G|\sum_{i}{\mathbf r}_i^2|E\rangle|^2 \nonumber\\
\Gamma^E_\text{int}&=|\langle G|\sum_{k,l}\delta({\mathbf r}_k-{\mathbf r}_l)|E\rangle|^2
\label{Probes}\end{aligned}$$ for the two probes. In Fig. \[MatrixElementFig\], we plot $\Gamma^{E}_\text{trap}$ and $\Gamma^{E}_\text{int}$ to the excited states of the $3+3$ and the $6+6$ systems. Figure \[MatrixElementFig\] (left) shows that the transition rate into the lowest mode is much larger than the rate into the second excited state when the coupling strength is modulated. This is because the interaction operator $\Gamma_\text{int}$ can excite time-reversed pairs, (see Supplementary Material [@Note1]), which are precisely the excitations that give rise to pair vibrations. Thus, the Higgs mode can be selectively excited by modulating the interaction strength, using for instance a Feshbach resonance. This fact, together with the non-monotonic frequency behaviour, can be used to experimentally identify the Higgs mode. On the other hand, Fig. \[MatrixElementFig\] (right) shows that when the trapping potential is modulated, the transition rate into the second excited state is much larger than into the lowest mode for small attraction. The reason is that $\sum_{i}{\mathbf r}_i^2$ is a single particle operator, whereas the lowest mode mostly consists of time-reversed pair excitations. With increasing attraction, the transition rate into the lowest mode increases, consistent with the fact that the pair correlation $P$ in the Higgs mode decreases with increasing coupling.
![\[xpprobe\] Left: Transition matrix elements $\Gamma^E_\text{int}$ corresponding to modulating the interaction strength for a $3+3$ and a $6+6$ system. The matrix elements are normalised by $\Gamma^E_\text{int}$ calculated to the Higgs mode at a very low coupling strength for the $3+3$ system. Right: Transition matrix elements $\Gamma^{E}_\text{trap}$ corresponding to modulating the trapping frequency. The matrix elements are normalised by $\Gamma^E_\text{trap}$ to the second excited state calculated at a very low coupling strength. []{data-label="MatrixElementFig"}](HiggsFig4_August5.pdf){height="0.8\columnwidth"}
In conclusion, we demonstrated using exact diagonalisation that the lowest monopole excitation energy of a two-component Fermi gas exhibits a non-monotonic behaviour with increasing attractive interaction for closed shell configurations. The mode frequency has a minimum in a cross-over region, which deepens as the many-body limit is approached with increasing particle number. Comparing with a many-body calculation, we identified the few-body precursor of the Higgs mode, which has a vanishing frequency at the quantum phase transition point between a normal and a superfluid phase. We showed that the mode is mainly formed by coherent excitations of time-reversed pairs, and that it can be selectively excited by modulating the interaction strength. These results demonstrate how a new generation of cold atom experiments using microtraps can be used to explore two fundamental questions in physics: The nature of the Higgs mode and the cross-over from few- to many-body physics. Our results are also relevant to the nuclear structure community, since we show how cold atoms can be used to probe pair correlations in a finite systems much more systematically compared to what is possible in nuclei [@Frauendorf:2014kq; @Potel2013].
We end by noting that similar results hold for atoms in a 3D trap [@Bruun2001; @Bruun2002]. Focus was here on the 2D case, as it is closer to being experimentally realised. Indeed, the first experiment observing pairing correlations in 2D has already been reported [@Ries2015].
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Ben Mottelson and Sven [Å]{}berg for many useful discussions, as well as Jeremy Armstrong for a comparison to a more phenomenological pairing model. We thank Massimo Rontani for discussions regarding the regularization scheme, and also acknowledge discussions with Selim Jochim and Frank Deuretzbacher. This research was financially supported by the Swedish Research Council and NanoLund at Lund University. GMB would like to acknowledge the support of the Villum Foundation via grant VKR023163 and ESF POLATOM network.
[51]{}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 10.1103/RevModPhys.65.611) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.65.677) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1283) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1201351) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.175302) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.075303) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.115302) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1240516) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.92.061601) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/17/i=11/a=115001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.91.043610) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF02812722) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508) [**](http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0521478146), ed. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031214-014350) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.224515) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.157002) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3227) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.660) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.89.060503), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.811) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.205701) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11255) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.174521) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.060401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.053407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.190401) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.41.327) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.021603) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} “,” (, , ) Chap. , pp. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s100530050587), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.063613) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.230401) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.80.013613) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.90.023621) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.07.001) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0034-4885/76/i=10/a=106301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.270403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.263002) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.230401)
Supplemental Material for “Few-body precursor of the Higgs mode in a Fermi gas ”
================================================================================
Many-body theory
----------------
To calculate the collective mode spectrum in the many-body limit, we use a BCS mean-field approach combined with Gaussian fluctuation theory. When the trap level spacing is larger than the pairing energy, the Cooper pairs are predominantly formed by *intrashell* correlations between time-reversed states in the same shell, i.e. $(n,m,\uparrow)$ and $(n,-m,\downarrow)$ [@Bruun2002b; @Heiselberg2002]. Using this and neglecting the weak angular momentum dependence of the pairing, the mean-field Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations can be reduced to the gap equation [@BruunHiggs2014] $$\sum_{n}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\xi_n^2+\Delta_n^2}}=\sum_{n}\frac{1}{2\epsilon_n-E_2}.
\label{GapEqn2}$$ Here, $\Delta_n=\Delta/\sqrt{n+1}$ is the gap for shell $n$, $\epsilon_n=(n+1)\hbar\omega$, and $\xi_n=\epsilon_n-\epsilon_F$. The Fermi energy $\epsilon_F=(n_F+3/2)\hbar\omega$ is between the highest occupied $n_F$ and the lowest unoccupied shell $n_F+1$. Since there is a gap in the single particle spectrum for a closed shell configuration, there is superfluid pairing only above a critical binding energy $\epsilon_b^{c}$.
For small pairing energy, we can expand (\[GapEqn2\]) in $\Delta_n/\hbar\omega$ and $\epsilon_b/\hbar\omega$. This yields $$\frac{\epsilon^c_b}{\omega}=\frac{B(n_F)}{2\xi(2)}[\sqrt{1+4\xi(2)/B( n_F)^2}-1]
\label{ClosedshellCritical}$$ for the critical attraction strength for pairing with $B(n_F)=\gamma+4\ln 2+\ln n_F$. Here $\xi(z)$ is Riemann’s zeta function and $\gamma=0.577$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. For $\epsilon_b>\epsilon_b^c$, this expansion yields the approximate solution to the gap equation $$\Delta_{n_F}=\frac{\hbar\omega}{\sqrt{7\xi(3)}}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega}{\epsilon^c_b}-\frac{\hbar\omega}{\epsilon_b}+
\xi(2)\left(\frac{\epsilon_b}{\hbar\omega}-\frac{\epsilon^c_b}{\hbar\omega}\right)}.
\label{ClosedshellGap}$$
To describe the collective modes, we include Gaussian fluctuations of the pairing field around the mean-field BCS solution. These can for low energy be split in to phase fluctuations corresponding to Goldstone modes, and amplitude fluctuations corresponding to the Higgs mode. The equation determining the Higgs mode energy $\hbar\omega_H$ reads
$$\sum_n\frac{2\xi_n^2}{E_n(4\xi_n^2+4\Delta_n^2-\hbar^2\omega_H^2)}=\sum_{n}\frac{1}{2\epsilon_n-E_2}.
\label{HiggsMode}$$
Assuming perfect particle-hole symmetry around the Fermi level, we see from the gap equation (\[GapEqn2\]) that $\omega=2\Delta_{n_F}$ is a solution. In the normal phase for $\epsilon_b<\epsilon_b^c$, (\[HiggsMode\]) has to be solved with $E_n=|\xi_n|$ and the amplitude modes correspond to coherently either adding or removing a pair of particles. The particle-conserving collective modes correspond to subsequently adding and removing a pair of particles, and their frequencies are therefore twice the frequency obtained by solving (\[HiggsMode\]). Close to the critical coupling strength $\epsilon_b\lesssim\epsilon_b^c$, we expand (\[HiggsMode\]) in $\epsilon_b/\hbar\omega$ and $\epsilon/\hbar\omega$ arriving at $$\frac{\omega_H}{\omega}=\frac 2{\sqrt{7\xi(3)}}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega}{\epsilon_b}-\frac{\hbar\omega}{\epsilon^c_b}+
\xi(2)\left(\frac{\epsilon^c_b}{\hbar\omega}-\frac{\epsilon_b}{\hbar\omega}\right)}.
\label{HiggsModeNormalClose}$$
The solid lines in Fig. 1 in the main text are obtained from a numerical solution of (\[HiggsMode\]) for $n_F=20$, and the dashed lines are obtained from $2\Delta_{n_F}$ using (\[ClosedshellGap\]) for $\epsilon_b>\epsilon_b^c$, and from (\[HiggsModeNormalClose\]) for $\epsilon_b<\epsilon_b^c$.
Interaction and excitation of time-reversed pairs
-------------------------------------------------
The interaction term in the Hamiltonian reads in second quantisation $$\begin{gathered}
H_{\text{int}} \simeq
g\sum_{\substack{nm\\n'm'}} \langle nm,n-m|\delta(\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2)|n'm',n'-m'\rangle \nonumber\\
\times a_{nm\uparrow}^\dagger a_{n-m\downarrow}^\dagger a_{n'-m'\downarrow} a_{n'm'\uparrow}, \end{gathered}$$ where $a_{n_1m_1\sigma}$ removes a particle with harmonic quantum numbers $(n_1,m_1)$ and spin $\sigma$. We have assumed that there are only pair correlations between time reversed states.
Neglecting the weak angular momentum dependence of the matrix element, we can write the interaction in the form $$H_{\rm int}=G\sum_{nn'}\Gamma_n^\dagger \Gamma_{n'}$$ where $\Gamma_n^\dagger=\sum_{m}a_{nm\uparrow}^\dagger a_{n-m\downarrow}^\dagger/\sqrt{n+1}$. The effective coupling strength is $$G =\frac{2\pi\int_0^\infty rdr\rho_{n_F}^2(r)}{n_F+1}$$ where $\rho_n(r)$ is the radial density from a full $n$-shell. We see that this interaction precisely excites time-reversed pairs across the energy gap. Modulating the coupling strength $G$ will therefore strongly couple to the Higgs mode.
Few- to many-body transition in a coreless 2D Harmonic Oscillator
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We shall in this section explore the few- to many-body transition further, by calculating the collective mode spectrum for larger particle numbers. Unfortunately, the complexity of the many-body problem makes an exact solution via the configuration interaction (CI) diagonalization method described in the main article numerically intractable for more than 6+6 particles. We therefore turn to an approximate model that nevertheless contains the relevant physics. In the main article, we establish that the formation of the Higgs mode is associated with time-reversed pair excitations from the uppermost filled shell into higher empty shells. The energy of the lowest monopole mode initially decreases with increasing attraction, since the pairs can use the degeneracy of the empty shells to increase their spatial overlap. This effect becomes more pronounced for larger systems with a larger degeneracy of the empty shells. One example of this is the lower minimum in the Higgs excitation energy for the 6+6 system relative to the 3+3 system.
To describe this effect in a simplified numerically tractable system, we consider here a three-level model, where the dynamics of the filled low-lying core of closed shells is ignored assuming that it remains completely filled, see the sketch in Fig. \[fig:1\]. The model includes the three most important single-particle harmonic oscillator shells for the low lying collective modes: the highest filled and the two lowest empty shells for a given closed shell configuration. For example, we approximate the 6+6 system by a three-shell system loaded with 3+3 particles. This simplification allows us to go to much larger particle numbers than what is possible within the full CI scheme.
![Sketch of the three-level model, where the transparent shells and particles represent the core part of the system, which plays no role in the dynamics. The system with 3+3 particles is approximated by a 2+2 three-shell system (a), 6+6 particles by a three-shell 3+3 system (b), 10+10 particles by a three-shell 4+4 system (c), and 15+15 particles by a three-shell 5+5 system (d).[]{data-label="fig:1"}](./cut_scheme_two_version3.pdf)
In Fig. \[fig:2\], we plot the lowest monopole excitation energy as a function of the coupling strength $|g|m/\hbar^2$ of the three-level model for the closed shell configurations up to 15+15 particles. We see that the minimum of the mode energy deepens with increasing particle number, reflecting that the number of degenerate pair excitations increases, which allows for a larger spatial overlap between particles in the upper shells. This clearly demonstrates how with increasing particle number, the finite size system gradually approaches the many-body limit, where the Higgs mode energy vanishes at the critical coupling strength and it costs zero energy to coherently excite pairs across the shells. Note that the excitation energy minimum for the 3+3 system is deeper for the three-level model as compared to that of the full model shown in Fig. 1 in the main article. This is because coherent excitations of time-reversed pairs play a larger role in the three-level model, which has a much smaller phase space as compared to the full model.
![The lowest monopole excitations of the three-shell model for 3+3 (blue line), 6+6 (red line), 10+10 (magenta line) and 15+15 (black line) particles. The results are obtained by exact diagonalization of the full interacting many-body Hamiltonian of the three-shell systems.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](./spectrum_realnumbers_w1515.pdf)
Numerical Calculations
======================
We use two parameters which together define the many-body basis used in our calculations: the single particle energy cut-off $E^\text{shell}_\text{max}$, and the many-body cut-off $E_\text{cut}$. These two cutoff parameters are optimized for each calculation individually in order to reach the best possible convergence. For the transition matrix elements, the comparison between the two different system sizes is more delicate, and we therefore follow a slightly different strategy: The same $E^\text{shell}_\text{max}$ is used for the $3+3$ and $6+6$ systems, and $E_\text{cut}$ is defined so that the maximum many-body excitation energy relative the non-interacting ground state is the same for both systems. In this way, we have a systematic way of comparing matrix elements for the two different system sizes.
Critical binding energy
-----------------------
In the main manuscript, we divide the two-body binding energy $\epsilon_b$ by the critical binding energy $\epsilon_b^c$ when the excitation energies are plotted, so that we can compare results obtained for different system sizes. The lowest monopole mode will then by definition have the minimum energy at $\epsilon_b/\epsilon_b^c=1$ for all system sizes. Of course, the actual value of $\epsilon_b^c$ depends on the system size. The exact calculations give $\epsilon_b^c=0.86\hbar\omega$ for the 3+3 system and $\epsilon_b^c=0.78\hbar\omega$ for the 6+6 system. This is significantly larger than what is predicted by the many-body expression Eq. (\[ClosedshellCritical\]) for $n_F=2$ and $n_F=3$. This is not surprising as the systems are small and far from the thermodynamic limit, and since the microscopic model includes all excitations, whereas the many-body theory focuses on the pair excitations.
[^1]: See Supplemental Material \[url\], which includes Refs. [@Bruun2002b; @Heiselberg2002] for details the theory and for more results.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the Dirichlet-energy maximization problem of the solution $u_f$ of (\[main\]), among all functions $f\in L^2(D)$, such that $\|f\|_2= 1$. We show that the two maximizers are the first eigenfunctions of the Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary condition $f=\pm u_1$.'
author:
- 'Hayk Mikayelyan [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'rearr.bib'
title: Short note on energy maximization property of the first eigenfunction of the Laplacian
---
**v** **u**
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
One of the classical problems in rearrangements theory is the minimization/maximization of the functional $$\label{Dir-functional}
\Phi(f)=\int_D |\nabla u_f|^2 dx,$$ where $u_f$ is the unique solution of the Dirichlet boundary value problem $$\label{main}
\begin{cases} -\Delta u_f = f & \mbox{in } D,
\\
u_f=0 & \mbox{on } \partial D, \end{cases}$$ and $f$ belongs to the rearrangement class.
Let us change the problem and maximize the functional (\[Dir-functional\]) over the unit sphere in $L^2$, i.e., $$f\in \mathcal{S}=\{f\in L^2(D)\,:\, \|f\|_2=1 \}.$$
First we relax the problem and consider the maximization of $\Phi(f)$ over the unit ball $$\mathcal{B}=\{f\in L^2(D)\,:\, \|f\|_2\leq 1 \}$$ in $L^2(D)$. The existence of the maximizer(s) $\hat{f}\in \mathcal{S}$ follows from weak closedness and convexity of $\mathcal{B}$, and strict convexity and weak continuity of $\Phi$.
Passing to the limit in the extremality condition $$t^{-1}\left[\Phi(\hat{f}+t(f-\hat{f}))-\Phi(\hat{f})\right]\leq 0$$ we obtain $$\langle \Phi'(\hat{f}),f-\hat{f} \rangle \leq 0.$$ Observe that $\Phi'(\hat{f})$ can be associated with $2\hat{u}:=2u_{\hat{f}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\epsilon^{-1}\int_D |\nabla u_{f+\epsilon h}|^2-|\nabla u|^2 dx=\\ \int_D\nabla(u_{f+\epsilon h}+u_f)\cdot
\nabla u_h dx\to_{\epsilon\to 0 } \int_D 2u_fhdx.\end{gathered}$$
Thus, $$\int_D f\hat{u} \leq \hat{f}\hat{u}dx$$ for all $f\in\mathcal{B}$.
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality we see that $$\int_D \hat{f}\hat{u}dx\leq \|\hat{u}\|_2\|\hat{f}\|_2\leq\|\hat{u}\|_2$$ and the equality holds if and only if $\hat{f}=\lambda\hat{u}$. Thus, $\hat{f}$ must coincide with one of the eigenfunctions $u_k\in \mathcal{S}$ of the eigenvalue problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions (see [@Henrot:book]) $$\label{eigen}
\begin{cases} -\Delta u = \lambda u & \mbox{in } D,
\\
u=0 & \mbox{on } \partial D , \end{cases}$$ and $\hat{u}=\lambda^{-1}_k(D)u_k$, where $\lambda_k$ is the $k$th eigenvalue.
The maximization of $\Phi$ over $\mathcal{B}$ reduces now to the maximization of $$\Phi(u_k)=\lambda^{-2}_k(D) \int_D |\nabla u_k|^2=\frac{1}{\lambda_k(D)}$$ over $k$, which happens when $k=1$.
We have proven the following theorem
The solutions of the maximization problem $$\max_{\|f\|_2\leq 1} \int_D |\nabla u_f|^2dx,$$ where the function $u_f$ is the solution of the equation (\[main\]), are the first eigenfunctions $\hat{f}=\pm u_1\in \mathcal{S}$ of the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem (\[eigen\]), $$\Phi(\hat{f})=\frac{1}{\lambda_1(D)},$$ and $\hat{u}=\pm \lambda^{-1}_1(D)u_1$.
To see that the minimization of $\Phi$ over $\mathcal{S}$ does not have a solution we need only to take a sequence $f_k\in \mathcal{S}$, such that $f_k \rightharpoonup 0$ and see that $\Phi(\hat{u}_k)\to 0$. Observe that $f=0$ is the minimizer of $\Phi$ over $\mathcal{B}$.
[^1]: Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham Ningbo, 199 Taikang East Road, Ningbo 315100, PR China [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'To achieve the extremely high luminosity for colliding electron-positron beams at the future International Linear Collider [@RDR] (ILC) an undulator-based source with about 230 meters helical undulator and a thin titanium-alloy target rim rotated with tangential velocity of about 100 meters per second are foreseen. The very high density of heat deposited in the target has to be analyzed carefully. The energy deposited by the photon beam in the target has been calculated in FLUKA. The resulting stress in the target material after one bunch train has been simulated in ANSYS.'
author:
- |
A. USHAKOV, O. S. ADEYEMI and G. MOORTGAT-PICK\
II. Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Hamburg,\
Luruper Chaussee 149, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany\
F. STAUFENBIEL and S. RIEMANN\
DESY Standort Zeuthen\
Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany
title: |
POLARIZED POSITRONS FOR THE ILC —\
UPDATE ON SIMULATIONS[^1]
---
DESY-12-018
Introduction
============
The positron-production target for the ILC positron source is driven by a photon beam generated in an helical undulator placed at the end of main electron linac [@SB2009]. The undulator length is chosen to provide the required positron yield. The source is designed to deliver 50% overhead of positrons. Therefore, the positron yield has to be 1.5 positrons per electron passing the undulator. The required active length of the undulator is about 75 meters for the nominal electron energy of 250 GeV, the undulator $K$-value has been chosen to be 0.92, the undulator period is 11.5 mm and a quarter-wave transformer is used as optical matching device (OMD). The photon first harmonic energy cutoff is 28 MeV, the average energy of photons is about 29 MeV and the average photon beam power is about 180 kW in a train of 2625 bunches with a frequency of 5 Hz. Although only relatively small fraction of total photon beam energy deposited in the target (about 5%), the peak energy density deposited in target is high due to the small opening angle of the synchrotron radiation in the helical undulator resulting in a small photon spot size on the target. For example, for 500 meters space between the undulator and target, the average radius of the photon beam is approximately 2 mm and the peak energy density could achieve 120 J/g in the 0.4 radiation length thick titanium-alloy target rotated with 100 m/s tangential velocity.
There is no experimental data indicating the upper limit of the peak energy density deposited by photons in the titanium alloy material with 90% of titanium, 6% of aluminium and 4% of vanadium. The analysis of the electron beam induced damage to the SLC positron target [@Bhar01] and the simulations of thermal shock [@Stein01] show that the energy deposition limit is about 30 J/g for tungsten with 25% of rhenium target irradiated by 33 GeV electrons and a general criteria of failure due to an equivalent (von-Mises) stress of 50% of tensile strength may apply to this target material [@Stein01].
The thermal structural modeling of a rotated titanium target irradiated by helical undulator photons has been performed for the NLC by W. Stein and J. Sheppard [@Stein02]. They recommend to consider as “safe” thermal stresses below one third to one half of the yield stress.
In this paper, the thermal stress in the ILC positron source target has been estimated for the SB2009 set of parameters [@SB2009].
Energy Deposition and Temperature in\
Target. Static Model of Material Response
=========================================
The energy transfer from the photon beam into temperature of target material and the structural deformation and mechanical stress coupled with this temperature rise due to complexity of these time-dependent, cross-coupled and nonlinear processes cannot be treated with the highest level of details [@Zaz95]. Therefore, the choice of simulation tools and reasonable approximations and simplifications plays an important role.
The energy deposition in the target has been calculated in FLUKA [@FLUKA]. An amount of energy is counted as deposited if after collisions the primary or secondary particles have energies lower than the energy cut-offs. The FLUKA default cut-offs were used: 1.511 MeV – for electrons and positrons and 333 keV – for photons.
Figure \[au:fig-Edep-fluka\] shows the “original” FLUKA data distribution (i.e. without any scaling factors) of the energy deposited close to the back side of the target. The energy is given in units of GeV per cubic centimeter and per impinging on the target photon.
![Distribution (dependence in $x$ and $y$) of the energy \[GeV/(phcm$^{3}$)\] deposited close to the backside of Ti6Al4V target calculated in FLUKA.[]{data-label="au:fig-Edep-fluka"}](ushakov-fig1){width="2.4in"}
The temperature rise $\delta T$ in the target for given a energy deposition $E_{dep}$ has been calculated according to the following equation $$\delta T = \frac{E_{dep} N_{e^{-}} Y_{ph} L_{und} N_{b}}{\rho c_{p}},$$ where $N_{e^{-}}$ is the number of electrons per bunch ($2 \times
10^{10}$), $Y_{ph}$ is the photon yield (1.94 photons per electron and per 1 meter of undulator), $L_{und}$ is the length of undulator (70 meters), $N_{b}$ is the number of bunches crossing the same volume/bin, $\rho$ is the target density (4.49 g/cm$^{3}$) and $c_{p}$ is the specific heat capacity (0.523 J/(g K)).
The temperature data in a 1.48 cm thick cylindrical titanium target after the first 100 bunches has been imported into ANSYS [@ANSYS]. The temperature distribution on the back side of the target is shown in Figure \[au:fig-Temperature-backside\]. The maximal increase of temperature per bunch is about 2.2 K.
![Temperature profile on target back side after 100 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-Temperature-backside"}](ushakov-fig2){width="3.5in"}
As a first step, a statical ANSYS model of the target material response to the heat load (see, Figures \[au:fig-Edep-fluka\] and \[au:fig-Temperature-backside\]) has been applied. The total deformation and equivalent von-Mises stress are shown in Figs. \[au:fig-Deform\] and \[au:fig-Stress\]. The maximum of equivalent stress is about 100 MPa on the back side of the target in the circular area around the photon beam axis with a radius of approx. 2 mm. This stress is about 12% of the tensile yield strength for titanium alloy (the properties of Ti6Al4V alloy, grade 5 can be found, for example, in Ref. [@ASM]).
![Total deformation of the target after 100 bunches (back view – left, side view – right).[]{data-label="au:fig-Deform"}](ushakov-fig3a "fig:"){height="2.35in"} ![Total deformation of the target after 100 bunches (back view – left, side view – right).[]{data-label="au:fig-Deform"}](ushakov-fig3b "fig:"){height="2.35in"}
![Von-Mises stress after 100 bunches (ANSYS static structural model).[]{data-label="au:fig-Stress"}](ushakov-fig4){height="2.9in"}
Evolution of Thermal Stress in Time
===================================
To simulate the time evolution of thermal stress in the positron source target, the target movement has been analyzed more accurately and ANSYS transient (explicit) model of deformation and stress has been used.
We consider the tangential velocity of the target rim (1 meter in diameter) of 100 meters per second as velocity in $y$ direction in a Cartesian system. The energy deposited after one pulse (1312 bunches with 554 ns bunch separation) as function of $y$ coordinate is shown in Fig. \[au:fig-Edep-rot\]. This Figure shows also the energy deposited by a single bunch and the corresponding temperature rise. Both profiles on Fig. \[au:fig-Edep-rot\] are plotted for highest energy deposition: in the $z$-direction – close to the target back side and in the middle of bunch(es) – in $x$-direction. The bunch overlapping factor is defined as the ratio of the maximal deposited energy after a complete bunch train with respect to the maximum after just one bunch. This factor for the nominal SB2009 source parameters is about 59.
![Energy deposition in a target rotated with 100 m/s: left – after one pulse, right – after one bunch.[]{data-label="au:fig-Edep-rot"}](ushakov-fig5a "fig:"){height="1.8in"} $~~~~~$ ![Energy deposition in a target rotated with 100 m/s: left – after one pulse, right – after one bunch.[]{data-label="au:fig-Edep-rot"}](ushakov-fig5b "fig:"){height="1.8in"}
Figure \[au:fig-TempStress-rot\] shows the temperature and equivalent stress in the “rotated” target. The target has been cut in the middle plane in order to show the distributions inside the target. The static ANSYS model for the equivalent stress after one bunch train does not take into account thermal diffusion and thus overestimates the stress induced in the target.
![Temperature distribution and induced equivalent stress in the rotated target.[]{data-label="au:fig-TempStress-rot"}](ushakov-fig6a "fig:"){height="2.8in"} $~$ ![Temperature distribution and induced equivalent stress in the rotated target.[]{data-label="au:fig-TempStress-rot"}](ushakov-fig6b "fig:"){height="2.8in"}
To reduce the effect of thermal diffusion on the stress and to study the time-dependent dynamic effects, another model has been used. In this model the temperature distribution after one single bunch has been scaled with the above-mentioned bunch overlapping factor. The cylindrical geometry of the target has been chosen to keep the symmetry of the model and to reduce the computing time. Figure \[au:fig-Temperature59\] shows the temperature distribution after “59 bunches”.
![Temperature distribution after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-Temperature59"}](ushakov-fig7){height="1.4in"}
The total deformation after 59 bunches is plotted in Fig. \[au:fig-Deformation59\] and the evolution in time of maximal deformation is shown in Fig. \[au:fig-Deformation59-vs-time\]. The starting time (0 sec.) corresponds to the end of the pulse. The reflections from the target surfaces and interference of the waves result in the series of maxima at the level about 25% of the initial deformation.
![Distribution of total deformation after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-Deformation59"}](ushakov-fig8){height="2.3in"}
![Time evolution of maximal total deformation after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-Deformation59-vs-time"}](ushakov-fig9){height="2.0in"}
The deformation transverse to the beam axis (radial deformation) contributes only minor (about one third) to the total deformation. The time dependence of the dominating longitudinal ($z$-component) velocity is presented in Fig. \[au:fig-VelocityZ59-vs-time\] showing the positive velocity directed out of the target and negative velocity. Figure \[au:fig-VelocityZ59\] shows a snapshot of the time evolution for the $v_{z}$-distribution after one pulse and with 0.1 $\mu$s delay at the moment when the negative velocity has reached the maximum. The $y$-component of deformation and velocity are also shown in Figs. \[au:fig-DeformationY59\] and \[au:fig-VelocityY59-vs-time\]. Because of geometry and beam symmetry, the deformation, maximal and minimal $v_{y}$-dependencies on time are symmetrical (mirrored) too. It has to be noted that the transient effects during the pulse were not considered and thus the all velocities are starting from zero level at the end of the beam pulse.
![Time evolution of maximal and minimal $z$-component of velocity after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-VelocityZ59-vs-time"}](ushakov-fig10){height="2.0in"}
![Velocity along $z$-axis after 59 bunches and 0.1 $\mu$s delay.[]{data-label="au:fig-VelocityZ59"}](ushakov-fig11){height="2.3in"}
![Direction ($y$-axis) deformation after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-DeformationY59"}](ushakov-fig12){height="2.0in"}
![Time evolution of maximal and minimal $y$-component of velocity after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-VelocityY59-vs-time"}](ushakov-fig13){height="2.0in"}
The time evolution of the maximal equivalent (von-Mises) stress in the target is plotted in Fig. \[au:fig-Stress59-vs-time\]. The stress distributions after one beam pulse and additional 0.1 $\mu$s delay are shown in Fig. \[au:fig-Stress59\]. The peak stress value is about 160 MPa which corresponds to 18% of tensile yield strength. This level of stress can be considered as acceptable.
![Time evolution of maximal equivalent stress after 59 bunches.[]{data-label="au:fig-Stress59-vs-time"}](ushakov-fig14){height="2.0in"}
![Equivalent stress after 59 bunches (left) and additional 0.1 $\mu$s delay (right).[]{data-label="au:fig-Stress59"}](ushakov-fig15a "fig:"){height="1.67in"} ![Equivalent stress after 59 bunches (left) and additional 0.1 $\mu$s delay (right).[]{data-label="au:fig-Stress59"}](ushakov-fig15b "fig:"){height="1.67in"}
Summary {#summary .unnumbered}
=======
The energy deposition in the ILC positron source target has been simulated in FLUKA for the SB2009 set of parameters. The peak energy density in the rotated titanium-alloy target is about 120 J/g for the conservative choice of a magnetic focusing device (quarter-wave transformer) and 250 GeV electron beam energy. The different simplified (static and transient) ANSYS models have been used to estimate the thermal stress induced by fast temperature rise and thermal expansion of the target. The peak stress is about 160 MPa. It is less then 20% of tensile yield strength. Such stress will not damage the target.
Outlook {#outlook .unnumbered}
=======
In the future, also the cooling of the target has to be added in model. The procedure used so far, in which the deposited energy is converted into temperature, has to be eliminated and the direct import of the heat source into ANSYS can additionally improve the accuracy of stress estimations. The thermal and structural effects in the target have to be also simulated taking into account the time structure of the bunch train.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the organizers and the host of POSIPOL 2011 for this fruitful and encouraging workshop and for hospitality.
Work supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Joint Project R&D Accelerator “Spin Management”, contract No. 05H10GUE.
[9]{}
N. Phinney, N. Toge and N. Walker (eds.), [*[International Linear Collider Reference Design Report: Volume 3: Accelelator ]{}*]{} August 2007.
(December, 2009).\
<http://ilc-edmsdirect.desy.de/ilc-edmsdirect/file.jsp?edmsid=D00000000900425>.
V. K. Bharadwaj, Y. K. Batygin, J. C. Sheppard, D. C. Schultz, S. Bodenstein, J. Gallegos, R. Gonzáles, J. Ledbetter, M. López, R. Romero, T. Romero, R. Rutherford and S. Maloy, [*Proc. of PAC 2001*]{} , 2123 (2001).
W. Stein, A. Sunwoo, V. K. Bharadwaj, D. C. Schultz and J. C. Sheppard, [ *Proc. of PAC 2001*]{} , 2111 (2001).
W. Stein and J. C. Sheppard, [*NLC polarized positron photon beam target thermal structural modeling*]{}, Tech. Rep. SLAC-TN-03-045, LCC-0087, UCRL-ID-148940, SLAC (Stanford, CA, 2002).
J. M. Zazula, [*Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Simulating Accelerator Radiation Environments, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 9 - 11 Oct 1995*]{} , 26 (1995).
A. Fassò, A. Ferrari, J. Ranft and P. R. Sala, [*[FLUKA]{}: a multi-particle transport code*]{}, Tech. Rep. CERN-2005-10, INFN TC\_05/11, SLAC-R-773, CERN (Geneva, 2005).
. <http://www.ansys.com>.
Aerospace [S]{}pecification [M]{}etals, [Inc.]{}, [T]{}itanium [Ti6Al4V]{} ([G]{}rade 5), [A]{}nnealed <http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641>.
[^1]: Talk was presented at the POSIPOL 2011 Workshop, IHEP, Beijing, 28–30 August 2011.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Starting from a formulation for the $dS$ element that includes movement, and considering the variation of the entropy Lorentz invariant, we found the relativistic transformations for thermodynamic systems that satisfy the three laws of thermodynamics. Particularly, we found the temperature and pressure transformations, given by $T''=\gamma T$ and $p''=\gamma^2p$ respectively. Furthermore, we show that this transformations keeps the form of the state equation for an ideal gas in agreement with the relativity principle.'
author:
- 'C. A. Farías'
- 'P. S. Moya'
- 'V. A. Pinto'
title: On the Relationship between Thermodynamics and Special Relativity
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Through history we have seen that many scientific discoveries have been reached starting from simple ideas. Nowadays the most part of research is based in the specialization of a single topic. This fact can be noted in the undergraduate courses in physics where is not usual to treat recent research themes related to the courses due to the complexity of those themes. One of the aims of this article is to show how theoretical research can be done by using simple ideas that can be learned in a undergraduated course.
In this article we treat a yet unsolved problem in theoretical physics: the contruction of a consistent relativistic thermodynamics theory. This particular problem have generated a long controversy in physics and can be approached by a student of a thermodynamics course, using only basic knowledge of thermodynamics and special relativity. Is in this way that including this particular topic as a part of an undergraduated thermodynamics or modern physics course could support the discussion of physics and motivate students to start scientific research at the undergraduate level.
Let us suppose a system $A$, which is in thermodynamic equilibrium, and two inertial frames, $I$ and $I'$, where one of them ($I$) is at rest respective to $A$ and where the other ($I'$) is moving with speed $\mathbf{w}$ respective to $I$. We orient the axes so the relative motion of the frames is in the $x$ and $x'$ directions. This is $\mathbf{w}=w\hat x$. The question is: how the thermodynamics quantities of $A$ transform between $I$ and $I'$?.
A century has passed since Einstein, in a first attempt to answer this question, stated that if the entropy is Lorentz invariant, and the two first laws of thermodynamics are fulfilled, then the temperature transforms as $$\label{traneinstein}
T'=\frac{1}{\gamma} T\,,$$ where $\gamma=(1-(w/c))^{-1/2}$ and $c$ is the speed of light [@einstein]; it means that a moving body appears colder. His temperature transformation was acepted for almost fifty years, as can be seen in [@planck; @tolman; @pauli; @pathria].
In 1963, Ott [@ott] affirmed that the temperature transform as $$\label{transott}
T'=\gamma T$$ by supposing the entropy as a Lorentz invariant, like other authors did (see for example [@impos] and references therein). This result contradicts the previous affirmations because in this treatment the body appears hotter.
A few years later, Landsberg [@landsvarianza; @land1] stated that temperature should be Lorentz invariant but, years later, he restarted the problem by saying that it is impossible to obtain a general transformation of the temperature [@impos].
Nowadays the question is still open. For example, in [@cubero], we can appreciate an answer derived from the formalism of statistical mechanics. Also, even when the topic is, in principle, theorethical, in this work the authors declare that certains astrophysical systems might give experimental data which allows us to decide what transformation is the correct one (see [@kania1; @kania2] for more related works).
In this work we approach the problem using the formalism of thermodynamics. This must be equivalent to an approach from statistical mechanics since, due the postulate of Gibbs, thermodynamics quantities are averages of quantities obtained from statistical mechanics.
We want to emphasize that due the approach used to obtain the results in this work, it could be a good exercise to undergraduate students in physics, because basic knowledges in thermodynamics and special relativity are enough to understand the treatment used here. Also, the inclusion of this topic in a regular course of thermodynamics can generate scientific discussion in an actual theme.
Transformation of Thermodynamic Quantities
==========================================
Our approach to the problem start by realizing that there is no reason to suppose that the expression $$\label{dSnorel}
dS=\frac{1}{T}dU+\frac{p}{T}dV-\frac{\mu}{T}dN$$ has the same form for all inertial frames. Here $T$ is the temperature, $U$ the internal energy, $p$ the pressure, $V$ the volume, $N$ the number of particles and $\mu$ the chemical potential. That entropy variation has not the same form in any inertial frame is because classical thermodynamics has not been dedicated to solve the problem about what occurs when there is a change between reference frames, since it has always considered the macroscopic properties of matter, but being at rest with respect to it.
Following a treatment similar to the one of Callen [@callen], we write the $dS$ element like an exact differential but also adding a new term that involves the relative movement between the thermodynamic system and the observer. The new term must depends of its fundamental parameters: the total momentum $\mathbf{P}$ of the thermodynamic system and the relative speed between the system and an inertial frame. In this case the velocity is $\mathbf{w}$.
The term that involves movement comes from the energy of a relativistic system. If the total mass of our thermodynamical system is $M$, then due the movement between the system and an inertial frame, we must add a kinetic energy $E_m$ given by
$$\label{E_m}
E_m^2 =
\mathbf{P}^2 + M^2.$$
Then, $$dE_m=\frac{\mathbf{P}}{(\mathbf{P}^2 +m^2)^{1/2}}\cdot d\mathbf{P}\, ,$$ and therefore
$$\label{dErel}
dE_m=\mathbf{w}\cdot d\mathbf{P}\, .$$
With this we can write the total variation of energy as $$\label{dErel2}
dE=dU+dE_m\, ,$$ where $E$ is the total energy of the system.
Later on, using and , it follows $$\label{dErelrel}
dE=TdS-pdV+\mu dN+ \mathbf{w}\cdot d\mathbf{P}\, ,$$ which gives a relativistic form of writing the element $dS$ for a moving system: $$\label{dsrel}
dS=\frac{1}{T}dE+\frac{p}{T}dV-\frac{\mu}{T}dN-\frac 1T\mathbf{w}\cdot d\mathbf{P}\, .$$
This form of the element $dS$ includes the correction due to the inclusion of movement between frames. This generalization of Eq. allow us to take into account the relativistic effects due to the relative motion when analyzing a thermodynamic system.
In this way, the entropy of a system must have the form $S = S(E, V, N, \mathbf{P})$, where the extensive quantities $E$, $V$, $N$ and $\mathbf{P}$ can be measured in any inertial frame. In this manner, the intensive variables are completely described, not only for the proper frame of the thermodynamic system, but also for any other inertial frame. In addition, as can be seen in Eq. , $dS$ is an exact differential. Therefore we can define the temperature as $$\label{temperatura}
\frac 1T=\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial E}\right)_{V,N,\mathbf{P}}\,$$ in any inertial frame, generalizing the well-known expression $$\label{temperaturaor}
\frac 1T=\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial U}\right)_{V,N}\, .$$
In order to obtain the transformations of thermodynamic quantities between $I$ and $I'$, we first assume that the variation of the entropy $dS$ is Lorentz invariant, in agreement with all previous works cited here. This is, $$\label{dS=dS'}
dS=dS'\,$$ where $S$ and $S'$ are the entropies measured in the $I$ and $I'$ frames respectively. For the other quantities we have that the number of particles $N$ is Lorentz invariant, and in this case, between $I$ and $I'$, the volume $V$ and the energy $E$ transforms as $$\begin{aligned}
V'&=&\frac 1\gamma V\, ,\label{transvolume}\\
E'&=&\gamma E\, , \label{transenergy}\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $E'$ and $V'$ are measured in $I'$.
As the differential form for the entropy guarantees Eq. , using Eq. and Eq. , it follows that the temperatute $T'$, measured in the $I'$ frame, is related to $T$ by $$\label{transT}
\frac{1}{T'}=\left(\frac{\partial S'}{\partial
E'}\right)_{V',N',\mathbf{P}'}=\frac{1}{\gamma}\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial
E}\right)_{V,N,\mathbf{P}}=\frac{1}{\gamma T}\, ,$$ from where the temperature transformation $$T'=\gamma T\, , \label{temptrans}$$ is obtained. This transformation is in agreement with the one by Ott [@ott] and other authors [@arzelies; @gamba; @sutcliffe]. Also Eq. is in agreement with the three laws of thermodynamics, unlike what was proposed by Einstein (see Eq ).
For the pressure $p'$, using Eq. , we have $$\label{p/T}
\frac pT = \left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial V}\right)_{E,\mathbf{P},N}\,,$$ Then, using Eq. , , and we obtain $$\label{prest}
p'=T'\left(\frac{\partial S'}{\partial V'}\right)_{E',\mathbf{P}',N'}=\gamma T\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial
(V/\gamma)}\right)_{E,\mathbf{P},N} \, .$$ This is, the pressure transforms as $$p'=\gamma^2p\, . \label{presstrans}$$ This result, previously obtained by Sutcliffe [@sutcliffe], is natural when we accept that Eq. is the correct definition of pressure in any inertial frame.
Following the same argument, for the $\mu'$ potential, $$\label{mutrans}
\mu'=\gamma\mu\, ,$$ it is obtained. If we note that $\mu$ is an energy, and energy transforms as $\gamma$, then, this $\mu$ transformation was expected.
As a example, from Eq. , Eq. and Eq. , it follows that $$\label{idealgas}
\frac{pV}{Nk_BT}=\frac{p'V'}{N'k_BT'}\, ,$$ which means that the equation of state of an ideal gas is Lorentz invariant. This means that, for any inertial observer, an ideal gas is still an ideal gas, regardless of relative inertial motion.
Final discussion
================
The development of relativistic thermodynamics has been a complex and hard to treat theme for a long time. There has been many proposals, many of them contradict each other. In this article we have formulated a theory of thermodynamics where the movement between inertial frames is considered. This led us to find a new expression for the entropy by considering the kinetic energy due to the relative motion between frames. The new entropy $S=S(E,V,\mathbf{P},N)$ now depends on the total energy $E$ instead of the internal energy $U$ and also of the momentum of the system $\mathbf{P}$ measured in a inertial frame. This choice allowed us to write the $dS$ element as an exact differential that now has a new term, $(1/T)\mathbf{w}\cdot d\mathbf{P}$, which is related to the relative movement between frames. Using this new expression for $dS$, just as it is done in classical thermodynamics, we were able to define intensive thermodynamic quantities by taking partial derivatives of $S$ respect to the extensive quantities. This formalism satisfies the three laws of thermodynamics and becomes the usual one in the limit $\mathbf{w}\to0$.
Using this formalism we obtained the transformations given by Eq. , and for the temperature, the pressure and the chemical potencial respectively. These transformations are completely general for any system that satisfy the three laws of thermodynamics.
Taking this last argument we were able to state why the temperature transformation given by Eq. is the correct one in a relativistic thermodynamic theory. In thermodynamics the temperature is that quantity which, at equilibrium, is given by Eq. . Therefore, using that $dS$ is an exact differential and the known transformations of the extensive quantities, $E,V$ and $N$, it follows that the transformation of temperature which is in agreement with the three laws of thermodynamics is the one given by Eq. .
In addition, as a natural consecuence of our treatment, we found that the pressure transformation is given by Eq. . This transformation does not agree with the one stated by many authors, which consider pressure to be Lorentz invariant. Nevertheless the transformation given by Eq. must be the correct one in a relativistic thermodynamics theory because it corresponds to the definition of pressure given by thermodynamics, as is shown in Eq. .
Finally we showed that, if we accept our transformations for the pressure, temperature, number of particles and volume, the equation of state of an ideal gas is Lorentz invariant, which is in accord with the first principle of special relativity. It should be noted that if we have taken the pressure and temperature as Lorentz invariants the equation of state of an ideal gas would not be satisfied. Also, if we had considered the pressure as Lorentz invariant and the transformation of temperature as $T'=\gamma^{-1}T$ the equation of state of an ideal gas would have been satisfied but not the third law of thermodynamics.
We would like to thank Dr. G. Gutiérrez for his motivation to do this work as an extension of his Thermodynamics lessons. We also would like to thanks Dr. J. Zanelli and Dr. R. Tabensky for their disposition and useful discussions and advise while doing this work. P. S. Moya and V. A. Pinto are grateful to CONICyT Doctoral Fellowship. C. A. Farías is grateful to CONICyT Master Fellowship.
[21]{}
A. Einstein, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat Elektronik, [**4**]{}, 411 (1907).
M. Planck, Ann. Physik, [**26**]{}, 1 (1908).
R. C. Tolman, [*Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1934).
W. Pauli, [*Theory of Relativity*]{} (London, 1958).
R. K. Pathria, Proc. Phys. Soc., [**88**]{}, 791 (1966).
H. Ott, Zeits. Physik, [**175**]{}, 70, (1963).
P. T. Landsberg, Nature, [**212**]{}, 571 (1966).
P. T. Landsberg, Eur.J. Phys. , [**2**]{}, 203 (1981).
P. T. Landsberg and G. E. A. Matsas, Phys. A, [**340**]{}, 92-94 (2004).
H. Arzeliès, Nuovo Cim., [**40 B**]{}, 333 (1965).
A. Gamba, Nuovo Cim., [**37**]{}, 1792 (1965).
W. G. Sutcliffe, Nuovo Cim., [**39 B**]{}, 683 (1965).
G. Cavalleri and G. Salgarelli, Nuovo Cim., [**A 3**]{}, 722 (1969).
R. G. Newburgh, Nuovo Cim., 52 [**B**]{}, 2, 219 (1979).
H. B. Callen and G. Horwitz, Am. J. Phys., [**39**]{}, 938 (1971).
P. T. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**45**]{}, 149 (1980).
J. E. Krizan, Phys. Lett., [**71 A**]{} 2-3,174, (1979).
H. B. Callen, [*Thermodynamics and an introduction to Thermostatistics*]{}, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1985).
G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E, [**66**]{}, 056125, (2002).
G. Kaniadakis, Phys. Rev. E, [**72**]{}, 036108, (2005).
D. Cubero [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**99**]{}, 170601, (2007).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we consider the Benjamin equation, a partial differential equation that models one-way propagation of long internal waves of small amplitude along the interface of two fluid layers under the effects of gravity and surface tension. We solve the periodic initial-value problem for the Benjamin equation numerically by a new fully discrete hybrid finite-element / spectral scheme, which we first validate by pinning down its accuracy and stability properties. After testing the evolution properties of the scheme in a study of propagation of single - and multi-pulse solitary waves of the Benjamin equation, we use it in an exploratory mode to illuminate phenomena such as overtaking collisions of solitary waves, and the stability of single-, multi-pulse and ‘depression’ solitary waves.'
address:
- 'Mathematics Department, University of Athens, 15784 Zographou, Greece Institute of Applied & Computational Mathematics, FO.R.T.H., 71110 Heraklion, Greece'
- ' Applied Mathematics Department, University of Valladolid, 47011 Valladolid, Spain'
- 'Applied Mathematics Department, University of California, Merced, 5200 North Lake rd. Merced, CA 95343 , USA'
author:
- 'Vassilios A. Dougalis'
- Angel Duran
- Dimitrios Mitsotakis
title: Notes on the numerical solution of the Benjamin equation
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we will consider the [*Benjamin equation*]{} $$\label{E11}
u_t+\alpha u_x+\beta u u_x-\gamma \mathcal{H}u_{xx}-\delta u_{xxx}=0,$$ where $u=u(x,t), x\in \mathbb{R}, t\geq 0, \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$ are positive constants, and $\mathcal{H}$ denotes the Hilbert transform defined on the real line as $$\mathcal{H}f(x):=\frac{1}{\pi}p.v.\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{f(y)}{x-y}\,dy$$ or through its Fourier transform as $$\widehat{\mathcal{H}f}(k)=-{\rm i}{\mathop{\operator@font sign}}(k)\widehat{f}(k), k\in\mathbb{R}.$$ The Benjamin equation, cf. [@B1; @B2; @ABR], is a model for [*internal*]{} waves propagating under the effect of gravity and surface tension in the positive $x$-direction along the interface of a two-dimensional system of two homogeneous layers of incompressible, inviscid fluids consisting at rest of a thin layer of fluid 1 of depth $d_{1}$ and density $\rho_{1}$ lying above a layer of fluid 2 of very large depth $d_{2}\gg d_{1}$ and density $\rho_{2}>\rho_{1}$. The upper layer is bounded above by a horizontal rigid lid and the lower layer is bounded below by an impermeable horizontal bottom, as in Figure \[F1a\].
\[F1a\]
(0,-1.81)(10.54,1.81) (0.0,1.59)(8.96,1.59) (0.0,-1.61)(8.96,-1.61) (0.04,0.71)(8.94,0.71) (9.47,0.715)[$z=0$]{} (9.75,1.615)[$z=d_1$]{} (9.81,-1.585)[$z=-d_2$]{} (5.84,0.71)(5.84,0.21) (6.09,0.015)[$u$]{} (0.68,1.315)[$\rho_1$]{} (0.67,-1.385)[$\rho_2$]{}
It is further assumed that the following physical regime of interest is to be modelled: Let $a$ be a typical amplitude and $\lambda$ a typical wavelength of the interfacial wave. The parameters $\epsilon=a/d_{1}$ and $\mu=d_{1}^{2}/\lambda^{2}$ are assumed to be small and satisfy $\mu\sim\epsilon^{2}\ll 1$; it is also assumed that capillarity effects along the interface are not negligible. Under these assumptions (\[E11\]) was derived in [@B1] from the two-dimensional, two-layer Euler equations in the presence of interface surface tension by dispersion relation arguments. The variables in (\[E11\]) are nondimensional and scaled, and the coefficients are given by $$\alpha=\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{2}-\rho_{1}}{\rho_{1}}}, \quad \beta=\frac{3}{2}\alpha \epsilon, \quad\gamma=\frac{1}{2}\alpha\sqrt{\mu}\frac{\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}}, \quad\delta=\frac{\alpha T}{2g\lambda^{2}(\rho_{2}-\rho_{1})},$$ where $T$ is the interfacial surface tension and $g$ the acceleration of gravity. The variables $x$ and $t$ are proportional to distance along the channel and time, respectively, and $u(x,t)$ denotes the downward vertical displacement of the interface from its level of rest at $(x,t)$. The interfacial surface tension $T$ is assumed to be much larger than $g(\rho_{2}-\rho_{1})d_{1}^{2}$. (For a further discussion of the physical regime of validity of (\[E11\]) cf. [@ABR].) Note that if the parameter $\delta$ is taken equal to zero, (\[E11\]) reduces to the Benjamin-Ono (BO) equation, [@B0; @O], while, if we put $\gamma=0$ we obtain the KdV equation with negative dispersion coefficient.
It is well known, cf. [@B1], that sufficiently smooth solutions of (\[E11\]) that vanish suitably at infinity preserve the functionals $$\begin{aligned}
m(u)&=&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} udx,\label{E12}\\
I(u)&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} u^{2}dx,\label{E13}\\
E(u)&=&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left(\frac{\beta}{6}u^{3}-\frac{1}{2}\gamma
u\mathcal{H}u_{x}+\frac{1}{2}\delta u_{x}^{2}\right)dx.\label{E14}\end{aligned}$$ Global well-posedness in $L^{2}$ for the Cauchy problem and also for the periodic initial-value problem for (\[E11\]) was established in [@L].
In this paper we will study (\[E11\]) numerically, paying particular attention to properties of its [*solitary-wave*]{} solutions. These are travelling-wave solutions of the form $u(x,t)=\varphi(x-c_{s}t), c_{s}>0$, such that $\varphi$ and its derivatives tend to zero as $\xi=x-c_{s}t$ approaches $\pm\infty$. Substituting this expression in (\[E11\]) and integrating once we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha-c_{s})\varphi
+\frac{\beta}{2}\varphi^{2}-\gamma \mathrm{H}\varphi-\delta
\varphi^{\prime\prime}=0,\label{E15}\end{aligned}$$ where ${}^{\prime}=d/d\xi$, and the operator $\mathrm{H}$ is defined by $\mathrm{H}:=\mathcal{H}\partial_{x}$, i. e. by $\widehat{\mathrm{H}f}(k)=|k|\widehat{f}(k), k\in \mathbb{R}$. We will assume that $\alpha-c_{s}>0$.
If we perform the change of variables $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(\xi)=-\frac{2(\alpha-c_{s})}{\beta}\psi(z),\quad z=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha-c_{s}}{\delta}}\xi,\end{aligned}$$ in (\[E15\]), we see that the solitary-wave profile $\psi(z)$ satisfies the ordinary differential equation (ode) $$\begin{aligned}
\psi-2\tilde{\gamma}\mathrm{H}\psi-\psi_{zz}-\psi^{2}=0,\quad z\in\mathbb{R},\label{E16}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\gamma}=\frac{\gamma}{2\sqrt{\delta(\alpha-c_{s})}}.\label{E17}\end{aligned}$$ This change of variables and the resulting equation (\[E16\]) was used in [@B1; @B2], and [@ABR]. (In these references $\tilde{\gamma}$ is denoted by $\gamma$.) In his papers Benjamin showed, using degree theory, that for each $\tilde{\gamma}\in [0,1)$, there exists a solution $\psi$ of (\[E16\]) which is an even function of $z$ with $\psi(0)=\max_{z\in\mathbb{R}}\psi(z)>0$. He also argued by formal asymptotics that for each $\tilde{\gamma}\in [0,1)$ there is a bounded interval centered at $z=0$, in which $\psi$ oscillates (with the number of oscillations increasing as $\tilde{\gamma}$ approaches $1$), while outside this interval he concluded in [@B2] that $|\psi|$ decays like $1/z^{2}$. In addition, in the same paper he outlined an orbital stability theory for these solitary waves for small $\tilde{\gamma}$. In [@ABR] a complete theory of existence and orbital stability of the solitary waves for small $\tilde{\gamma}$ was presented, based on the implicit function theorem, perturbation theory of operators, and the fact that $\tilde{\gamma}=0$ corresponds to solitary waves of the KdV equation. Further issues of existence and rigorous asymptotics of the solitary waves of (\[E11\]) and related equations were explored in [@CB]. In [@A] concentration compactness arguments were used to establish existence and a weaker version of stability of the solitary waves of (\[E11\]) for $0<\tilde{\gamma}<1$.
In this paper we will employ the solitary-wave equation in the form (\[E15\]). As a result, normally the solitary waves will have negative maximum excursions from their level of rest.
Since explicit formulas for the solitary waves of the Benjamin equation are not known (except when one of $\gamma$ or $\delta$ is set equal to zero), one must resort to approximate techniques for their construction. The presence of the nonlocal terms in (\[E11\]) and (\[E15\]), which have a handy Fourier representation in the periodic case as well, naturally suggests using spectral-type methods for approximating their solutions. The preceding discussion of the Benjamin equation applies to its associated Cauchy problem on $\mathbb{R}$. Solving it numerically requires posing it on a finite $x$-interval $[-L,L]$ with, say, periodic boundary conditions, assuming $2L$-periodic initial data. In case solitary waves, their generation and interactions, are the focus of interest, one should take into account that they decay quadratically. Consequently, the interval $[-L,L]$ should be taken sufficiently large in some experiments to ensure that the numerical solution in the temporal range of interest remains sufficiently small at the endpoints so that the simulations give valid approximations of the solutions of the Cauchy problem.
In [@ABR] the equation (\[E16\]) was discretized in space by a pseudospectral technique and the resulting nonlinear system of equations for the Fourier coefficients of $\psi=\psi_{\tilde{\gamma}}$ for a desired value of $\tilde{\gamma}\in (0,1)$ was solved by an incremental continuation method. This entailed defining a homotopic path $\tilde{\gamma}_{0}=0<\tilde{\gamma_{1}}<\ldots<\tilde{\gamma}_{M}=\tilde{\gamma}$, starting from the known profile of a solitary wave $\psi_{\tilde{\gamma}_{0}}$ of the KdV equation with a given speed $c_{s}$, and computing $\psi_{\tilde{\gamma}_{j+1}}$, given $\psi_{\tilde{\gamma}_{j}}$, by Newton’s method. With this technique the authors of [@ABR] were able to construct approximate solutions of (\[E16\]) that were even functions with a positive absolute maximum at $z=0$. As $\tilde{\gamma}$ approached $1$ the oscillating tails of the solitary wave became more prominent and the maximum value of the wave decreased. It was found that the length of the intervals between consecutive zeros of the oscillating tails was quite close to the value predicted by the asymptotic analysis of [@B2].
In [@KB] the authors solved numerically the periodic initial-value problem for the Benjamin equation using a pseudospectral (collocation) method in space coupled with a second-order time-stepping procedure. They confirmed that [*resolution*]{} of suitable general initial profiles into a number of solitary waves plus a dispersive tail (a phenomenon that has been observed in other nonlinear dispersive wave equations) also occurs in the case of the Benjamin equation. They specifically studied the resolution of initial Gaussian profiles into solitary waves contrasting it with the analogous resolution observed in the case of two BO-type equations. In some cases they observed, in addition to detached solitary waves, the emergence of clusters (pairs, triplets, etc.) of orbiting solitary waves that interacted among themselves. They conjectured that these structures would eventually separate into distinct solitary waves. They also constructed approximate solitary waves, using the resolution property, by truncating and iteratively cleaning a separated solitary wave as has been frequently done in numerical studies of other nonlinear dispersive wave equations. (Of course in this manner one does not have in general [*a priori*]{} knowledge of the speed $c_{s}$ or the value of $\tilde{\gamma}$ of the emerging solitary wave.) They used two such approximate solitary waves of different speeds to study their overtaking collision and observed that the interaction was not elastic, a fact indicating that the Benjamin equation is not integrable.
In [@CA], the authors considered solitary waves of the Benjamin equation and compared them to solitary waves of the full Euler equations for interfacial flows in the presence of surface tension when the parameters of the problem are close to the Benjamin equation regime of validity and also farther from it. The numerical scheme they used for approximating solitary waves of the Benjamin equation was based on a hybrid spatial discretization that employed fourth-order finite differences on a uniform grid for the derivatives, and the discrete Fourier transform for the nonlocal term. The resulting nonlinear system of equations was solved again by a continuation-Newton technique. The temporal discretization of the periodic initial-value problem for the Benjamin equation was effected by an explicit predictor-corrector scheme. They identified another branch of solitary wave solutions of the Benjamin equation, the depression solitary waves (resembling analogous solutions of the Euler equations), and tested their stability by using them as initial values in their fully discrete scheme for the time-dependent equation. They observed that the initial profile propagated without change for some time, gradually developed an instability due to the perturbative effect of the numerical scheme, and resolved itself into two pulses resembling usual (elevation) solitary waves of the Benjamin equation plus small-amplitude dispersive oscillations. (A linearized stability analysis, also performed in [@CA], yields that the depression solitary waves are linearly unstable.)
In a recent paper [@DDM1], we made a study of several incremental continuation techniques for approximating solitary waves of the Benjamin equation that satisfy (\[E15\]). (The values of $\alpha, \beta, \delta$ and $c_{s}$ were fixed, and $\gamma$ was used as continuation parameter.) A standard pseudospectral (collocation) method yielded the underlying discrete nonlinear system. We found that Newton’s method, combined with a suitably preconditioned conjugate gradient technique for solving the attendant linear system at each Newton iteration, was the generally most efficient technique of implementing the incremental step and produced very accurate approximations of the solitary waves for $0\leq \gamma <1$. With this method we also computed other branches of solutions of (\[E15\]), namely [*multi-pulse*]{} solitary waves, by starting the homotopy path from linear combinations of solitary waves of the KdV equation. We verified the accuracy of these profiles as travelling waves of the Benjamin equation by using them as initial values in a full discretization of the periodic initial-value problem for (\[E11\]) and integrating forward in time. The solver combined the pseudospectral spatial discretization with the third-order accurate two-stage DIRK time-stepping technique, modified to preserve discrete analogs of the invariants (\[E12\]) and (\[E13\]). It was found that several quantities of interest, such as the speed, the amplitude and the third invariant (\[E14\]) of the discrete travelling waves, were preserved to very high accuracy, lending confidence in the validity of this technique for computing solitary waves.
In the paper at hand we continue our numerical study of the Benjamin equation. We construct and test numerically a new, efficient time-stepping method based on a spectral-finite element [hybrid]{} spatial discretization combined with a fourth-order implicit Runge-Kutta scheme for time-stepping. This method is used to explore properties of solitary-wave solutions of (\[E11\]), such as their generation, interaction and stability.
Much of numerical work with spectral-type methods for one-dimensional, nonlocal, nonlinear dispersive wave equations has been centered around the Benjamin-Ono (BO), [@B0; @O], and the Intermediate Long Wave (ILW) equation, [@J; @ABFS]. Early computational work was reviewed in [@PD1]; here we mention only the rigorous convergence results known to us. In [@PD2] $L^{2}-$error estimates were derived for the standard Fourier-Galerkin semidiscretization of the BO and ILW equations. If the number of Fourier modes is $2N+1$ and the initial value is $2L-$periodic and belongs to the periodic Sobolev space $H_{p}^{r}$, the $L^{2}$-error bounds derived in [@PD2] are of $O(N^{1-r})$. In addition, the full discretization of the semidiscrete system of ode’s with the explicit leap-frog scheme is shown in [@PD2] to have an $L^{2}-$error bound of $O(N^{1-r}+\Delta t^{2})$ under the stability restriction that $N^{2}\Delta t\leq C$ for a sufficiently small constant $C$; here $\Delta t$ is the time step. For a class of equations with the same nonlocal terms and more general nonlinear terms it was subsequently shown in [@DM1] that the error of the Fourier-Galerkin semidiscretization is of optimal order $O(N^{1/2-r})$ in $H^{1/2}_{p}$. In the same paper the semidiscrete problem was discretized in time in the manner suggested in [@CK], i. e. using as a basis the leap-frog method coupled with implicit Crank-Nicolson differencing of the linear dispersive term. This explicit-implicit time-stepping scheme may be implemented efficiently in Fourier space and does not require solving linear systems of equations; as shown in [@DM1] it has an error bound of $O(N^{1/2-r}+\Delta t^{2})$ in $H^{1/2}_{p}$ under the mild stability condition $N^{1/2}\Delta t\leq C$ for some sufficiently small constant $C$. In addition, in [@DM2] the authors analyze the more efficient spectral collocation method (that was used in actual computations in [@PD1] and elsewhere,) for the BO and ILW equations, and prove that the associated semidiscrete problem converges with an $H^{1/2}_{p}-$error bound of $O(N^{3/2-r})$.
A different type of method for the BO equation was constructed and analyzed in [@TM]. It consists of a Crank-Nicolson time-stepping scheme that is coupled with a spatial discretization in which the nonlinear term is approximated by conservative differencing and the nonlocal term is discretized in physical space by the midpoint quadrature formula, which is then interpreted as a discrete convolution and computed by the discrete Fourier transform. Since the fully discrete scheme is implicit, a nonlinear system of equations has to be solved at each time step. This system is linearized by a simple iterative scheme in which the nonlinear term is lagged backwards in time and the linear part is trivial to invert in Fourier space, as e. g. in [@CK]. The overall method is shown to be of second-order accuracy in $L^{2}$ in space and time.
In the present paper the numerical scheme that we use is a [hybrid]{} finite element-spectral method. We consider the periodic initial-value problem for (\[E11\]) and discretize it in space by the Galerkin method using smooth periodic splines of order $r\geq 3$ on a uniform mesh with meshlength $h$. (Cubic splines, i. e. $r=4$, are mainly used in the computations.) The nonlocal term is computed using a spectral approximation as described in Section \[sec2\]. Then, the system of ode’s representing the semidiscrete problem is discretized in time; we use as a base time-stepping scheme the two-stage, fourth-order accurate, Gauss-Legendre implicit Runge-Kutta method. This scheme has high accuracy and good stability properties and has previously been extensively used for the temporal discretization of stiff partial differential equations with a KdV term, cf. e. g. [@BDKMc] and its references. We describe in detail the implementation of this fully discrete hybrid method and make a computational study of its accuracy and stability properties when it is applied to the Benjamin and Benjamin-Ono (i. e. when $\delta$ is set to zero) equations. In addition, we validate the hybrid scheme by making a detailed comparison of the solutions that it produces with those of a standard fully discrete pseudospectral scheme in the case of three numerical experiments involving the propagation of solitary waves of the Benjamin and Benjamin-Ono equations.
In Section \[sec3\] we review the continuation-conjugate gradient-Newton technique of [@DDM1] for generating single and multi-pulse solitary-wave solutions (i. e. solutions of (\[E15\])) of the Benjamin equation for various values of $\gamma$ with particular attention to values close to $1$. We use these numerical profiles as initial conditions in numerical evolution experiments with the hybrid scheme and investigate with various metrics their accuracy as travelling wave solutions of the Benjamin equation. Our conclusion from the numerical experiments of Sections \[sec2\] and \[sec3\] is that the hybrid scheme yields very accurate and stable approximations of solutions of the Benjamin equation, and in particular of the solitary waves for values of $\gamma\in (0,1)$ that can be taken quite close to $1$.
In Section \[sec4\] we make a detailed computational study of overtaking (‘one-way’) collisions of solitary waves of the Benjamin equation and compare the inelastic character of these interactions with the analogous, clean interactions in the case of the integrable BO equation. Finally, in Section \[sec5\] we explore issues of stability and instability of single-and multi-pulse solitary waves of the Benjamin equation under small and large perturbations. Our computational study confirms the stability of the single-pulse solitary waves for small and moderate values of $\gamma$ but is inconclusive for cases of $\gamma$ very close to $1$. The multi-pulse waves appear to be unstable and our experiments suggest that after an initial orbiting or dancing phase, they produce separated solitary waves. This confirms the conjecture of [@KB] that was mentioned previously. Finally, we examine the stability of the depression solitary waves and confirm the results of [@CA] regarding their instability.
In summary, the main contributions of the paper at hand are
- The construction of a novel, highly accurate, stable and efficient hybrid scheme that combines the accuracy of the spectral approximation of the nonlocal term and the accuracy of the spline discretization of the rest of the terms of the Benjamin equation with an accurate, unconditionally stable time stepping procedure which is effective in approximating highly stiff problems such as semidiscretizations of the Benjamin equation in the presence of the KdV term.
- The validation of the accuracy of the numerically generated single- and multi- pulse solitary wave solutions by showing that when used as initial values of the hybrid scheme they produce highly accurate approximations to travelling wave solutions of the evolution problem. These approximate solitary waves were computed by a Fourier spatial discretization of the solitary wave ode (\[E15\]) coupled with a continuation conjugate gradient-Newton nonlinear system solver that was proposed by the authors in [@DDM1] and can produce accurate solitary waves for any desired values of the speed $c_{s}>\alpha$ and $\gamma\in [0,1)$, avoiding the drawbacks of the iterative cleaning .
- The illumination, by computational means, of important phenomena associated with solitary waves of nonlinear dispersive wave equations, such as their one-way interaction (overtaking collision) and stability properties in the case of the Benjamin equation.
In the paper, we denote , for integer $r\geq 0$, by $C_{p}^{r}$ the periodic functions, on $[-L,L]$ or $[0,2\pi]$ as the case may be, that belong to $C^{r}$. The inner product for real or complex-valued functions in $L^{2}$ is denoted by $(\cdot,\cdot)$ and the associated norm by $||\cdot ||$.
The hybrid spectral-finite element scheme {#sec2}
=========================================
We consider the periodic initial-value problem for the Benjamin equation, i. e. for $t\geq 0$ we seek a $2L-$periodic real function $u=u(x,t)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& u_t+\alpha u_x+\beta u u_x-\gamma \mathcal{G}u_{xx}-\delta u_{xxx}=0,\quad x\in[-L,L], \quad t>0, \label{E21}\\
& u(x,0)=u_0(x),\quad x\in [-L,L]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{0}$ is a given smooth $2L-$periodic function and $\alpha,\beta, \gamma, \delta$ positive constants. The operator $\mathcal{G}$ is the Hilbert transform acting on $2L-$periodic functions; for the purposes of this section it will be represented by its principal-value integral form [@ABFS] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}f(x):=\frac{1}{2L}p.v.\int_{-L}^{L}{\it cot}\left(\frac{\pi (x-y)}{2L}\right)f(y)dy,\label{E22}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is $2L-$periodic. In the sequel we will assume that the solution of (\[E21\]) is sufficiently smooth. For simplicity, we assume that the problem (\[E21\]) has been transformed onto the spatial interval $[0,2\pi]$.
The semidiscrete hybrid scheme {#sec21}
------------------------------
For integer $r\geq 3$ and an even integer $N$, let $h=2\pi/N$, $x_{j}=jh, j=0,\ldots,N$, and consider the finite dimensional spaces $$S_N=\mbox{span}\left\{e^{{\rm i}kx}:\, k\in \mathbb{Z},\,-N/2\leq k\leq N/2-1 \right\},$$ and $$S_h=\left\{\phi\in C^{r-2}_p: \phi_{|_{[x_j,x_{j+1}]}} \in\mathbb{P}_{r-1},\, 0\leq j\leq N-1 \right\}.$$ The hybrid spectral-finite element approximation $u_{h}$ of the solution $u$ of (\[E21\]) is a real $S_{h}$-valued function $u_{h}(t)$ of $t\geq 0$ defined by the ode initial-value problem $$\label{E23}
\begin{split}
&({u_h}_t,\chi)+(\alpha {u_h}_x+\beta u_h {u_h}_x,\chi)+\gamma(P_N\mathcal{G}{u_h}_x,\chi_x)+\delta({u_h}_{xx},\chi_x)=0,\forall \chi\in S_{h}, t\geq 0,\\
&u_h(0)=P_h u_{0},
\end{split}$$ where $P_h$, $P_N$ are the $L^2$ projections onto $S_h$ and $S_N$, respectively, given for $w\in L^{2}$ as $$(P_h w,\chi)=(w,\chi),\quad \forall \chi\in S_h$$ and $$(P_N w,\phi)=(w,\phi),\quad \forall \phi\in S_N,$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the $L^{2}(0,2\pi)$ inner product. For $f\in L^{2}$, $P_{N}f$ is represented by $$P_N f(x)=\sum_{k=-N/2}^{N/2-1} \hat{f}_k e^{{\rm i}kx},$$ where $\hat{f}_{k}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} f(x)e^{-ikx}dx, k\in \mathbb{Z}$ are the Fourier coefficients of $f$. Note that $\widehat{(\mathcal{G}f)}_{k}=-{\rm i}{\mathop{\operator@font sign}}(k)\hat{f}_{k}$ and that $\mathcal{G}$ is antisymmetric in $L^{2}$.
The fully discrete hybrid scheme {#sec22}
--------------------------------
We define our fully discrete hybrid scheme following the derivation of the analogous scheme of [@BDKMc] in the case of the generalized KdV equation. (This scheme was also used in [@BDM].) Denoting again by $(\cdot,\cdot)$ the $L^{2}(0,2\pi)$ inner product, we define, for each $t\in [0,T]$, the map $F:S_{h}\rightarrow S_{h}$ by the equation $$(F(u_h),\chi)=-[(\alpha {u_h}_x+\beta u_h {u_h}_x,\chi)+\gamma(P_N\mathcal{G}{u_h}_x,\chi_x)+\delta({u_h}_{xx},\chi_x)], \quad \forall \chi\in S_{h}.$$ Then, the initial-value problem (\[E23\]) may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{u_h}_t=F(u_h),\quad 0\leq t\leq T,\quad u_{h}(0)=P_{h}u_{0}.\label{E31}\end{aligned}$$ In addition to $F$ we define the maps $B:S_h\times S_h\rightarrow S_h$, $\Theta_1:S_h\rightarrow S_h$ and $\Theta_2: S_h\rightarrow S_h$ that satisfy for $v,w\in S_h$ and for all $\chi \in S_h$ $$(B(v,w),\chi)=\frac{1}{2}(\beta vw,\chi') =-\frac{1}{2}(\beta(vw)_x,\chi),$$ $$(\Theta_1 v,\chi)=(\alpha v-\delta v_{xx},\chi'),$$ and $$(\Theta_2 v,\chi)=-(\gamma P_N \mathcal{G} v_x,\chi').$$ If we put $$F(v,w):=B(v,w)+\Theta_1 v+ \Theta_2 v,$$ we see that $$F(v):=F(v,v)=B(v)+\Theta_1 v+\Theta_2 v,$$ where $B(v)=B(v,v)$. The initial-value problem (\[E31\]) is stiff. It is discretized in the temporal variable by the 2-stage Gauss-Legendre implicit Runge-Kutta method, which is fourth-order accurate and has good nonlinear stability properties. It corresponds to the Butcher table $$\begin{array}{cc|c}
a_{11} & a_{12} & \tau_1\\
a_{21} & a_{22} & \tau_2 \\
\hline
b_1 & b_2 & \\
\end{array}\,\,\,\, =\,\,\,\,
\begin{array}{cc|c} \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} &
\frac{1}{2}-
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} \\
\frac{1}{4}+ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}} & \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{2}+
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\\
\hline
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \\
\end{array}.$$ The fully discrete scheme is now specified more precisely. Let $t^n=nk$, $n=0,1,\ldots, M$, where $T=Mk$. We seek $U^n$ approximating $u_{h}(t^{n})$, and $U^{n,i}$ in $S_h$, $i=1,2$, as solutions of the system of nonlinear equations $$\label{E32}
U^{n,i}=U^n+k\sum_{j=1}^2 a_{ij} F(U^{n,j}),\quad i=1,2,\quad 0\leq n\leq M-1,$$ and set $$\label{E33}
U^{n+1}=U^n+k\sum_{j=1}^2 b_j F(U^{n,j}), \quad 0\leq n\leq M-1,$$ where $U^{0}=u_{h}(0)$. At each time step we solve the nonlinear system (\[E32\]) using Newton’s method as follows. Given $n \ge 0$, let $U_0^{n,i}\in S_h$, $i= 1, 2$ be an accurate enough (see below) initial guess for $U^{n,i}$, the solution of (\[E32\]). Then the iterates of Newton’s method (called the [*outer*]{} iterates for reasons that will become clear presently) $U_j^{n,i}$, $j= 1,2,\ldots$ ($U_j^{n,i}$ approximates $U^{n,i}$) satisfy the $2\times 2$ block linear system in $S_h\times S_h$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left[\begin{array}{cc}
I+k a_{11} J(U_j^{n,1}) & k a_{12}J(U_j^{n,2})\\
k a_{21}J(U_j^{n,1}) & I+k a_{22} J(U_j^{n,2})
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} U_{j+1}^{n,1}\\ U_{j+1}^{n,2} \end{array} \right]=
\left[\begin{array}{c} U^n\\ U^n \end{array} \right]\label{E34}\\
&&-k
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & a_{12}\\
a_{21} & a_{22}
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} B(U_{j}^{n,1})\\ B( U_{j}^{n,2}) \end{array} \right],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where, for $\psi, \phi$ in $S_{h}$ $$J(\phi)\psi=J_1(\phi)\psi+J_2(\phi)\psi,$$ $$J_1(\phi)\psi=-2B(\phi,\psi)-\Theta_1\psi,$$ and $$J_2(\phi)\psi=-\Theta_2\psi.$$
The equations (\[E34\]) represent a $2N\times 2N$ linear system for the coefficients of the new Newton iterates $U_{j+1}^{n,i}$, $i=1,2$, for each $j$, with respect to a basis of $S_{h}$. The two operator equations in (\[E34\]) are uncoupled as follows: We evaluate the entries of the matrix in the left-hand side of (\[E34\]) at a point $U^{\ast}\in S_h$, defined by $$\label{E35}
U^{\ast}=\frac{1}{2}(U_0^{n,1}+U_0^{n,2}),$$ (which makes the operators in the entries of this matrix independent of $j$ and allows them to commute with each other). We may then write (\[E34\]) equivalently as $$\label{E36}
\begin{split}
&\left[\begin{array}{cc}
I+k a_{11} J_1(U^{\ast}) & k a_{12}J_1(U^{\ast})\\
k a_{21}J_1(U^{\ast}) & I+k a_{22} J_1(U^{\ast})
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} U_{j+1}^{n,1}\\ U_{j+1}^{n,2} \end{array} \right]=\\
&\left[\begin{array}{c} U^n\\ U^n \end{array} \right]-k
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & a_{12}\\
a_{21} & a_{22}
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} B(U_{j}^{n,1})\\ B( U_{j}^{n,2}) \end{array} \right]\\
&+k\left[\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & a_{12}\\
a_{21} & a_{22}
\end{array}\right]\,\left[\begin{array}{cc}
J_1(U^{\ast}) -J(U_j^{n,1}) & 0\\
0 & J_1(U^{\ast}) - J(U_j^{n,2})
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} U_{j+1}^{n,1}\\ U_{j+1}^{n,2} \end{array} \right],
\end{split}$$ for $j\ge 0$, a form that immediately suggests an iterative scheme for approximating $U_{j+1}^{n,i}$, $i=1,2$. This scheme generates [*inner*]{} iterates denoted by $U^{n,i,\ell}_{j+1}$ for given $n,i,j$, and $\ell=0,1,2,\ldots$ ($U^{n,i,\ell}_{j+1}$ approximates $U^{n,i}_{j+1}$) that are found recursively from the equations $$\label{E37}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
I+k a_{11} J_1(U^{\ast}) & k a_{12}J_1(U^{\ast})\\
k a_{21}J_1(U^{\ast}) & I+k a_{22} J_1(U^{\ast})
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} U_{j+1}^{n,1,\ell+1}\\ U_{j+1}^{n,2,\ell+1} \end{array} \right]=\\
\left[\begin{array}{c} r_{j+1}^{n,1,\ell}\\ r_{j+1}^{n,2,\ell} \end{array} \right],$$ for $\ell\ge 0$, where $$r_{j+1}^{n,i,\ell}=U^n-k\sum_{m=1}^2a_{im}B(U^{n,m}_j)+k\sum_{m=1}^2a_{im}(J_1(U^{\ast})-J(U^{n,m}_j)) U_{j+1}^{n,m,\ell}.$$ The linear system (\[E37\]) can be solved efficiently as follows: Since $a_{12}a_{21}<0$, it is possible, upon scaling the matrix on the left-hand side of the system by a diagonal similarity transformation, to write it as $$\label{E38}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
I+\frac{1}{4} k J_1(U^{\ast}) & k J_1(U^{\ast})/4\sqrt{3}\\
k J_1(U^{\ast})/4\sqrt{3} & I+\frac{1}{4}k J_1(U^{\ast})
\end{array}\right]\, \left[\begin{array}{c} U_{j+1}^{n,1,\ell+1}\\ \mu U_{j+1}^{n,2,\ell+1} \end{array} \right]=\\
\left[\begin{array}{c} r_{j+1}^{n,1,\ell}\\ \mu r_{j+1}^{n,2,\ell} \end{array} \right],$$ where $\mu=2-\sqrt{3}$. The system (\[E38\]) is equivalent to the single complex $N\times N$ system $$\label{E39}
(I+k\zeta J_1(U^{\ast}))Z=R,$$ where $\zeta=\frac{1}{4}+{\rm i}/4\sqrt{3}$, and where $Z$ and $R$ are complex-valued functions with real and imaginary parts in $S_h$ which depend upon $n$, $\ell$ and $j$ and are given by $$\label{E310}
Z=U_{j+1}^{n,1,\ell+1}+{\rm i} \mu U_{j+1}^{n,2,\ell+1},\quad R=r_{j+1}^{n,1,\ell+1}+{\rm i}\mu r_{j+1}^{n,2,\ell+1}.$$
In practice only a finite number of outer and inner iterates are computed at each time step. Specifically, for $i=1,2$, $n\geq 0$, we compute approximations to the outer iterates $U_j^{n,i}$ for $j=1,\ldots, J_{out},$ for some small positive integer $J_{out}$. For each $j$, $0\leq j\leq J_{out}-1$, $U_{j+1}^{n,i}$ is approximated by the last inner iterate $U_{j+1}^{n,i,J_{inn}}$ of the sequence of inner iterates $U_{j+1}^{n,i,\ell}$, $0\leq \ell \leq J_{inn}$ that satisfy linear systems of the form (\[E39\]). $J_{inn}$ and $J_{out}$ are such that $$\left(\sum_{k=1}^2\|U_{j+1}^{n,k,\ell+1}-U_{j+1}^{n,k,\ell}\|^2_{\ell_2}\right)^{1/2}\leq \varepsilon,$$ and $$\left(\sum_{k=1}^2\|U_{j+1}^{n,k}-U_{j}^{n,k}\|^2_{\ell_2}\right)^{1/2}\leq \varepsilon,$$ where $\|v\|_{\ell_2}$ denotes the Euclidean norm of the coefficients of $v\in S_h$ with respect to its basis, and $\varepsilon$ is usually taken to be $10^{-10}$.
Given $U^n$, the required starting values $U_0^{n,i}$ for the outer (Newton) iteration are computed by extrapolation from previous values as $$\label{E311}
U_0^{n,i}=\alpha_{0,i} U^{n}+\alpha_{1,i} U^{n-1}+\alpha_{2,i} U^{n-2}+\alpha_{3,i} U^{n-3},$$ for $i=1,2$, where the coefficients $\alpha_{j,i}$ are such that $U_0^{n,i}$ is the value at $t=t^{n,i}$ of the Lagrange interpolating polynomial of degree at most 3 in $t$ that interpolates to the data $U^{n-j}$ at the four points $t^{n-j}$, $0\leq j\leq 3$. (If $0\leq n\leq 2$, we use the same linear combination, putting $U^j=U^0$ if $j<0$.)
The integrals involving the local terms are computed in general using the 5-point Gauss-Legendre quadrature rule in each spatial interval. The inner product $(P_N\mathcal{G}{u_h}_x,\chi_x)$ involving the nonlocal term is computed as the inner product $(I_N\mathcal{G}{u_h}_x,\chi_x)$ where the Fourier interpolant $I_N$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E312}
I_N v(x)=\sum_{k=-N/2}^{N/2-1}\hat{v}_ke^{{\rm i}kx},\end{aligned}$$ where by $\hat{v}_k$ we denote the discrete Fourier coefficients of $v$, computed by the Fast Fourier Transform. The inner product $(\cdot,\cdot)$ is approximated by the trapezoidal quadrature rule, which is very accurate for periodic functions.
In the sequel, we shall use the fully discrete scheme described above with the $C^{2}$ cubic splines ($r=4$) as the finite element subspace $S_{h}$. We shall refer to this method as the [*hybrid scheme/method*]{}.
We checked numerically the orders of convergence of the hybrid scheme as follows. Due to lack of analytical formulas for solutions of the Benjamin equation we considered the nonhomogeneous equation $$\label{E313}
u_t+uu_x+\mathcal{G} u_{xx}+\frac{1}{2}u_{xxx}=f(x,t),\quad (x,t)\in [-1,1]\times [0,T],$$ with periodic boundary conditions and $$f(x,t)=e^t\left(\sin(\pi x)+\frac{\pi}{2}e^t\sin(2\pi x)+\left(\pi^2-\frac{\pi^3}{2}\right)\cos(\pi x) \right).$$ The specific equation has a solution $u(x,t)=e^t \sin(\pi x)$. We solved it numerically up to $T=1$ and we computed the discrete maximum error on the quadrature nodes and the normalized $L^2$ error defined as $\|e_h(\cdot,t^n)\|/\|e_h(\cdot,0)\|,$ where $e_{h}=u-U$. The numerical method appears to converge with an optimal rate in space ($r=4$) but with a suboptimal rate equal to three in time.
$N$ $M$ $L^{\infty}$ Error Rate $L^2$ Error Rate
------- -------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------ ---------
$4$ $1000$ $ 0.2630\times 10^{-1}$ – $0.4263\times 10^{-1}$ –
$8$ $1000$ $0.2654\times 10^{-2}$ $3.309$ $0.4125\times 10^{-2}$ $3.370$
$16$ $1000$ $ 0.1916\times 10^{-3}$ $3.793$ $0.2686\times 10^{-3}$ $3.941$
$32$ $1000$ $0.1243\times 10^{-4}$ $3.945$ $0.1693\times 10^{-4}$ $3.988$
$64$ $1000$ $0.7863\times 10^{-6}$ $3.983$ $0.1060\times 10^{-5}$ $3.997$
$128$ $1000$ $ 0.5068\times 10^{-7}$ $3.956$ $0.6636\times 10^{-7}$ $3.998$
: \[tav1\]Spatial rates of convergence (hybrid scheme)
$N$ $M$ $L^{\infty}$ Error Rate $L^2$ Error Rate
------- ------- ------------------------ --------- ------------------------- ---------
$20$ $ 20$ $0.1301\times 10^{-3}$ – $0.1249\times 10^{-3}$ –
$40$ $40$ $0.1866\times 10^{-4}$ $2.802$ $0.1678\times 10^{-4}$ $2.896$
$80$ $80$ $0.3888\times 10^{-5}$ $2.262$ $0.3733\times 10^{-5}$ $2.169$
$160$ $160$ $0.5566\times 10^{-6}$ $2.804$ $0.5465\times 10^{-6}$ $2.772$
$320$ $320$ $0.7289\times 10^{-7}$ $2.933$ $0.7101\times 10^{-7}$ $2.944$
$640$ $640$ $0.9443\times 10^{-8}$ $2.948$ $0.8994\times 10^{-8 }$ $2.981$
: \[tav2\]Temporal rates of convergence (hybrid scheme)
Tables \[tav1\] and \[tav2\] show the numerical spatial and temporal rates of convergence of the error for this experiment computed in the discrete maximum norm and the normalized $L^{2}$ norm at $t=T=1$. Here $N$ is the number of spatial intervals and $M=T/k$. We observe that the spatial rate is practically optimal (four) and that the temporal rate approximates the value $p=3$ as $N, M$ increase. (For this experiment, with the tolerance set at $\epsilon=10^{-10}$, the number of Newton iterations $J_{out}$ came out to be always one and $J_{inn}$ varied in general between one and four provided $k$ and $h$ were sufficiently small.) The theoretical order of accuracy of the two-stage Gauss-Legendre RK method is of course equal to four and this value is observed experimentally for the KdV equation, i. e. when the nonlocal term $\mathcal{G}u_{xx}$ is not present, see e. g. ([@BDKMc], Table 3). In our case, the loss of one order of temporal accuracy is apparently caused by the presence of the nonlocal term: Observe that in the Jacobian $J_{1}(U^{*})$ in the matrix of operators in the left-hand side of (\[E36\]) we did not include the part of the Jacobian $J_{2}=-\Theta_{2}$ corresponding to the nonlocal term but transferred it to the right-hand side, in order to retain sparsity in the operators on the left when a basis of small support is chosen for $S_{h}$. This efficiency consideration renders the scheme explicit with respect to the nonlocal term and linearly implicit with respect to the rest of the terms in the equation, and causes the loss of temporal accuracy by one order.
We did not detect any need for a stability bound on $k/h$ for these computations. (Values as high as $k/h=8$ were tried.) Of course accuracy is reduced as $k$ increases and so in the numerical experiments of sections \[sec3\]-\[sec5\] $k/h$ was taken much smaller.
In the sequel, we shall also on occasion compute solutions of the Benjamin-Ono (BO) equation, mainly in order to test our numerical schemes. (BO is a good testing ground for our purposes since it has solitary-wave solutions that are known in closed form and are not trivial to simulate on a finite interval as they decay like $O(x^{-2})$ as $|x|\rightarrow \infty$. In addition, their interactions are clean due to the integrability of the BO.) For this reason, we briefly report on the performance of the hybrid method in the case of the BO. It is easy to verify, to begin with, that the spatial rate of convergence is again equal to $4$. However, we found that the explicit way that the Newton solver treats the nonlocal term causes the hybrid method to converge under a stability condition of the form $k=\alpha h^{2}$. (In the case of the example (\[E313\]) with no KdV term, $\alpha \cong 0.6$ was sufficient.)
In the case of the Benjamin-Ono equation, due to the restrictive stability condition $k=\alpha h^2$, if we take a fixed number $N$ of spatial intervals, we observe that the errors cease to decrease at a certain point because the temporal error becomes much smaller than the spatial error. It is thus not easy to compute the asymptotic rate of the temporal error. To accomplish this we did the following: For a fixed value of $h$, we solved the problem in the domain $[-15,15]$ with the hybrid method up to $T=1$ for various values of $k$. We chose $h=0.05$ (i.e. $N=600$) to ensure that the spatial errors will be larger than the temporal errors. We also chose a reference value of $k=k_{ref}=10^{-4}$ ($M=10000$) and we computed the solution $U_{ref}$. We then chose values of $k$ larger than $k_{ref}$ but small enough so as to satisfy the stability condition and computed $U_k$ and the normalized errors $$E^{\ast}(T)=\frac{\|U_{ref}(T)-U_k(T)\|}{\|u(0)\|}.$$
It turns out that for small values of $k$, which are nevertheless considerably larger than $k_{ref}$, the expected temporal rate of convergence is visible because subtracting $U_{ref}(T)$ from $U_k(T)$, essentially cancels the spatial error of the latter approximation. The results of these computations are presented in Table \[tav3\].
$N$ $M$ $L^{\infty}$ Error Rate $L^2$ Error Rate
------- -------- ------------------------ --------- ------------------------ ---------
$600$ $1250$ $0.7454\times 10^{-7}$ – $0.7947\times 10^{-7}$ –
$600$ $1600$ $0.3528\times 10^{-7}$ $3.030$ $0.3783\times 10^{-7}$ $3.007$
$600$ $2000$ $0.1797\times 10^{-7}$ $3.024$ $0.1930\times 10^{-7}$ $3.016$
$600$ $2500$ $0.9165\times 10^{-8}$ $3.018$ $0.9808\times 10^{-8}$ $3.033$
$600$ $3200$ $0.4298\times 10^{-8}$ $3.068$ $0.4585\times 10^{-8}$ $3.081$
$600$ $4000$ $0.2129\times 10^{-8}$ $3.148$ $0.2272\times 10^{-8}$ $3.146$
: \[tav3\]Temporal rates of convergence for BO (hybrid scheme)
A fully discrete pseudospectral scheme {#sec23}
--------------------------------------
In addition to the hybrid method, we shall use for checking purposes a spectral method. For continuous $2\pi-$periodic complex-valued functions $u, v$ we let $(u,v)_N:=\frac{2\pi}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}u(x_j)\overline{v(x_j)}$. We consider the following semidiscrete Fourier-collocation (pseudospectral) scheme, cf. [@M; @CHQZ], that approximates the solution $u$ of (\[E21\]) on $[0,2\pi]$ by $u^{N}\in S_{N}$ defined by the equations $$\label{E314}
\begin{array}{l}
(u^N_t+[\alpha u^N+(\beta/2) (u^N)^2-\gamma {\mathcal G} u^N-\delta u^N_{xx}]_x,\chi)_N=0,\quad \forall \chi\in S_{N}, t\geq 0,\\
u^N(x,0)=I_N u_0,
\end{array}$$ where $I_{N}$ is given by (\[E312\]). By choosing $\chi=e^{-{\rm i}kx}$ for $k=-N/2,\ldots,N/2-1$, we obtain the following system of ode’s for the Fourier coefficients $\hat{u}_{k}$ of $u^N$ for $k=-N/2,\ldots,N/2-1$:
$$\label{E315}
\frac{d}{dt}\hat{u}_{k}+\frac{\beta}{2}{\rm i}k(\hat{u}\ast\hat{u})_k+\omega(k)\hat{u}_k=0,\quad t\geq 0,\quad
\hat{u}_{k}(0)=\widehat{I_{N}u_{0}}_{k},$$
where $$\omega(k)=\alpha {\rm i}k-\gamma {\rm i} |k| k+\delta {\rm i} k^3.$$ Multiplying the ode’s by $e^{\omega(k)t}$ and setting $\hat{U}_k=e^{\omega(k)t} \hat{u}_k$ we may write them as $$\label{E316}
\frac{d}{dt}\hat{U}_{k}+\frac{\beta}{2}{\rm i}ke^{\omega(k)t}\left[(e^{-\omega(k)t}\hat{U})\ast(e^{-\omega(k)t}\hat{U})\right]_k=0.$$ To compute the convolution $\ast$ we use the formula ${\mathcal F}([{\mathcal F^{-1}}(e^{-\omega(k)t}\hat{U})]^2)$, where ${\mathcal F}$ is the discrete Fourier transform. The resulting ode system is discretized by the explicit classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta method in time. Hence, this fully discrete scheme belongs to the class of the so-called integrating factor schemes, [@CK; @MT; @KT], having improved stability properties, as they attempt to reduce stiffness. (The last-quoted paper has a useful review of related schemes.)
We verified the fourth order of temporal accuracy of this scheme by computing its errors in the case of the nonhomogeneous problem (\[E313\]) at $t=1$ for $N=100$ and an increasing number of time steps. The results are shown in Table \[tav4\]. (The numerical temporal rate in the case of the analogous numerical experiments for the BO equation was also found to be $4$.)
$N$ $M$ $L^{\infty}$ Error Rate $L^2$ Error Rate
------- -------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------- ---------
$100$ $400$ $0.1695\times 10^{-7}$ – $0.6240\times 10^{-8}$ –
$100$ $800$ $0.1082\times 10^{-8}$ $3.969$ $0.3900\times 10^{-9}$ $4.000$
$100$ $1600$ $0.6839\times 10^{-10}$ $3.984$ $0.2437\times 10^{-10}$ $4.000$
$100$ $3200$ $0.4305\times 10^{-11}$ $3.990$ $0.1526\times 10^{-11}$ $3.998$
$100$ $6400$ $0.2718\times 10^{-12}$ $3.986$ $0.9494\times 10^{-13}$ $4.006$
: \[tav4\]Temporal rates of convergence (spectral scheme).
We shall henceforth refer to this fully discrete pseudospectral scheme as the spectral method.
Validation of the hybrid method {#24}
-------------------------------
We now present the results of some numerical tests that we performed with both schemes in order to validate further the hybrid method and compare its results with those of the spectral scheme.
In our first experiment we simulate the propagation of a periodic travelling-wave solution of the Benjamin-Ono equation that was used in [@TM]. This solution resembles a solitary wave and is given by the formula $$\label{E317}
u(x,t)=\frac{2c_s A^2}{1-\sqrt{1-A^2}\cos (c_s A(x-c_st))},$$ where $A=\frac{\pi}{c_s L}$. This is a $2L-$periodic solution of the BO with coefficients $\alpha=\delta=0$, $\beta=\gamma=1$ in (\[E11\]). We approximated it by the spectral method with $N=1024, k=0.02$ and the hybrid method in two runs with $N=256$ and $k=0.01$ and with $N=1024$ and $k=5\times 10^{-4}$, respectively, on the interval $[-L,L]$ with $L=15$ and $c_{s}=0.25$ for $0\leq t\leq 100$, using (\[E317\]) at $t=0$ as initial condition. The numerical solution is shown in Figure \[F1\] at $t=0, 10$ and $100$. (All three numerical profiles coincided within graph thickness.)
In this example, the errors of the spectral method were all in the range $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-11}$. In the two runs of the hybrid scheme, the normalized $L^{2}$ error, defined as $\max_{n}\frac{||u(t^{n})-U^{n}||}{||U^{0}||}$, was of $O(10^{-7})$ for $N=256$ and of $O(10^{-11})$ for $N=1024$. In both cases, the $L^{2}$ norm of the numerical solution was equal to $2.50662827463$ while the Hamiltonian (invariant $E(u)$ given by (\[E14\])) was equal to $-0.473444593881$. (Both were preserved for $0\leq t\leq 100$ up to the twelve significant digits shown.) In addition, for the hybrid scheme we computed for each $t^{n}$ several other types of errors that are relevant in assessing the accuracy of approximation of solitary-type waves, cf. [@BDKMc; @BDM]. These were: (i) The [*(normalized) amplitude error*]{} $AE(t^{n})=\left|\frac{u_{max}-U^{n}(x^{*})}{u_{max}}\right|$, where $u_{max}$ is the maximum value of the exact solution and $x^{*}$ is the point where the approximate solution $U^{n}$ achieves its maximum, found by applying Newton’s method to compute the root of the equation $\frac{d}{dx}U^{n}(x)=0$ that corresponds to the maximum of $U^{n}$. (ii) The $L^{2}$ [*(normalized) shape error*]{} defined as $SE(t^{n})=\inf_{\tau}||U^{n}-u(\cdot,\tau)||/||u_{0}||$, computed as $SE(t^{n})=\xi(\tau^{*})$, where $\tau^{*}$ is the point near $t^{n}$ (found by Newton’s method) where $\frac{d}{d\tau}(\xi^{2})=0$, with $\xi(\tau)=||U^{n}-u(\cdot,\tau)||/||u_{0}||$. (iii) The associated [*phase error*]{} $PE(t^{n})=\tau^{*}-t^{n}$. Figure \[F2\] shows these errors as functions of $t^{n}$ up to $T=100$, for $N=256$ and $N=1024$. The speed $c_{s}=0.25$ of the travelling wave was preserved for $N=256$ to $6$ digits up to $t=50$ and to $5$ digits up to $t=100$, while for $N=1024$ up to at least $7$ digits up to $t=100$.
In a second validation experiment we computed the evolution of a solitary wave for the Benjamin equation (\[E21\]) with $\gamma=0.5$ (all other coefficients being equal to one) with $L=128$ up to $T=100$. The initial solitary-wave profile was generated with high accuracy by numerical continuation with the CGN method as explained in [@DDM1] and in Section \[sec3\] of the present paper. We solved the problem by the hybrid and the spectral schemes. Table \[tav5b\] presents the results of two runs with comparable errors for this problem. The spectral method is faster by a factor
Hybrid Spectral
---------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
$N$ $2048$ $256$
$k$ $1\times 10^{-2}$ $1\times 10^{-2}$
$L^{2}$ error $0.4398\times 10^{-6}$ $0.8024\times 10^{-6}$
$H^{1}$ error $0.3664\times 10^{-6}$ $0.8888\times 10^{-6}$
$SE$ $0.1370\times 10^{-6}$ $0.1117\times 10^{-5}$
$PE$ $0.1728\times 10^{-5}$ $0.4642\times 10^{-7}$
$H$ $0.4827201809$ $0.482720$
cpu time (sec) $59$ $30$
: \[tav5b\] Errors at $T=100$ and parameters for the hybrid and spectral methods. Solitary wave, Benjamin equation, $\gamma=0.5$
of two but the hybrid method conserves the Hamiltonian $H=I+E$ up to $10$ digits, four more than in the case of the spectral method. In the table the $L^{2}$ and shape errors are normalized as explained earlier. The (normalized) $H^{1}$ error, defined analogously, is a useful error metric for oscillatory profiles such as the solitary waves of the Benjamin equation.
In our third experiment we solved the Benjamin equation in the form $u_{t}+uu_{x}+\mathcal{G}u_{xx}+u_{xxx}=0$ for $x\in [-300,300]$ up to $T=100$ using as initial condition the Gaussian $u(x,0)=2e^{-(x/4)^{2}}$. As expected, [@KB], the initial profile resolves itself into a series of solitary waves. As Figure \[F3\] shows, by $T=100$ three solitary waves have appeared, followed by a dispersive tail.
We used the solution obtained by the spectral scheme with $N=6000, k=0.01$ as the benchmark and recomputed the solution with the hybrid scheme for various values of the discretization parameters $h$ and $k$ starting from $h=0.1, k=0.1$ and reducing $h$ and/or $k$. Some of the profiles produced by the hybrid runs are shown in Figure \[F3\]; they all coincide within graph thickness with the spectral solution. (It should be mentioned that the spectral scheme with $k=600/N$ blew up and needed $k=O((600/N)^{2})$ for stability.)
Generation and propagation of solitary waves {#sec3}
============================================
In this section we first review the numerical technique that we used to generate solitary-wave solutions of the Benjamin equation. These solitary-wave profiles were taken as initial values for the hybrid time-stepping method and integrated forward in time. We present in some detail the temporal evolution of various error metrics suitable for assessing the accuracy of these numerically generated travelling waves.
As was already mentioned in the Introduction, the solitary waves of the Benjamin equation are travelling-wave solutions of (\[E11\]) of the form $u(x,t)=\varphi(x-c_{s}t), c_{s}>0$, such that $\varphi$ and its derivatives tend to zero as $\xi=x-c_{s}t$ approaches $\pm \infty$. Consequently, $\varphi$ satisfies the equation (\[E15\]), from which, taking Fourier transforms, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(-c_{s}+\alpha-\gamma |k|+\delta k^{2})\widehat{\varphi}
+\frac{\beta}{2}\widehat{\varphi^{2}}=0,\quad k\in\mathbb{R},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{\varphi}(k)$ is the Fourier transform of $\varphi$. If we discretize this equation assuming periodic boundary conditions on $[-L,L]$ and using the discrete Fourier transform to compute the convolution as in section \[sec23\], we obtain the $N\times N$ nonlinear system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E41}
(-c_{s}+\alpha-\gamma |k|+\delta k^{2})\widehat{\varphi^{N}}_{k}
+\frac{\beta}{2}\left(\widehat{\varphi^{N}\ast \varphi^{N}}\right)_{k}=0,\quad k=-\frac{N}{2},\ldots,\frac{N}{2}-1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi^{N}$ is the approximation of $\varphi$ in $S_{N}$ and $\widehat{\varphi^{N}}_{k}$ denotes its $k^{\rm th}$ Fourier coefficient.
To solve (\[E41\]) we use an incremental continuation technique with respect to the parameter $\gamma$, following e. g. [@ABR]. For a fixed set of constants $\alpha, \beta, \delta, c_{s}$ in (\[E41\]) we consider a homotopic path $\gamma_{0}=0<\gamma_{1}<\ldots<\gamma_{M}=\gamma$ and solve (\[E41\]) successively for $\gamma_{0},\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{M}$ with an iterative nonlinear solver, using for each $j$ the numerical solution for $\gamma=\gamma_{j-1}$ as an initial guess in solving for $\gamma=\gamma_{j}$. (The starting value $\gamma_{0}=0$ of the path corresponds to the KdV equation for which exact solitary-wave solutions are available.) The incremental continuation technique has the added advantage that it produces a series of solitary waves for varying values of $\gamma$ with a fixed speed $c_{s}$.
The nonlinear system solver that we used to generate the solution of (\[E41\]) for each $\gamma_{j}$ was Newton’s method, wherein the attendant linear systems were solved by an inner iteration performed by the preconditioned conjugate gradient technique. The resulting iterative scheme, called CGN in the sequel, was described in detail in [@DDM1], where it was also compared with several other nonlinear solvers and found to be more efficient, with respect to a variety of metrics, for approximating solutions of (\[E41\]). We refer the reader to [@DDM1] for the implementation of CGN; let us just mention that for the computations in the present paper the Newton iteration was terminated when the quantity $||\varphi_{[\nu]}^{N}-\varphi_{[\nu -1]}^{N}||/||\varphi_{[\nu]}^{N}||$ became less than $10^{-15}$. (Here $\varphi_{[\nu]}^{N}$ is the $\nu$-th Newton iterate approximating $\varphi^{N}$). The preconditioned conjugate-gradient inner iteration was terminated when $||R^{(i)}||_{M}/||R^{(0)}||_{M}$ became less than $10^{-2}$. Here $R^{(i)}$ is the residual defined in the standard way in the conjugate-gradient algorithm, and the norm $||\cdot||_{M}$ is the weighted $L^{2}$ norm $(\cdot,M^{-1}\cdot)^{1/2}$, where $M=cI-\partial_{xx}$ is the preconditioning operator that we used; its action in Fourier variables is $c+k^{2}$ and the value $c=0.275$ was found to be optimal in computations. The number of CG inner iterations needed to reach the threshold defined above varied between $3$ and $10$ typically.
Using this algorithm we produced solitary waves of the Benjamin equation in $[-256,256]$ with $N=4096$ using $\gamma_{j}=j\Delta\gamma, j=1,\ldots,99$, with $\Delta \gamma=0.01$ and an exact solitary wave of the KdV equation at $\gamma_{0}=0$. In all computations we took $\alpha=\beta=\delta=1$. Figure \[F4\] shows the computed profiles of the solitary waves for $c_{s}=0.45$ and $\gamma=0,1,0.5,0.9,0.99$, while Figure \[F5\] shows the solitary waves corresponding to $c_{s}=0.75$ for the same values of $\gamma$. As is well-known, the number of oscillations increases with $c_{s}$ and $\gamma$.
We also constructed with the same technique [*multi-pulse*]{} solitary waves by starting at $\gamma_{0}=0$ with a superposition of translated KdV solitary waves as explained in [@DDM1]. Two– and three–pulse such solitary waves are shown for $\gamma=0.1,0.5,$ and $0.9$ and $c_{s}=0.75$ in Figure \[F6\].
As a measure of the accuracy of the CGN method for approximating the solution of (\[E41\]) for each value of $\gamma$ we computed the $L^{2}$ norm of the residual $r$, whose $k$-th Fourier component is defined as the left-hand side of (\[E41\]) with $\phi^{N}$ replaced by its numerical approximation. The value of $||r||$ for single– and two– and three– pulse solitary waves as a function of $\gamma$ remained smaller than $5\times 10^{-13}$ but in general the residual increases as $\gamma$ approaches one, a fact that reflects the difficulty in solving the nonlinear systems with $\gamma$ close to one.
The above-described technique for generating solitary waves of the Benjamin equation was found to be more accurate, compared to iterative cleaning , cf. e. g. [@KB], wherein one isolates and cleans iteratively solitary waves that are produced by resolution of suitable initial data, and which works well in case the solitary waves decay exponentially. In the case of the Benjamin equation, for which the solitary waves are known to decay quadratically, [@B2; @CB], we found that even for large spatial computational intervals it was very hard to make the values at the boundaries of the solitary waves produced by iterative cleaning less than $O(10^{-5})$. This small truncation error produced dispersive oscillations of the same order of magnitude that very fast polluted the ensuing solution when such solitary-wave profiles were used as initial values in evolution studies. Of course, for solitary waves produced by iterative cleaning one does not have [*a priori*]{} knowledge of their speed, so it is not easy to design systematic experiments with families of solitary waves of varying speed.
We used the numerical solitary waves that we constructed as initial values $u_{0}$ and integrated in time the Benjamin equation using the fully discrete hybrid scheme implemented as in Section \[sec2\]. As a further test of the accuracy of the numerical solitary waves and the time-stepping technique we computed several invariants of the evolution and various pertinent error measures. In all cases we used the spatial interval $[-256,256]$ and $N=4096$ and we integrated the equation up to $T=300$.
Table \[tav5c\] shows the values of the $L^{2}$ norm, of the invariant $H=I+E$, where $I$ and $E$ are discrete versions of the quantities defined in (\[E13\]) and (\[E14\]), respectively, and of the amplitude of the numerically propagated single-pulse solitary waves with $c_{s}=0.75$ for various values of $\gamma$. The digits shown for each quantity were conserved up to $T=300$.
$\gamma$ $L^2$-norm $H$ amplitude
---------- ----------------- ------------------ -------------- --
$0.1$ $1.6096361661$ $1.09624383030$ $-0.7183404$
$0.5$ $1.08290587306$ $0.48258984490$ $-0.541174$
$0.9$ $0.44162186544$ $0.07565402212$ $-0.2280941$
$0.95$ $0.33588124247$ $0.04319622837$ $-0.165667$
$0.99$ $0.2429264136$ $0.022247817281$ $-0.090357$
: Conserved quantities for numerical evolution up to $T=300$ of single-pulse solitary waves of speed $c_s=0.75$ for various values of $\gamma$.[]{data-label="tav5c"}
Table \[tav6\] shows the conserved digits of the same quantities for the analogous propagation experiment with two- and three-pulse solitary waves with $\gamma=0.5$.
Number of pulses $\gamma$ $L^2$-norm $H$ amplitude
------------------ ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------- --
$2$ $0.5$ $1.6419433913$ $1.1164182800$ $-0.582995$
$3$ $0.5$ $2.0816580537$ $1.800497679$ $-0.618111$
: Conserved quantities for numerical evolution up to $T=300$ of multi-pulse solitary waves of speed $c_s=0.75$ for $\gamma=0.5$[]{data-label="tav6"}
In these computations the quantity $H$ was defined at $t^{n}$ as $$\frac{1}{2}\int_{-L}^{L}\left(U^2+\frac{\beta}{3}U^3+\delta U_x^2-\gamma U I_N \mathcal{G} U_x\right)dx,$$ where $U=U^{n}$, the integrals being evaluated by numerical quadrature as described in Section \[sec3\].
In Figure \[F8\] we show the $L^{2}$ (normalized) shape error of the propagating numerical single-pulse solitary wave for $c_{s}=0.75$ and various values of $\gamma$, as function of $t^{n}$. This quantity is defined as $$SE(t^n)=\inf_{\tau}\|U^n-\varphi_h(\cdot-c_{s}\tau)\|/\|\varphi_h\|,$$ where $\varphi_{h}=P_{h}\varphi^{N}=U^{0}$ is the $L^{2}$-projection on $S_{h}$ of the numerically generated initial solitary wave $\varphi^{N}$.
As in section \[sec2\], $SE(t^n)$ is again computed as $\xi(\tau^{*})$, where $\tau^{\ast}$ is the point near $t^{n}$ (found by Newton’s method) where $\frac{d}{d\tau}\xi^2(\tau^\ast)=0$, with $\xi(\tau):=\|U^n-\varphi_h(\cdot-c_{s}\tau)\|/\|\varphi_h\|.$ The shape errors increase with $\gamma$ and stabilize with $t$ except in the case $\gamma=0.99$ where a linear temporal growth is observed. (They range from $O(10^{-8})$ to $O(10^{-6})$.) Figure \[F9\] shows the analogous graphs for the phase error, defined as $PE(t^n)=\tau^\ast-t^n$. The phase errors increase linearly with $t$ and with $\gamma$ for fixed $t$, ranging from $O(10^{-7})$ to $O(10^{-5})$ at $t=300$.
Finally, we computed the relative speed error of the simulations, defined as $(C^{n}-c_s)/c_s$, where $C^{n}=(x^{\ast}(t^{n}+\delta t)-x^{\ast}(t^{n}))/\delta t$ and $x^{\ast}$ an approximation of the center of the pulse, i. e. the position of its most negative excursion. When we choose $\delta t=1$ the absolute values of the specific error never exceeded $5\times 10^{-15}$ for all $\gamma$; the mean value of the speed remained constant during the computations.
Finally, as a measure of the quality of the numerically generated travelling multi-pulse solitary waves, we present in Figures \[F10\], the shape and phase errors during the numerical propagation of two–pulse and three–pulse solitary waves with $c_{s}=0.75$ and $\gamma=0.5$. The shape errors are of $O(10^{-7})$ while the phase errors of about $O(10^{-5})$ at $t=300$.
In conclusion, the outcome of the numerous tests performed in this and the preceding section of the validity and accuracy of the numerical technique for generating initial solitary-wave profiles and of the fully discrete hybrid scheme that was used for their numerical evolution, give us enough confidence to use these schemes in the study of interactions and stability of solitary waves of the Benjamin equation to be undertaken presently.
Overtaking collisions of solitary waves {#sec4}
=======================================
In this section we study in some detail, by computational means and using the hybrid method, [*overtaking collisions*]{} of solitary waves of the Benjamin equation. For a given value of $\gamma\in (0,1)$ solitary waves with smaller (absolute) amplitude (i. e. a smaller in absolute value maximum negative excursion) have larger speed and will consequently overtake solitary waves with larger (absolute) amplitude, which are slower. The solitary waves interact nonlinearly and emerge largely unchanged; their interaction is inelastic, i. e. it is accompanied by the production of a small amplitude [*dispersive*]{} tail since the Benjamin equation does not appear to be completely integrable, as already noted in [@KB] where results of a simulation of an overtaking collision for solitary waves of the Benjamin equation have been shown.
To set the stage we first present, as a benchmark, the results of a simulation with the hybrid method of an overtaking collision of two solitary waves of the BO equation. The initial solitary waves (cf. (\[E317\])) had amplitudes $A_{1}=4, A_{2}=1$ and corresponding speeds $c_{s,1}=2$ and $c_{s,2}=1.25$ and were centered at $x_{0,1}=-100$ and $x_{0,2}=100$, respectively. The computation was effected with $N=4096$ and $k=h/20$ on $[-256,256]$, and produced the evolution depicted in Figures \[F12\]–\[F13\] at selected instances of $t\in [0,400]$. The two solitary waves interact elastically around $t=265$. During the interactions there always are two distinct peaks present. No artificial oscillations accompany the numerical solution after the interaction
We now turn to the simulations of overtaking collisions of pairs of solitary waves of the Benjamin equation. We studied such collisions for various values of $\gamma$; we present here the results for $\gamma=0.1$ and $\gamma=0.99$. For all cases we used the hybrid method on the spatial interval $[-512,512]$ with $h=0.125$ and $k=0.02$ and constructed initial solitary-wave profiles of various speeds (centered at $x_{1}=256$ and $x_{2}=-256$) by the procedure described in Section \[sec3\].
Figure \[F14\] shows several temporal instances of the overtaking collision of two solitary waves of speeds $c_{s,1}=0.45$ and $c_{s,2}=0.75$ in the case $\gamma=0.1$. (During this simulation the $L^{2}$ norm of the solution was $||u||=3.387194802$, and the value of the invariant quantity $H=I+E$ was $H=4.04751039$ up to $T=3000$.) The faster solitary wave overtakes the slower and they interact nonlinearly with two peaks always present during the interaction. The collision produces a dispersive tail (see Figure \[F14\](g)), a fact suggesting that the Benjamin equation is not integrable.
Note that the dispersive tail precedes the solitary waves being of smaller amplitude and hence faster in our framework. Figure \[F15\] shows some details of the interaction: In (a) the maximum negative excursion of the solution is plotted versus time. In (b)–a magnification of (a)–one may observe how the maximum negative excursion of the faster wave approaches asymptotically its initial value. The paths of the solitary waves are plotted in (c): The faster wave is shifted slightly forward and the slower backward after the interaction.
In Figures \[F16\]-\[F17\] we show the analogous simulation of the overtaking collision of two solitary waves of the Benjamin equation of initial speeds $c_{s,1}=0.25$ and $c_{s,2}=0.85$, again for $\gamma=0.1$. The larger difference of the speeds in this experiment apparently causes the formation of a single peak momentarily during the interaction. Otherwise the details of the overtaking collision are qualitatively the same with those in Figures \[F14\]-\[F15\]. During this simulation the values of the invariants $||u||$ and $H$ remained equal to $3.93689569$ and $4.42223526$, respectively, up to $T=1500$.
We noticed that the collisions became harder to simulate for $\gamma>0.9$. Figure \[F18\] shows the interaction of two solitary waves of speeds $c_{s,1}=0.45$ and $c_{s,2}=0.75$ in the case $\gamma=0.99$. The $L^{2}$ norm was preserved to ten digits (it was equal to $1.532051456$) up to $t=3000$, but $H=6.821038$ was preserved to $7$ digits, reflecting the increased difficulty of the computation. It is not clear whether the small oscillations in front of the smaller, highly oscillatory solitary wave in Figure \[F18\](g) at $t=2900$ belong to a dispersive tail or are numerical artifacts or somehow indicate that the smaller wave has not yet stabilized after the interaction.
We observe that after about $t=2500$ as shown in Figure \[F19\] in which the maximum negative excursion of the solution is plotted versus time, after achieving again its pre-interaction value, the maximum negative excursion of the slower wave starts oscillating as it interacts with the dispersive tail.
We also performed numerical experiments simulating overtaking collisions involving multi-pulse solitary waves of the Benjamin equation. Figures \[F20\] and \[F21\] show such an interaction of a fast two-pulse solitary wave of speed $c_{s,2}=0.75$ with a slower single-pulse wave with $c_{s,1}=0.45$ for $\gamma=0.5$. During this simulation we observed that $||u||=2.873492446, H=2.8836586$ up to $t=3000$. After the interaction the waves separate and there is evidence of a dispersive tail, but the two-pulse wave has not quite recovered its shape and initial amplitudes by $t=3000$. The same is true for the single-pulse wave whose maximum negative excursion has not returned to its initial value by $t=3000$ as Figure \[F21\] indicates.
Stability of solitary waves {#sec5}
===========================
In this section we first study by computational means the stability of single- and multi-pulse solitary waves of the Benjamin equation under small perturbations. As was mentioned in the Introduction, a theory of stability of single-pulse waves was outlined in [@B2] and a complete proof for small $\gamma$ was given in [@ABR]. Another proof, valid for all $\gamma\in [0,1)$, of stability in a weaker sense was given in [@A].
We start with the single-pulse case. Figure \[F22\](a)–(d) shows the evolution (effected with the hybrid method on the spatial interval $[-2048,2048]$ with $h=0.0625$ and $k=0.02$) ensuing from a single-pulse solitary wave with $\gamma=0.5$ and $c_{s}=0.75$, centered at $x_{0}=0$, when it is perturbed by a multiplicative factor $r=1.1$. As expected, the perturbed solitary wave evolves into a new one of slightly larger maximum negative excursion plus a preceding dispersive tail. Figure \[F22\](e) shows the evolution of the maximum negative excursion of the solitary wave from its initial value $-0.59526$ to its eventual value which is equal to $-0.60523$.
We also simulated the evolution of a perturbed solitary wave corresponding to $\gamma=0.99$. Figure \[F23\](a)–(d) shows this evolution. The initial solitary wave had $c_{s}=0.75$ and was perturbed by a multiplicative factor of $r=1.2$. (The computation was effected on $[-1024,1024]$ with $h=0.0625, k=0.02$ up to $T=1000$.) The wave radiates forward a small-amplitude oscillatory wavetrain which has not separated from the main wave up to $T=1000$. This fact, and also the temporal variation of the maximum negative excursion of the wave (Figure \[F23\](e)) which has not achieved an asymptotic state by $t=1000$, does not allow us to reach a conclusion about the stability of solitary waves for $\gamma=0.99$. The wave may be unstable and keep radiating small-amplitude oscillations for all $t$ or may stabilize into a nearby solitary wave after very long time.
We turn now to a stability study of a two-pulse solitary wave. We took as initial condition a two-pulse solitary wave in the case $\gamma=0.5$ and perturbed it asymmetrically multiplying it by a factor $r({\rm tanh}x +1)+1$ with $r=0.05$. Figure \[F24\] shows the evolution that ensues. (The computation was done on $[-1024,1024]$ up to $T=1000$ using $h=0.0625, k=0.02$.) The perturbed two-pulse wave radiates forward the usual small-amplitude oscillatory wavetrain. We observe that its two negative peaks oscillate exchanging heights in a periodic-like manner (Figure \[F25\](a)), while their distance is also oscillating apparently periodically (Figure \[F25\](b)). This dance of the twin peaks went on up to the end of our computation at $t=1000$, but it is unlikely to continue unaltered for ever due to the constant shedding of radiation.
In a related numerical experiment, whose outcome is shown in Figure \[F26\], we perturbed the same initial two-pulse solitary wave with a larger asymmetric factor ($r$ was taken now to be $0.4$) of the same form as above. (All computational parameters remained the same.)
After a brief initial dancing phase (up to about $t=40$) accompanied by radiation, we observed that two single-pulse solitary waves were generated. Figure \[F27\] shows the evolution of the maximum negative excursions of the two negative peaks up to $T=1000$.
We conclude then that the effect of the larger perturbation is apparently to accelerate the end of the dance and initiate resolution into solitary waves.
As was already mentioned in the Introduction, Kalisch and Bona in [@KB] describe numerical experiments in which they observed resolution into solitary waves for the Benjamin equation with initial Gaussian profiles of the form $Ae^{-(x/\lambda)^{2}}$. As $\lambda$ was increased the emergence of a pair of orbiting solitary waves was observed which danced in the way previously described. For larger values of $\lambda$, they report that triplets and quadruplets of such solitary waves appeared. It was further conjectured in [@KB] (on the basis of the observed increase of the distance between the peaks of the orbiting pairs of solitary waves) that the system ‘may eventually transform into two separately propagating solitary waves’.
In the light of the numerical experiments of the present paper one could interpret the orbiting solitary waves of [@KB] as perturbed multi-pulse solitary waves, which, after an intermediate dancing stage, resolve themselves into separate single-pulse solitary waves.
As was mentioned in the Introduction we also computed the evolution of depression solitary waves of the Benjamin equation considered in [@CA] with the aim of studying their stability properties. In order to facilitate comparisons with the results of [@CA], we computed the initial depression wave profile by solving the solitary-wave equation in the form given by equation (44) of [@CA], i. e. as solution $\phi=\phi(x)$ of $$\begin{aligned}
\nu \phi-\phi^{2}-2\gamma \mathcal{H}\phi_{x}-\phi_{xx}=0,\end{aligned}$$ with $\nu=1, \gamma=0.94$. For this purpose we used the CGN algorithm (without continuation) taking as initial guess the usual (elevation) solitary wave of the Benjamin equation corresponding to $\gamma=0.94, c_{s}=0.9$, reflected about the $x-$axis and multiplied by a factor of two. (We performed $175$ iterations with a final residual error of the order of $10^{-13}$.) The profile $\phi(x)=u_{0}(x)$ that was obtained is shown in Figure \[F28\]; it corresponds to the profile of the uppermost snapshot of Figure 6 of [@CA].
We then integrated forward in time with our hybrid scheme using the appropriate transformed version of the p.d.e. (43) of [@CA]. Specifically, if $\eta=\eta(X,\tau)$ is the solution of that equation, our change of variables was defined by $$\label{E511}
\eta(X,\tau)=u(x,t),\quad x=X+2.8\tau, \quad t=2\tau.$$ This gave for the variable $u(x,t)$ the Benjamin equation of the form $$\label{E512}
u_{t}+1.4u_{x}-uu_{x}-0.94\mathcal{H}u_{xx}-0.5u_{xxx}=0,$$ i. e. of the form (\[E11\]) with $\beta=-1, \alpha, \gamma, \delta$ positive, which we integrated with the hybrid method on $[-1024,1024]$ using $h=0.125 (N=16384), k=0.02$ up to $t=1120$. The ensuing evolution is depicted in Figure \[F29\].
The initial profile moves to the right with speed $c_{s}=0.9$, apparently unchanged until about $t=250$. (Note that the analogous wave in Figure 6 of [@CA] moves to the left because its speed is equal to $-1$. This follows from our change of variables (\[E511\]) which implies that $u(x,t)=\phi(x-0.9t)$ if and only if $\eta(X,\tau)=\phi(X+\tau)$.) After that time, perturbed by the errors inherent in the numerical scheme the depression wave starts losing its shape and eventually develops into one main pulse, apparently a solitary wave of elevation , which continues travelling to the right, preceded by a dispersive oscillatory wavetrain. This instability confirms the results of [@CA] and may be seen more clearly in another numerical experiment in which we took as initial value the function $ru_{0}(x)$ with $r=1.1$. The evolution that resulted was simulated again up to $t=2200$ with the hybrid scheme for (\[E512\]) with the same discretization parameters as before and is depicted in Figure \[F29\]. The perturbed initial depression solitary wave loses its shape fast and apparently evolves in two usual (elevation) solitary waves of different heights that travel to the right preceded by a dispersive tail. (Note that in Figures \[F28\] and \[F29\] the solitary waves have positive peaks, while in previous sections of the paper at hand they had negative. This is due to the negative sign of the $uu_{x}$ term in (\[E512\]): If we make the change of variable $v=-u$, $v$ satisfies the Benjamin equation $v_{t}+1.4v_{x}+vv_{x}-0.94\mathcal{H}v_{xx}-0.5v_{xxx}=0$, which is our usual form. For the latter equation the solitary waves of elevation type have negative maximum excursions from zero and waves of smaller absolute amplitude are faster than those of larger absolute amplitude, cf. e. g. Figure \[F16\]. Hence in the $u-$equation (\[E512\]) the solitary waves have positive maximum excursions and still move to the right with the waves of smaller amplitude being faster than those of larger amplitude and with the tiny dispersive oscillatory wavetrain being even faster as observed in Figure \[F29\].)
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
V. Dougalis and A. Duran have been supported by project MTM2010-19510/MTM (MCIN).
[14]{} L. Abdelouhab, J. L. Bona, M. Felland, J.-C. Saut, Nonlocal models for nonlinear dispersive waves, Physica D 40 (1989) 360-392. J. P. Albert, J. L. Bona, J. M. Restrepo, Solitary-wave solutions of the Benjamin equation, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 59 (1999) 2139-2161. J. Angulo Pava, Existence and stability of solitary wave solutions of the Benjamin equation, J. Diff. Eq. 152 (1999) 136-159. T. B. Benjamin, Internal waves of permanent form in fluids of great depth, J. Fluid Mech. 29 (1967) 559-592. T. B. Benjamin, A new kind of solitary wave, J. Fluid Mech. 245 (1992) 401-411. T. B. Benjamin, Solitary and periodic waves of a new kind, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A 354 (1996) 1775-1806. J. L. Bona, V. A. Dougalis, O. A. Karakashian, W. R. McKinney, Conservative, high-order numerical schemes for the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A 351 (1995) 107-164. J. L. Bona, V. A. Dougalis, D. E. Mitsotakis, Numerical solution of KdV-KdV systems of Boussinesq equations I. The numerical scheme and generalized solitary waves, Math. Comput. Simul. 74 (2007) 214-228. D. C. Calvo, T. R. Akylas, On interfacial gravity-capillary solitary waves of the Benjamin type and their stability, Phys. Fluids 15 (2003) 1261-1270. C. Canuto, M. Y. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, A. T. Zang, Spectral Methods in Fluid Dynamics, Springer, New York, 1985. F. Chan, T. Kerkhoven, Fourier methods with extended stability intervals for the Korteweg-de Vries equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 22 (1985) 441-454. H. Chen, J. L. Bona, Existence and asymptotic properties of solitary-wave solutions of Benjamin-type equations, Adv. Diff. Eq. 3 (1998) 51-84. Z.-G. Deng, H.-P. Ma, Optimal error estimates of the Fourier spectral method for a class of nonlocal, nonlinear dispersive wave equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 59 (2009) 988-1010. Z.-G. Deng, H.-P. Ma, Error estimate of the Fourier collocation method for the Benjamin-Ono equation, Numer. Math. Theor. Meth. Appl. 2 (2009) 341-352. V. A. Dougalis, A. Duran, D. E. Mitsotakis, Numerical approximation of solitary waves of the Benjamin equation, to appear in Math. Comput. Simul. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2012.07.008. R. I. Joseph, Solitary waves in a finite depth fluid, J. Phys. A 10 (1977) L225. H. Kalisch, J. L. Bona, Models for internal waves in deep water, Discret. Contin. Dyn. Syst. 6 (2000) 1-22. A.-K. Kassam, L. N. Trefethen, Fourth-order time-stepping for stiff pde’s, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26 (2005) 1214-1233. F. Linares, $L^{2}$ Global well-posedness of the initial value problem associated to the Benjamin equation, J. Diff. Eq. 152 (1999) 377-399. B. Mercier, An Introduction to the Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods, Lectures Notes in Physics, Vol. 318, Springer, New York, 1983. P. Milewski, E. G. Tabak, A pseudospectral procedure for the solution of nonlinear wave equations with examples from free-surface flows, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 21 (1999) 1102-1114. H. Ono, Algebraic solitary waves in stratified fluids, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 39 (1975) 1082-1091. B. Pelloni, V. A. Dougalis, Numerical solution of some nonlocal nonlinear dispersive wave equations, J. Nonlinear Sci. 10 (2000) 1-22. B. Pelloni, V. A. Dougalis, Error estimates for a fully discrete spectral scheme for a class of nonlinear, nonlocal dispersive wave equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 37 (2001) 95-107. V. Thomée, A. S. Vasudeva Murthy, A numerical method for the Benjamin-Ono equation, BIT 38 (1998) 597-611.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A group of high school students (XII Liceum) in the framework of the Roland Maze Project has built a compact telescope of three Geiger-Müller counters. The connection between the telescope and PC computer was also created and programed by students involved in the Project. This has allowed students to use their equipment to perform serious scientific measurements concerning the single cosmic ray muon flux at ground level and below. These measurements were then analyzed with the programs based on the ’nowadays’ knowledge on statistics. An overview of the apparatus, methods and results were presented at several students conferences and recently won the first prize in a national competition of high school students scientific work. The telescope itself, in spite of its ’scientific’ purposes, is built in such a way that it is hung on a wall in a school physics lab and counts muons continuously. This can help to raise the interest for studying physics among others. At present a few (3) groups of young participants of the Roland Maze Project have already built their own telescopes for their schools and some others are working on it. This work is a perfect example of what can be done by young people when respective opportunities are created by more experienced researchers and a little help and advice is given.'
address: 'A. Sołtan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Cosmic Ray Laboratory, POB-447 90-950 Poland.'
author:
- 'T. Wibig, K. Kołodziejczak, R. Pierzyński, R. Sobczak'
title: 'Educational studies of cosmic rays with telescope of Geiger-Müller counters'
---
Introduction
============
Cosmic rays
-----------
Cosmic Rays (CR) were discovered in 1912 by Victor Hess (Nobel Price in 1936). In his balloon flights he found an increase of the discharge rate of an electroscope with the height of the balloon. The nature of CR remained a mystery for quite a long time. At present it is known that the radiation which we see deep in the atmosphere is not the primary cosmic rays which enter from space. The former consists mostly of stable nuclei (including single protons), and also in small fraction electron and photons - the only elementary particles which could survive the journey from CR sources to the Earth (one can also mention neutrinos, but, interacting only weakly, they can hardly be seen). Protons (and neutrons trapped as nucleons in CR nuclei) interacting kilometers above ground with nuclei of the atmosphere create, if the energy is high enough, short lived elementary particles - mostly pions. These light mesons were discovered in the cosmic radiation by C.F. Powell at Bristol and P.M.S. Blackett at Manchester in 1947. Blackett was awarded the Nobel Physics Prize in 1948 and Powell in 1950.
Neutral pions decay almost immediately to high energy gamma quanta (photons). High energy photons colliding with atomic nuclei can create a pair of electrons and positrons. The positron is the antiparticle of the electron and was predicted theoretically in 1928 by P.A.M. Dirac (Nobel price in 1933). It was discovered in cosmic rays by C.D. Anderson in 1932 – Nobel prize 1936 (shared with V. Hess). Electrons and positrons interacting with charged nuclei produced so-called brehmstrahlung photons, which in turn can create pairs etc. Sometimes, when the energy of the primary CR particle is very high, electrons, positrons and photons in the form of a cascade can reach ground level.
Charged pions can further interact strongly, creating several generations of secondary particles, but sometimes, especially when the density of nuclei to interact with is small (very high in the atmosphere), they decay. One of the products of pion decay is the muon. The muon is the lepton of the second generation in the Standard Model, and as such it behaves exactly like an electron The only difference is its mass. The muon is more massive than the electron ($\sim$200 times). The muon was discovered in 1937 in cosmic rays. A number of famous scientists had to work hard, before eventually the true nature of the muon was established and I.I. Rabi could conclude the muon discovery with his famous “Who ordered that?”. C.D. Anderson and S.H. Neddermayer (1937), J.C. Street and E.C. Stevenson (1937), F. Rassetti, B. Rossi and N. Nerson, Chaminade, A. Freon and R. Maze (1939), S. Tomonaga and G. Araki (1940) all worked on the problem.
The “Heavy electron” – the muon - interacts electromagnetically, and because it is more massive, it is harder to disturb its motion. When it is moving very fast, it is much harder to force it to emit brehmstrahlung photons. A high energy muon can easily travel not only the whole atmosphere, from the point of origin to the Earth’s surface, but also concrete walls and floors. This property of the muon makes it the most abundant particle in the cosmic ray flux at ground level. About 200 CR particles cross each square meter area every second and about 3/4 of them are muons.
The electroscopes used in the pioneering years of cosmic ray physics were soon replaced by more sophisticated equipment: cloud chambers and Geiger-Müller counters. The first allows one to photograph tracks left by electrically charged particles in overcooled clouds. The second gives an electric signal to any kind of electronic register. The simplicity of the Geiger-Müller (GM) counter makes it very useful not only for scientific purposes. The GM counters have been extensively used by astronauts to explore other planets in early s.f. movies, and even by James Bond in his first movie appearance in “Doctor No”[@bond].
The GM counters used by B. Rossi around 1930 worked in a coincidence mode made by three electronic valves[@rossi]. This significant electronic achievement of its times is shown in Fig. \[fig1\].
**The Roland Maze Project**
---------------------------
The mentioned cascade of elementary particles (photons, electrons, positrons, muons, pions and other hadrons, e.g. kaons discovered in 1947 by G. D. Rochester and C. C. Butler in cloud chamber photographs of cosmic ray-induced events) reach the ground level in the form of a thin (few meters) disc of a radius of hundreds of meters. Such a phenomenon is called an Extensive Air Shower. Extensive Air Showers (EAS) were seen for the first time by Roland Maze with an apparatus built by him on the roof of the Ècole Normale Supérieure in Paris. It consisted of three sets of GM counters (each of area about 10$\times$10 cm$^2$) working in different coincidence modes. In 1938, R. Maze and P. Auger announced the discovery of huge cascades of charged particles (EAS)[@eas]. The CR particles initiating such phenomena have to have enormous energies, milions and even billions times greater than ‘usual’ resulting from radioactive decays and other known-in- those days nuclear reactions.
Cosmic ray studies have been recently intensively developed, especially in the region of the upper limit of the energy spectrum, where several events involving cosmic ray particles with energy exceeding 10$^{20}$ eV ($\approx$ 50 J) have been observed. Their existence is a very serious physical problem. It was number 4 on the additional problem list published in 2005 in the Science magazine [@science]: [*Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from? Above a certain energy, cosmic rays don’t travel very far before being destroyed. So why are cosmic-ray hunters spotting such rays with no obvious source within our galaxy?*]{}
The experimental setup for recording such events usually consists of a number of relatively simple particle detectors spread over a large area. Nowadays, the single detector is a scintillation (or Cerenkov) counter connected to the electronic system with a coincidence trigger and converters of time and amplitude of a signals to digital codes. The essence of large area experiments is a method of synchronization and communication between detectors and a system of collecting and storing the data.
This is the point where high school education can meet high science. It is hard to imagine another subject of such great importance which can be studied jointly by scientists and students. It is not surprising that at present there are related projects under constructions in the USA [@inneUSA] and in Europe[@inneEU].
One of them is the Roland Maze Project[@maze]. The proposed EAS detection stations would be placed in the buildings of high schools.
The detection system of one station (school) allows one to conduct (in parallel with the main scientific object of the project: studies of extremely high energy cosmic rays) independent observations and studies for each group participating in the project. It covers the whole, wide region of cosmic ray particle energies, giving the ability to study geophysics and atmospheric phenomena as well as monitoring the Sun’s activity and space weather from one side, up to the properties of typical EAS on the other.
We have gathered many students interested in making “big physics”. The constructions of the project detectors and all the systems is going on, but in spite of that in order not to lose the initial impact we have proposed to the students many other activities.
Telescope of Geiger-Müller counters
===================================
One of the many byproducts of the Roland Maze Project is the idea of making small cosmic ray detectors/counters which can be hung on the school wall showing to everybody that cosmic rays are everywhere and raising the interest in science in general.
The counters are arranged in telescopes of three Geiger-Müller counters working in coincidence. Such a setup reminds us of the very first array of Maze.
The telescopes are to be built entirely by groups of students from each school. The only parts which can’t be made by them are GM counters, which are made in the A. Sołtan Institute for Nuclear Studies in [Ł]{}ódź. The counters are of glass with external cathodes. This kind of GM counters is called the Maze type[@mtype]. The electronic schemes of the particular circuits are also to some extent created by the students, especially if there is one in the group with some electronic experience. If there is none, a general scheme is given and the particular solutions are then found empirically. This leads to breaking some electronic components, but eventually it leads to great satisfaction which is one of the more important factors when doing science and what is hard to explain to the students in any other way.
A Particular solution
---------------------
The telescope from which results we want to present in this paper was made by students of the XII Liceum in [Ł]{}ódź.
A schematic view of the telescope is shown in Fig. \[fig2\].
The high voltage of about 1500 V needed to supply the GM tubes is created by a modified TV HV transformer with a primary winding connected to a simple pulse generator of 5-12 V and secondary to the Villard cascade. The coincidence was realized with standard TTL monostables with duration time of about 2 $\mu$s. The 4-digits 7 segment display of about 1 inch height was used to show the number of counts.
The telescope was equipped with a simple interface built on a base of the 555 circuit used to connect it to the PC class computer. The interface was originally programed under DOS in BASIC. The computer is able to continuously register telescope counts and to write them successively on the computer disk.
Results
=======
Stability
---------
In Fig. \[fig3\] we show the number of counts registered every hour since the beginning of 2006 to the end of January. As is seen there are no abrupt (unexpected, as will be discussed later) changes, and this causes us to state that the telescope is working properly and rather stable.
Barometric coefficient
----------------------
The single muon flux changes with time, as has been known for a long time. The most pronounced modulation relates to the atmospheric pressure. Low energy ($\sim$GeV) muons originate in the upper levels of the atmosphere and have to traverse almost the whole atmosphere (hundreds grams per cm$^2$ of air). The amount of the air above us changes continuously. These changes are the subject of interest to billions of people around the world. They are presented several times every day in TV weather reports on most of the TV channels as values of the atmospheric pressure. The pressure of 1000 mb informs us that above every square centimeter there is about 1 kg of air.
If the atmospheric layer to traverse is thicker then the flux of muons is diminished, due mainly to energy losses. Thus an anticorrelation of telescope counting rate and atmospheric pressure is expected. The values of the pressure from the local meteorological station Lublinek were taken from the respective web page and they are plotted in Fig. \[fig3\]. Fortunately, according the very rapid and substantial changes of the pressure in January, the anticorrelation is clearly seen by the naked eye.
To study it in detail in Fig. \[fig4\] we show the scatter plot of telescope counting rate vs. atmospheric pressure. The dashed line plotted there is the best linear fit. To relate our result with the one known from literature we can expressed it as a relative change of the counting rate with respect to the increase of the pressure of 1 mb. Such a value is called [*barometric coefficient*]{}. Our result is -0.21$\pm$0.04%/mb.
Muon absorption in the ground
-----------------------------
The Łódź EAS array of the A. Sołtan Institute for Nuclear Studies has its detection point in the underground laboratory placed 15 m below ground level. At present it is used as the site of the prototype of the Łódź ”space weather station”. The students’ GM telescope was placed there and it measured the single muon flux for a few days. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig5\]
Calculations show that muons which are able to reach the underground lab have to have energy greater than about 5 GeV. The measured decrease of the muon flux agrees with the value expected from the known integral energy spectrum.
Discussion
==========
The Main results
----------------
The telescope made by the high school students, operating for one month, produced data which allowed students to determine precisely the value of the barometric coefficient as -0.21$\pm$0.04%/mb. This value is just what can be expected from the literature (-0.18 to -0.20%/mb.) confirming the principles of the methods and solutions used.
It is interesting to mention the work of an Italian group Ref.[@wlosi]. The general idea was similar - to study the barometric effect with the help of simple computerized apparatus based on one small GM counter. Comparison shows that the results obtained by them -0.051$\pm$0.015 (or even -0.023$\pm$0.009, based on 3.5 months of running the experiment) is significantly different from ours. The simple explanation of this difference is that the coincidence of three GM counters used by us warrant that the counts we registered are definitively particles crossing areas of our GMs, and taking into account the thickness of the GM counter walls they have to be mostly cosmic ray generated muons. Without such a coincidence the single GM counter is measuring any kind of radiation which can penetrate the active GM counter volume. Only a fraction of it depends on atmospheric pressure.
The known flux of vertical muons given by PDG [@PDG] gives the expected counting rate, and after simple geometrical integration we checked that it is consistent with our measured value (shown in Fig. \[fig2\]).
Significant achievements
------------------------
The value of the barometric coefficient itself, in spite of its correctness, is not the most important achievement of the present work. Several points have to be emphasized:
- students (K.K., R.P., and R.S.) designed the scientific instrument;
- students built it, checking, correcting and testing every part of it;
- students assembled all the parts together making the fully operational apparatus;
- students performed the measurements;
- students wrote the analysis programs and analyzed the data;
- students presented their achievements on several occasions (starting from a presentation given by them in a forum of their own class, presentation in Lodz high school competition on physics, presentation on “3$^{rm rd}$ Roland Maze Scientific Session”, and recently in the competition of national scientific works for high school students organized by the Polish Academy of Science and INS, where they won The First Prize).
The role of more experienced scientists (e.g. T.W.) participating in the telescope work should also be expressed precisely to avoid any suspicions (as we noticed on a few occasions). First and obvious is to formulate the subject of investigation. Then the subject has to be introduced to the students in the way attractive enough to mobilize young people to get the job. Some help in electronics was of course needed. Specific questions concerning usage of elements to build up properly working circuits can be mostly answered with the help of the internet. Some personal help and assistance was necessary, of course, when testing built parts and assembling the telescope.
The construction process takes time, of course. For this particular telescope this time was approximately one year. Students worked on the telescope in their free time, mainly on Saturdays, when they spent their time without any collision with school duties. During this year students gathered not only abilities of making electronic devices, but in the meantime they improved their knowledge also of physics and of cosmic rays in particular. To achieve this the assistance of a more experience scientist was important, of course.
When the telescope was built, a series of measurements was performed. The idea of what to measure comes naturally. The test of stability is obvious. The experimental setup produced a number of files with huge (on the respective scale) amounts of data. The interface and registration program was created in such a way that each single registration was written on to the disk. The help of the scientist was then necessary to draw the attention of students to the smooth changes of the counting rate seen in Fig. \[fig2\]. This was also a good occasion on which to study the foundations of statistics, e.g., the variation of the Poisson distributed random variable. The explanation of these changes as due to the barometric effect also had to be introduced to the students by T.W. Then, after a short lesson on statistics (straight line fitting, $\chi^2$ methods, e.t.c.), the students wrote their first programs in C and ran them to get the result presented above.
Further planned measurements
----------------------------
The telescope can be used also to make other measurements among which the most obvious is to determine the zenith angle dependence of single cosmic ray muons. Studies of the temperature effect as well as searching for periodic muon flux variations, 27 days, one day, semidiurnal to name only the shortest) are possible subjects of further interesting studies. The attractive subject is to looking for a correlations of CR flux with other phenomena, to mention only the famous examples (?) in Janathan Swift’s [*Gulliver’s Travels*]{} (almost 300 years ago), and William Herschel’s studies from very beginning of the XIX century ( about 200 years ago), and more recently (2003) studies on the influence of the cosmic ray intensity on the wheat price in medieval England [@england]. The question if CR muons are correlated with average marks in school tests, can attract large numbers of students.
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that cosmic rays are one of the subjects of contemporary physics which are very useful to raise the interest of science amongst students of high schools. The present work proves that they are able to construct the apparatus which may be used to give quite accurate data on cosmic rays at ground level. The value of the barometric coefficient can be obtained and other interesting studies can be performed. The analysis of the data gives a perfect possibility for students to be introduced to statistical methods at a level not available in standard courses.
The Geiger-Müller telescope hanging on a classroom wall and showing continuously the number of mouns crossing it works well at increasing the horizons of mind not only of young people but of all who see it.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} `http:\\www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/q-branch/drno-gadgets.php`. B. Rossi, [*Cosmic Rays*]{}, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1964). P. Auger, R. Maze, T. Grivet-Meyer, [*Comptes rendus*]{}, [**206**]{}, 1721 (1938). D. Kennedy and C. Norman, Science [**309**]{}, 78 (2005); `http:\\www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/#online`. `http:\\csr.phys.ualberta.ca/~alta`,\
`http:\\www.phys.washington.edu/~walta`,\
`http:\\www.chicos.caltech.edu`,\
`http:\\physics.unl.edu`,\
`http:\\faculty.washington.edu/~wilkes/salta`,\
`http:\\www.phyast.pitt.edu/~jth/CosRayHS.html`,\
`http:\\www.hep.physics.neu.edu/scrod`,\
`http:\\www.phy.bnl.gov/~takai/MariachiWeb`. `http:\\www.hisparc.nl`,\
`http:\\www.hisparc.nl/eurocosmics.php`,\
`http:\\hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~green/cosmic/home.html`,\
`http:\\www.particle.kth.se/SEASA`. J. Gawin [*et al.*]{}, Acta Physica Polonica [**B33**]{}, 349 (2002); `http:\\maze.u.lodz.pl`.
S. Michalak, B. Mowczan and A. Zawadzki, Acta Phys. Pol. [**13**]{}, 145 (1954). B. Famoso, P. La Rocca and F. Riggi ,Phys. Educ. [**40**]{}, 461 (2005). S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004); (URL: `%http:\\pdg.lbl.gov/`). L.A. Pustilnik, L.I. Dorman, and G. Yom Din Proc. 28$^{\rm th}$ Intl. Cosmic Ray Conf., Tsukuba, 4131 (2003).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we show the connection between the q-deformation and discrete time, starting from the q-deformed Heisenberg uncertainty relation and q-deformation calculus. We show that time has discrete nature and for this case we construct the connection between quantum information and spacetime via fiber space structure.'
---
\
[**Institute of Physics AV CR,Czech Republic** ]{} [*e-mail: [email protected]* ]{}
Heisenberg uncertainty relation, q-deformation and discretization of spacetime
==============================================================================
Following the papers [@1] let observables $Q$ and $P$ fulfill: $${\bf a} = 1/\sqrt{2}({\bf Q} + i\,{\bf P}) \ , \qquad
{\bf a}^{+} = 1/\sqrt{2}({\bf Q} - i\,{\bf P}) \label{1.1}$$
where ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf a}^{+}$ are creation and anihilation operators as usual and $[{\bf Q},{\bf P}]=i$.
We shall define $\bigtriangleup P \equiv P - \langle P\rangle$ and $\bigtriangleup Q \equiv Q - \langle Q\rangle$ . Then the famous Heisenberg uncertainty relation for observables $Q$ and $P$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} |\langle[{\bf Q},{\bf P}]\rangle|
= \frac{1}{2}
|\langle[\bigtriangleup {\bf Q},\bigtriangleup {\bf P}]\rangle|
\nonumber\\
\leq \langle\bigtriangleup {\bf Q}^{2}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}
\langle\bigtriangleup {\bf P}^{2}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}} \ .
\label{1.2}\end{aligned}$$
The uncertainty can be understood as the product $\Delta Q \Delta
P$ of standard deviations of two observables for a system in a given state and it is often used to identify it with noncommutativity of quantum observables under consideration.
If we shall assume the q-deformation of the commutator between creation and anihilation operator we can write : $${\bf a}\,{\bf a}^{+} - q{\bf a}^{+}{\bf a} = I \ , \label{1.3}$$
where $q$ is the deformation parameter $0<q\leq 1$ and ${\bf I}$ is identity operator.
Let [**P**]{} and [**Q**]{} are Hermitean operators, which via [**a**]{} and [**a**]{}$^{+}$ have form: $${\bf P} = \alpha {\bf a}+\alpha^{\ast}{\bf a}^{+} \ , \qquad
{\bf Q} = \beta {\bf a}+\beta^{\ast}{\bf a}^{+} \ , \label{1.4}$$
where $\alpha,\ \beta$ are complex parameters.
Then from q-commutation relation (\[1.3\]) follows: $$[{\bf P},{\bf Q}] = (\alpha\beta^{\ast}-\alpha^{\ast}\beta)
[{\bf I}+(q-1){\bf a}^{+}{\bf a}] = {\bf R} \ . \label{1.5}$$
We can see for $q=1$ and $\alpha(\beta)^{\ast}-(\alpha)^{\ast}\beta= - i$ that (\[1.5\]) are ordinary uncertainty relation.
Uncertainty relation follows directly from (\[1.5\]) $$\frac{1}{4}\,|\langle {\bf R}\rangle|^{2} \leq
\langle\bigtriangleup {\bf Q}^{2}\rangle
\langle\bigtriangleup {\bf P}^{2}\rangle \ , \label{1.6}$$
and it is the known form for operators fulfilling $[{\bf Q},{\bf P}]=i{\bf R}$.
For operators Q,P,R the q-deformed uncertainty relation are: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\bigtriangleup {\bf Q}^{2}\rangle =
|\beta|^{2}[1+(q-1)|\langle {\bf a}\rangle|^{2}] \ , \label{1.7} \\
\langle\bigtriangleup {\bf P}^{2}\rangle =
|\alpha|^{2}[1+(q-1)|\langle {\bf a}\rangle|^{2}] \ , \label{1.8} \\
\langle {\bf PQ}\rangle-\langle {\bf QP}\rangle =
(\alpha\beta^{\ast}-\beta^{\ast}\alpha)
[1+(q-1)|\langle {\bf a}\rangle|^{2}] \ . \label{1.9}\end{aligned}$$
It is important that (\[1.7\])–(\[1.9\]) are valid‚ for arbitrary operators which are fulfilling(\[1.6\]) and representing conjugate physical observables.
It was demonstrated that the more basic notions of expected value, variance and uncertainty relation also have a clear geometric interpretation.This interpretation is based directly on the association of observables with vector fields on the sphere of states and does not employ the Hamiltonian formalism on the phase space. This makes the interpretation particularly transparent and naturally leads one to a geometric uncertainty identity. Here one is faced then a new point of view on quantum mechanics (QM) that makes that theory quite similar to Einstein’s general relativity.
It is also well known that uncertainty relation in q-QM for coordinate $x$ and $p$ can be obtain via the way :
let Bargmann-Fock‘s operators have the form $$\begin{aligned}
a & = & \frac{1}{2L}\,x-\frac{i}{2K}\,p \ , \label{1.10} \\
a^{+} & = & \frac{1}{2L}\,x+\frac{i}{2K}\,p=\partial_{a} \ ,
\label{1.11}\end{aligned}$$
and $q$-commutator $$a\,a^{+}- {q_{0}}^2\,a\,a^{+}=[a,\partial_{a}]_{q_{0}}=1 \label{1.12}$$ wher $q_{0}$ is real deformation parameter connected with the constants $K$ and $L$ via $K L =\frac{\hbar}{4}\,(q_{0}^{2}+1)$ . Here the constants $L$ and $K$ have the dimension of length and impuls.
The commutation relation between $x$ a $p$ is
$$[x,p]=i\,\hbar\,(1+f(q_{0},x,p)) \ , \label{1.13}$$
where $$f(q_{0},x,p)=\frac{{q_{0}}^2-1}{4}\left(\frac{x^{2}}{L^{2}}+
\frac{p^{2}}{K^{2}}\right) \ . \label{1.14}$$
Then the q-deformed Heisenberg uncertainty relation follows $$\Delta x\,\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\,\Bigl[ 1+f(q_{0},
(\Delta x)^{2}+\langle x\rangle^{2},
(\Delta p)^{2}+\langle p\rangle^{2})\Bigr] \ . \label{1.15}$$
In every case of q-deformed QM we have minimal uncertainty in $x$ and also in $p$, which are for $q_{0}>1$ : $$\Delta x_{0}=L\sqrt{1-q_{0}^{-2}} \ , \qquad
\Delta p_{0}=K\sqrt{1-q_{0}^{-2}} \ . \label{1.16}$$
It gives the way to the discretization of the spacetime in q-deformed world.
Q-deformation, discrete time and quantum information
====================================================
Let us suppose that $q_{E}$ is the parameter of the discretization of spacetime.
Let us consider the discretization of standard differential calculus in one space dimension $$[x,dx] = dxq_{E} ,
\label{2.1}$$ and the action of the discrete translation group $$x^ndx = dx(x+q_{E})^n ,
\label{2.2}$$ $$\psi(x)dx = dx\psi(x+q_{E}) ,
\label{2.3}$$ for any wave function $\psi$ of the Hilbert space of QM with the discrete space variable.\
The discrete space variable is defined as $x=nq_{E}$, where n is an integer and and violation parameter $q_{E}$ is the interval between two discrete space points in this space variable.
If we define the derivatives by $$d\psi(x) = dx(\partial_{x}\psi)(x) =
(\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}\psi)(x)dx,
\label{2.4}$$ $$(\partial_{x}\psi)(x) = \frac{1}{q_{E}}[\psi(x+q_{E})-\psi(x)],
\label{2.5}$$ $$(\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial_{x}}\psi)(x) = \frac{1}{q_{E}}[\psi(x)- \psi(x-q_{E})],
\label{2.6}$$ $$(\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial_{x}}\psi)(x) =
(\partial_{x}\psi)(x-q_{E}) ,
\label{2.7}$$ then the ordinary one-dimensional Schr$\ddot{o}$dinger equation will be $$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\psi(x)}{dx^2} + [E - U(x)]\psi(x) = 0,
\label{2.8}$$ with the potential $U(x)$ and wavefunction $\psi(x)\equiv\psi(E,x)$, corresponding to energy value E, has on the discrete space the form $$\frac{1}{2l^2}[\psi((n+1)q_{E})-2\psi(nq_{E})+ \psi((n-1)q_{E})]+ [E - U(nq_{E})]\psi(nq_{E}) = 0.
\label{2.9}$$
We now show the coincidence between such discretization model, noncommutative differential calculus and q-deformed QM, assuming $q^2\approx 1$.
Let us suppose that ordinary continuum space variable y in QM has the form: $$y = \lim_{q_{E}\rightarrow0}(1+q_{E})^{\frac{x}{q_{E}}}=
e^{x}.
\label{2.10}$$
Using Eqs.(2.4-2.7) and (2.10) we get: $$\partial_{y} = y^{-1}\partial_{x} = (q_{E} + 1)^\frac{-1}{q_{E}}\partial_{x}
\label{2.11}$$ Thus, using $q_{E}\equiv q^2-1$, we have $$(\partial_{y}\psi)(y) = \frac{\psi((q_{E}+1)y)-\psi(y)}{q_{E}y}=
\frac{\psi(q^2y)-\psi(y)}{(q^2-1)y}
\label{2.12}$$ $$(\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial_{y}}\psi)(y) = (q_{E}+1)
\frac{\psi(y)-\psi((q_{E}+1)y))}{q_{E}y} =
\frac{\psi(y)-\psi(q^2y)}{(1-q^{-2})y} \\ \label{6.13}$$ what represents derivatives in the differential on the quantum hyperplane.
We can see that for $q_{E}=0$ or $q^2=1$ we have the ordinary QM and continuous space-time.
Q-deformation calculus, non-commutativity and differential geometry
====================================================================
Aspects of gauge theory, Hamiltonian mechanics and QM arise naturally in the mathematics of a non-commutative framework for calculus and differential geometry.
Following summary paper [@2] we can see that the q-deformation calculus has the deep connection with differential geometry and gauge fields.
There is shown the constructions of the non-commutativity are performed in a Lie algebra $\cal A.$ One may take $\cal A$ to be a specific matrix Lie algebra, or abstract Lie algebra. If $\cal A$ is taken to be an abstract Lie algebra, then it is convenient to use the universal enveloping algebra so that the Lie product can be expressed as a commutator. In making general constructions of operators satisfying certain relations, it is understood that one can always begin with a free algebra and make a quotient algebra where the relations are satisfied.
On $\cal A,$ a variant of calculus is built by defining derivations as commutators (or more generally as Lie products). For a fixed $N$ in $\cal A$ one defines $$\nabla_N : \cal A \longrightarrow \cal A$$ by the formula $$\nabla_{N} F = [F, N] = FN - NF.$$ $\nabla_N$ is a derivation satisfying the Leibniz rule. $$\nabla_{N}(FG) = \nabla_{N}(F)G + F\nabla_{N}(G).$$
There are many motivations for replacing derivatives by commutators. If $f(x)$ denotes (say) a function of a real variable $x,$ and $\tilde{f}(x) = f(x+h)$ for a fixed increment $h,$ define the [*discrete derivative*]{} $Df$ by the formula $Df = (\tilde{f}
- f)/h,$ and find that the Leibniz rule is not satisfied. One has the basic formula for the discrete derivative of a product: $$D(fg) = D(f)g + \tilde{f}D(g).$$ Correct this deviation from the Leibniz rule by introducing a new non-commutative operator $J$ with the property that $$fJ = J\tilde{f}.$$ Define a new discrete derivative in an extended non-commutative algebra by the formula $$\nabla(f) = JD(f).$$ It follows at once that $$\nabla(fg) = JD(f)g + J\tilde{f}D(g) = JD(f)g + fJD(g) = \nabla(f)g + f\nabla(g).$$ Note that $$\nabla(f) = (J\tilde{f} - Jf)/h = (fJ-Jf)/h = [f,
J/h].$$ In the extended algebra, discrete derivatives are represented by commutators, and satisfy the Leibniz rule. One can regard discrete calculus as a subset of non-commutative calculus based on commutators.
In $\cal A$ there are as many derivations as there are elements of the algebra, and these derivations behave quite wildly with respect to one another. If one takes the concept of [*curvature*]{} as the non-commutation of derivations, then $\cal A$ is a highly curved world indeed. Within $\cal A$ one can build a tame world of derivations that mimics the behaviour of flat coordinates in Euclidean space. The description of the structure of $\cal A$ with respect to these flat coordinates contains many of the equations and patterns of mathematical physics.
The flat coordinates $X_i$ satisfy the equations below with the $P_j$ chosen to represent differentiation with respect to $X_j.$:
$$[X_{i}, X_{j}] = 0$$ $$[P_{i},P_{j}]=0$$ $$[X_{i},P_{j}] = \delta_{ij}.$$ Derivatives are represented by commutators. $$\partial_{i}F = \partial F/\partial X_{i} = [F, P_{i}],$$ $$\hat{\partial_{i}}F = \partial F/\partial P_{i} = [X_{i},F].$$ Temporal derivative is represented by commutation with a special (Hamiltonian) element $H$ of the algebra: $$dF/dt = [F, H].$$ (For quantum mechanics, take $i\hbar dA/dt = [A, H].$) These non-commutative coordinates are the simplest flat set of coordinates for description of temporal phenomena in a non-commutative world. Note:
[**Hamilton’s Equations.**]{} $$dP_{i}/dt = [P_{i}, H] =
-[H, P_{i}] = -\partial H/\partial X_{i}$$ $$dX_{i}/dt = [X_{i}, H] = \partial H/\partial P_{i}.$$ These are exactly Hamilton’s equations of motion. The pattern of Hamilton’s equations is built into the system.
[**Discrete Measurement.**]{} Consider a time series $\{X,
X', X'', \cdots \}$ with commuting scalar values. Let $$\dot{X} =
\nabla X = JDX = J(X'-X)/\tau$$ where $\tau$ is an elementary time step (If $X$ denotes a times series value at time $t$, then $X'$ denotes the value of the series at time $t + \tau.$). The shift operator $J$ is defined by the equation $XJ = JX'$ where this refers to any point in the time series so that $X^{(n)}J =
JX^{(n+1)}$ for any non-negative integer $n.$ Moving $J$ across a variable from left to right, corresponds to one tick of the clock. This discrete, non-commutative time derivative satisfies the Leibniz rule.
This derivative $\nabla$ also fits a significant pattern of discrete observation. Consider the act of observing $X$ at a given time and the act of observing (or obtaining) $DX$ at a given time. Since $X$ and $X'$ are ingredients in computing $(X'-X)/\tau,$ the numerical value associated with $DX,$ it is necessary to let the clock tick once, Thus, if one first observe $X$ and then obtains $DX,$ the result is different (for the $X$ measurement) if one first obtains $DX,$ and then observes $X.$ In the second case, one finds the value $X'$ instead of the value $X,$ due to the tick of the clock.
1. Let $\dot{X}X$ denote the sequence: observe $X$, then obtain $\dot{X}.$
2. Let $X\dot{X}$ denote the sequence: obtain $\dot{X}$, then observe $X.$
The commutator $[X, \dot{X}]$ expresses the difference between these two orders of discrete measurement. In the simplest case, where the elements of the time series are commuting scalars, one has $$[X,\dot{X}] = X\dot{X} - \dot{X}X =J(X'-X)^{2}/\tau.$$ Thus one can interpret the equation $$[X,\dot{X}] = Jk$$ ($k$ a constant scalar) as $$(X'-X)^{2}/\tau = k.$$ This means that the process is a walk with spatial step $$\Delta = \pm \sqrt{k\tau}$$ where $k$ is a constant. In other words, one has the equation $$k = \Delta^{2}/\tau.$$ This is the diffusion constant for a Brownian walk. A walk with spatial step size $\Delta$ and time step $\tau$ will satisfy the commutator equation above exactly when the square of the spatial step divided by the time step remains constant. This shows that the diffusion constant of a Brownian process is a structural property of that process, independent of considerations of probability and continuum limits.
[**Heisenberg/Schrödinger Equation.**]{} Here is how the Heisenberg form of Schrödinger’s equation fits in this context. Let the time shift operator be given by the equation $J=(1 + H\Delta t/i \hbar).$ Then the non-commutative version of the discrete time derivative is expressed by the commutator $$\nabla\psi = [\psi, J/\Delta t],$$ and we calculate $$\nabla \psi = \psi[(1 + H \Delta t/i \hbar)/\Delta t] -
[(1 + H\Delta t/i \hbar)/\Delta t] \psi = [\psi, H]/i \hbar,$$ $$i \hbar \nabla \psi = [\psi, H].$$ This is exactly the Heisenberg version of the Schrödinger equation.
[**Dynamics and Gauge Theory.**]{} One can take the general dynamical equation in the form $$dX_{i}/dt = {\cal G}_{i}$$ where $\{ {\cal G}_{1},\cdots, {\cal G}_{d} \}$ is a collection of elements of $\cal A.$ Write ${\cal G}_{i}$ relative to the flat coordinates via ${\cal G}_{i} = P_{i} -
A_{i}.$ This is a definition of $A_{i}$ and $\partial F/\partial
X_{i} = [F,P_{i}].$ The formalism of gauge theory appears naturally. In particular, if $$\nabla_{i}(F) = [F, {\cal
G}_{i}],$$ then one has the curvature $$[\nabla_{i}, \nabla_{j}]F
= [R_{ij}, F]$$ and $$R_{ij} = \partial_{i} A_{j} - \partial_{j} A_{i} + [A_{i}, A_{j}].$$ This is the well-known formula for the curvature of a gauge connection. Aspects of geometry arise naturally in this context, including the Levi-Civita connection (which is seen as a consequence of the Jacobi identity in an appropriate non-commutative world).
One can consider the consequences of the commutator $[X_{i},
\dot{X_{j}}] = g_{ij}$, deriving that $$\ddot{X_{r}} = G_{r} + F_{rs}\dot{X^{s}} + \Gamma_{rst}\dot{X^{s}}\dot{X^{t}},$$ where $G_{r}$ is the analogue of a scalar field, $F_{rs}$ is the analogue of a gauge field and $\Gamma_{rst}$ is the Levi-Civita connection associated with $g_{ij}.$ This decompositon of the acceleration is uniquely determined by the given framework.
Spacetime and information like a fiber space
============================================
We present a toy model where in every point of time exist an information, connected with the spacetime variation.
We shall call $E$ with elements $z^{A}$ in E, which are: $$(x^{\mu},\theta^{\alpha}) \ ; . \label{1}$$
The fiber space is $E(V,W,SU(2))$, where the basis $V$ is spacetime a fiber $W$ is a information qubit. $SU(2)$ is a Lie group acting on the fiber and E is ¨the cartesian product of V and W.
On E we define one forms as usually: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{\mu} & = & \Omega^{\mu}+
i\bar{\omega}^{\alpha}(\gamma^{\mu})_{\alpha\beta}\,\theta^{\beta}
\ , \label{2} \\
\omega^{\alpha} & = & d \theta^{\alpha} \ . \label{3}\end{aligned}$$
For one discrete time dimension we have $\theta^{\alpha}$ discrete time series.
For $\Omega^{\mu}=dx^{\mu}$ is valid that $\Omega_{\mu}\Omega^{\mu}$ is $SU(2)$ invariant.
From fiber structure is known that $\Omega^{\mu}$ is connected with arbitrary form $\omega^{\mu}$ on $E$ via following way: $$\omega^{\mu} = \Omega^{\mu}+
\bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu} \ , \label{2'}$$ where $\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu}$ are connection forms on E and $\Gamma$ are Pauli matrices.
This forms define transformation from one fiber to another when infinitesimal changes in the base are realized.
On in $W$ is one-form $\Omega^{\mu}$ and on $V$ form $\omega^{\alpha}$. From $x_\mu=\bar{\theta}'\gamma^{\mu} \theta $ follows $x^{\mu}$ is $\theta^{\alpha}$ and $\Omega^{\mu}$ has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega^{\mu} & = & dx^{\mu} \\
& = & \left(\frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial\theta^{\alpha}}
\right) d\theta^{\alpha} \\
& = & \left(\frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial\theta^{\alpha}}
\right) \omega^{\alpha} \ .\end{aligned}$$
It means that $\Omega^{\mu}$ on $W$ is given via $\omega^{\alpha}$ on $V$.
It is valid: $ \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial \theta^{\alpha}}=
\bar{\theta}'^{\beta}(\gamma^{\mu})_{\beta\alpha}$,\
and we get: $\Omega^{\mu}=\bar{\theta}'(\gamma^{\mu})\omega$.
Arbitrary object $Y^{J}$ in E transforms as: $$d Y^{J}+Y_{\mu}^{J}\omega^{\mu} = \bar{\omega}^{\alpha}Y_{\alpha}^{J} \ .
\label{4}$$
Covariant derivation follows as $$\nabla \Phi(x,\theta) = d\Phi(x,\theta)+\Phi_{\mu}(x,\theta)+\Omega^{\mu}
\ . \label{4'}$$
So we get: $$\Omega^{\mu} = \omega^{\mu}-\bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu}$$ and then: $$\nabla \Phi(x,\theta) = d\Phi(x,\theta)+\Phi_{\mu}(x,\theta)
(\omega^{\mu}-\bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu})
\ . \label{5}$$
We get: $$\Phi_{\mu}(x,\theta)\omega^{\mu}=
\bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\theta)-d\Phi(x,\theta)$$ and following: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \Phi(x,\theta) & = & \bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\theta)
-\Phi_{\mu}(x,\theta)\,\bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu}
\nonumber \\
& = & \bar{\omega}^{\alpha}(\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\theta)
-\Phi_{\mu}(x,\theta)\,\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu}) \label{6} \\
& = & \bar{\omega}^{\alpha}\Phi_{i^{\alpha}}(x,\theta) \ .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
It is valid: $$\Phi_{i^{\alpha}}(x,\theta)=\partial_{\alpha}\Phi(x,\theta)
- i(\gamma^{\mu}\theta)_{\alpha}\,\partial_{\mu}\Phi(x,\theta)=
D_{\alpha}\Phi(x,\theta) \ ,$$ where $ D_{\alpha}=\partial_{\alpha}
-i(\gamma^{\mu}\theta)_{\alpha}\,\partial_{\mu}=\partial_{\alpha}
-\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mu}\,\partial_{\mu} $ is the covariant derivation.
Conclusions
===========
Here we show another aspect of the connection of the quantum time and quantum information. We show discrete nature of quantum time and present the idea of the nontrivial connection of quantum information and spacetime via fiber space.
This work was supported by Grant T300100403 GA AV CR .
[2]{} J. Hruby, “Supersymmetry and qubit field theory”,, arXiv: quant-ph/0402188,(2004), J.Hruby,“A role of topology and quantum information in physics”,, arXiv: quant-ph/0502118,(2005).
L.H. Kaufmann,“Non-Commutative Worlds- A Summary”,, arXiv: quant-ph/0503198,v.2(2005)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'On a Si(111) vicinal face near the structural transition temperature, the $1 \times 1$ structure and the $7 \times 7$ structure coexist in a terrace: the $1 \times 1$ structure is in the lower side of the step edge and the $7 \times 7$ structure in the upper side. The diffusion coefficient of adatoms is different in the two structures. Taking account of the gap in the diffusion coefficient at the step, we study the possibility of step wandering induced by drift of adatoms. A linear stability analysis shows that the step wandering always occurs with step-down drift if the diffusion coefficient has a gap at the step. Formation of straight grooves by the step wandering is expected from a nonlinear analysis. The stability analysis also shows that step bunching occurs irrespective of the drift direction if the diffusion in the lower side of the step is faster. The step bunching disturbs the formation of grooves. If step-step repulsion is strong, however, the step bunching is suppressed and the straight grooves appear. Monte Carlo simulation confirms these predictions.'
author:
- Masahide Sato
- Makio Uwaha$^a$
- Yukio Saito$^b$
title: ' Drift-Induced Step Instabilities Due to the Gap in the Diffusion Coefficient '
---
Introduction
============
On vicinal faces of Si(111) [@Degawa-ntmy99; @Degawa-tmmyw01ss; @Minoda02jpsj] and Si(001) [@Nielsen-pp01ss], step wandering occurs at high temperatures when a specimen is heated by direct electric current. The current direction to cause the step wandering is step-down on the Si(111) vicinal face [@Degawa-ntmy99; @Degawa-tmmyw01ss; @Minoda02jpsj] and step-up on the Si(001) vicinal face [@Nielsen-pp01ss].
The cause of the step wandering is drift of adatoms by the current [@Stoyanov-90jjap; @Metois-hp99ss; @Ichikawa-d92apl; @Degawa-mty00ssl]. The drift is in the same direction as the current [@Metois-hp99ss; @Ichikawa-d92apl]. If the step is impermeable [@Sato-us00prb; @Sato-ush02prb], the step wandering occurs with step-down drift, as in the Si(111) vicinal face [@Degawa-ntmy99; @Degawa-tmmyw01ss; @Minoda02jpsj]. If there is alternation of the anisotropy in the diffusion coefficient on consecutive terraces [@Sato-ush03], as in the Si(001) vicinal face [@Nielsen-pp01ss] the step wandering occurs with step-up drift.
On Si(111) surfaces, the $1 \times 1$ structure is reconstructed and the $7 \times 7$ structure appears at low temperatures ($\le 860^\circ$C). In a vicinal face near the transition temperature, the $7 \times 7$ structure spreads from the upper side of the steps, and the two structures coexist in a terrace. Recently, Hibino and co-workers [@Hibino] observed step wandering near $860^\circ$ C during growth. Due to the in-phase step wandering, grooves perpendicular to the steps appear on the vicinal face. Kato and co-workers [@Kato-USH-surf02] studied the step wandering theoretically. Focusing on the difference in diffusion coefficient of the two structures, they showed that the step wandering occurs in growth if the diffusion coefficient on the $1 \times 1$ structure is larger than that on the $7 \times 7$ structure. With the two phases coexisting, the drift of adatoms may also cause the step wandering instability on the Si(111) vicinal face. In this paper, we study the possibility of morphological instabilities induced by the drift of adatoms with the gap in the diffusion coefficient on the upper and the lower terraces.
Model
=====
\[sec:model\] We consider a vicinal face where steps are running parallel to the $x$-direction bordering terraces of a width $l$ on average. The $y$-direction is chosen toward the step-down direction. If impingement and evaporation of adatoms are neglected, the adatom density $c(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t)$ is determined by $$\frac{\partial c(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t)}{\partial t}
= \nabla
\cdot
\mbox{\boldmath $j$}(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t),
\label{eq:diffusion-equation}$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath $j$}(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t)$ is the adatom current on the surface. With step-down drift, the adatom current is given by $$\mbox{\boldmath $j$}(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t)
= -
D_\mathrm{s}(\mbox{\boldmath $r$})
\left(
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla c$}(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t)
- \frac{ F c(\mbox{\boldmath $r$},t) }{k_\mathrm{B} T}
\ \mbox{\boldmath $\hat{e}$}_y
\right),
\label{eq:adatomcurrent}$$ where $D_\mathrm{s}(\mbox{\boldmath $r$})$ is the local diffusion coefficient, $F$ the force to cause the drift and is positive for the step-down drift, and $\mbox{\boldmath{$\hat{e}_y$}}$ the unit vector toward the step-down direction. We assume that the diffusion coefficient $D_\mathrm{s}$ takes two values in a terrace: $D_\mathrm{s} =D_1$ in the lower side of a step edge, $y_n< y< y_n+l_1^{(n)} $, and $D_\mathrm{s} =D_2 $ in the upper side, $y_{n-1} + l_1^{(n-1)} < y< y_{n}$, where $y_n(x,t)$ is the position of the $n$th step and $l_1^{(n)}(x,t)$ is the terrace width of the lower side structure ($1 \times 1$ in Si(111)).
Solidification and melting occur at step edges. In local equilibrium at a step, the adatom density is given by $$\left. c\right|_{y_n }
=
c_\mathrm{eq}^0
\left(
1
+ \frac{\Omega \tilde{\beta}}{k_\mathrm{B}T }
\kappa
+
\frac{\Omega }{k_\mathrm{B}T}\frac{\partial U_n}{\partial y_n}
\right),
\label{eq:boundary-step}$$ where $c_\mathrm{eq}^0$ is the equilibrium adatom density at the isolated step, $\Omega$ the atomic area, $\tilde{\beta}$ the step stiffness, $\kappa$ the step curvature and $U_n$ the step-step interaction potential.
From the continuity of the adatom current and the adatom density, the boundary conditions at the phase boundary are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\boldmath $\hat{n}$}_\mathrm{b} \cdot
\left. \mbox{ \boldmath $j$} \right
|_{(y_n+ l_1^{(n)})+}
&=&
\mbox{\boldmath $\hat{n}$}_\mathrm{b} \cdot
\left. \mbox{\boldmath $j$} \right
|_{(y_n+l_1^{(n)})-},
\label{eq:boundary-terrace1}
\\
\left.
c
\right|_{(y_n+l_1^{(n)})+}
&=&
\left.
c
\right|_{(y_n+l_1^{(n)})-},
\label{eq:boundary-terrace2}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath $\hat{n}$}_\mathrm{b}$ is the normal vector of the boundary and $+(-)$ indicates the lower (upper) side of the step.
By solving the diffusion equation (\[eq:diffusion-equation\]) in a static approximation with the boundary conditions, Eqs. (\[eq:boundary-step\])-(\[eq:boundary-terrace2\]), the adatom density is determined. The normal step velocity $V_n$ is given by $$V_n= \Omega \mbox{\boldmath $\hat{n}$}_\mathrm{s} \cdot
(\left. \mbox{\boldmath $j$} \right|_{y_n-}
-\left. \mbox{\boldmath $j$} \right|_{y_n+} ),$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath $\hat{n}$}_\mathrm{s}$ is the normal vector of the step.
Stability analysis {#sec:stability-analysis}
==================
When the steps and the boundaries of two phases are straight, the adatom density in the quasi-static approximation is given by $ c(y) = A_0+ B_0 e^{f (y-y_n)},$ where $f = F/k_\mathrm{B} T$. In the lower side of a step, the coefficients $A_0$ and $B_0$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_0
&=&
\frac{D_2 c_\mathrm{eq}^0(e^{fl^{(n)}}-1)
}{D_2 e^{fl_2}(e^{fl_1^{(n)}} -1) + D_1(e^{fl_2^{(n)}} -1)},
\label{eq:A01}
\\
B_0
&=&
\frac{(D_1- D_2 )c_\mathrm{eq}^0(e^{fl_2^{(n)}}-1)
}{D_2 e^{fl_2^{(n)}}(e^{fl_1^{(n)}} -1) + D_1(e^{fl_2^{(n)}} -1)},
\label{eq:B01}
\end{aligned}$$ where $l^{(n)} = y_{n+1} -y_n$ and $l_2^{(n)} = l^{(n)}- l_1^{(n)}$. In the upper side of the step, the coefficients are given by the same form with the replacement $D_1 \leftrightarrow D_2$ and $ l_1^{(n)} \leftrightarrow l_2^{(n)}$. The adatom current $j_0$ is constant on the whole of the $n$-th terrace and is given by $$j_0(l^{(n)})=
\frac{D_1 D_2 c_\mathrm{eq}^0 f (e^{fl^{(n)}}-1)
}{D_2 e^{fl_2^{(n)}}(e^{fl_1^{(n)}} -1) + D_1(e^{fl_2^{(n)}} -1)}.
\label{eq:j0}$$ Since we have neglected the step repulsion, the current is a function of $l_1^{(n)}$ and $l_2^{(n)}$ and does not depend on the neighboring terrace widths.
If the ratio of the width of the two structures $\gamma = l_2^{(n)}/l_1^{(n)}$ is fixed, Eq.(\[eq:j0\]) gives the current $j_0(l)$ as a function of the terrace width. When the steps are equidistant, the adatom current at the step positions from the upper terrace equals to that onto the lower terrace, $\left. j_0 \right|_{y_n-} =\left. j_0 \right|_{y_n+}$. The velocity of the steps vanishes and the steps do not move. If the step interaction is neglected, the stability of the equidistant steps for step pairing is determined by $j^\prime(l)$ since it controls the balance of the incoming and outgoing current with a pairing fluctuation of the terrace width (the repulsive interaction tends to stabilize the system). It is unstable for step pairing if $j_0^\prime(l)>0$ and stable otherwise. From Eq. (\[eq:j0\]), $j_0^\prime(l)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
% \begin{equation}
j_0^\prime(l)
&=&
\frac{(D_1-D_2)D_1 D_2 c_\mathrm{eq}^0 f^2 e^{f l_2}
l_1 l
% g(l)
}{l[D_2 e^{fl_2}(e^{fl_1} -1)
+ D_1(e^{fl_2} -1)]^2}
\nonumber \\
& &
\times
\left(
\frac{e^{fl}-1}{l}
-
\frac{e^{fl_1}-1}{l_1}
\right).
\label{eq:jprime}
% \end{equation}
\end{aligned}$$ When the surface diffusion in the lower side of the step is faster than that in the upper side ($D_1 >D_2$), the vicinal face is unstable for the step pairing. The stability is independent of the ratio $\gamma$ of the widths and the drift direction.
![A terrace bounded by tilted steps with an angle $\theta$. []{data-label="fig:tiltedsurface"}](fig1.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
To find the condition for the in-phase step wandering, we consider an equidistant train of straight steps tilted with an angle $\theta$ (Fig. \[fig:tiltedsurface\]). The adatom current on the terrace in the $x$-direction, $J_x^{(0)}$ is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
J_x^{(0)}
&=&
\int_{y_n}^{y_{n+1}} dy ( j_\parallel \cos \theta
- j_\perp \sin \theta )
\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{
(D_1-D_2 e^{f_\perp l_{1\perp}})
(e^{f_\perp l_{1\perp} }-1)(e^{f_\perp l_{2\perp} }-1)
%(D_1-D_2) c_\mathrm{eq}^0 \tan \theta
}{
D_2 e^{fl_2}(e^{f_\perp l_{1\perp}} -1)
+ D_1(e^{f_\perp l_{2\perp}} -1)
}
\nonumber \\
& &
\times
(D_1-D_2) c_\mathrm{eq}^0 \tan \theta,
\end{aligned}$$ where $j_\parallel$ and $j_\perp$ indicate the adatom current in the $\xi $ and $\zeta$ directions, $f_\perp = f \cos \theta$, $l_{\perp} = l \cos \theta$, $l_{1\perp} = l_1 \cos \theta$ and $l_{2\perp} = l_2 \cos \theta$. When the step distance is small enough, $f_\perp l_\perp \ll 1$, it becomes $$\begin{aligned}
J_x^{(0)}
&=&
\frac{(D_1 -D_2)^2 f l_1 l_2 c_\mathrm{eq}^0}{(D_1 l_1 + D_2 l_2)}
\frac{\eta_x}{1+ (\eta_x)^2}.
\label{eq:adatom-current1}
\end{aligned}$$ where we assume $y_n(x,t) = n l + \eta(x,t) $ and $\eta_x = \partial \eta/\partial x$. In addition to Eq. (\[eq:adatom-current1\]), there is current $J_x^{(1)}$ caused by the change of the chemical potential along the step: $$J_x^{(1)}
= - \cos^2 \theta (D_1 l_{1\perp} + D_2 l_{2\perp})c_\mathrm{eq}^0
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \frac{\mu}{k_\mathrm{B}T} \right),
\label{eq:adatom-current2}$$ where $\mu = \Omega \tilde{\beta} \kappa$.
The evolution of the step position is determined by the adatom current in the $x$-direction as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial t}
&=&
-\Omega \frac{\partial (J_x^{(0)} + J_x^{(1)})}{\partial x}
\nonumber \\
&=&
-
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}
\left[
\frac{ \alpha_2 \eta_x}{1+ \eta_x^2}
+
\frac{ \alpha_4 }{1+ \eta_x^2}
\frac{\partial }{\partial x}
\left(
\frac{\eta_{xx}}{(1+ \eta_x^2)^{3/2}}
\right)
\right], \ \ \ \
\label{eq:nonlinear-equation}
\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_4$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2
&=&
\Omega \frac{(D_1-D_2)^2 fl_1 l_2 c_\mathrm{eq}^0
}{(D_1 l_2 + D_2 l_1) },
\label{eq:alpha2}
\\
\alpha_4
&=&
\Omega (D_1 l_1 + D_2 l_2) c_\mathrm{eq}^0
\frac{\Omega \tilde{\beta}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}.
\label{eq:evolution-equation}
\end{aligned}$$
If the step position is of the form $\eta (x) = \eta _0 e^{iqx + \omega_q t}$, the linear amplification rate is $$\omega_q = \alpha_2 q^2 - \alpha_4 q^4.
\label{eq:amplification-rate}$$ The coefficient $\alpha_4 $ is always positive and suppresses the step fluctuation. With step-up drift ($ f <0$) the coefficient $\alpha_2$ is negative and suppresses the step fluctuation, while $\alpha_2$ becomes positive and the step wandering occurs with step-down drift ($ f >0$).
Equation (\[eq:nonlinear-equation\]) is the same type of equation describing the step wandering in other conserved systems . The solution of the equation shows a regular periodic pattern whose amplitude increases in a power law of time as $t^{1/2}$ [@Pierre-Louis-mskp98prl]. As a result periodic grooves will be formed.
Monte Carlo simulation {#sec:mc}
======================
We perform Monte Carlo simulation for solid-on-solid steps of a square lattice model. The boundary condition is helical in the $y$-direction and periodic in the $x$-direction. We assume that $\gamma$ is fixed to 1 so that the phase boundary is at $(y_n+y_{n+1})/2$ when the steps move. In the lower side of a step (supposedly the $1\times 1$ region), an adatom on the site $(i,j)$ moves to $(i\pm 1,j)$ with the probability $p_\mathrm{d} = D_1/4$ and to $(i,j\pm 1)$ with the probability $p_\mathrm{d} =D_1(1 \pm fa/2)/4$. In the upper side of a step (the $7\times 7$ region), the parameter $D_1$ is replaced by $D_2$. The diffusion across the boundary of the two regions takes $D_2$. In our simulations, we assume that $(D_1, D_2) =(1, \alpha)$ or $(\alpha,1)$ with $\alpha <1$.
Solidification and melting occur at the lower edge of the step positions [@Saito-u94prb]. The probabilities for solidification $p_+$ and melting $p_-$ are given by $$\label{eq:solidification}
p_{\pm}
=
\left [
1
+
{\rm exp}
\left ( \frac{\Delta E_\mathrm{s} + \Delta U \mp \phi}{k_{\rm B} T} \right)
\right ]^{-1} ,$$ where $\Delta E_\mathrm{s}$ is the increment of the step energy, $\phi$ the potential gain by solidification and $\Delta U$ is the change of the step-step interaction potential. We assume the repulsive interaction potential $U_n$ of the $n$th step takes the form $$U_n = \sum_{m=n\pm 1 }
\frac{A}{[y_n(x_i) -y_{m}(x_i)]^{2}},$$ where $y_n(x_i)$ is the position of the $n$th step at $x=x_i$.
We first carry out the simulation with the diffusion coefficients $(D_1, D_2) = (1, 0.1)$, the stiffness $\tilde{\beta}/k_\mathrm{B}T=1.64$ and the equilibrium density $c_\mathrm{eq}^0 = 0.18$. The system size is $ 512 \times 512$ and the initial step distance is $l=16$ (the step number is $N=32$). Initially, the steps are straight and equidistant, and there are a few adatoms on the terraces.
![Snapshots of a destabilized vicinal face for $D_1 >D_2$: with (a) step-up drift and (b) step-down drift .[]{data-label="fig:snapshot"}](fig2a.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
(a)
![Snapshots of a destabilized vicinal face for $D_1 >D_2$: with (a) step-up drift and (b) step-down drift .[]{data-label="fig:snapshot"}](fig2b.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
(b)
. []{data-label="fig:snapshot1"}](fig3.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
When we neglect the step-step repulsive interaction, the vicinal face is unstable for the step bunching (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](a)),which agrees with the analysis in Sec. \[sec:stability-analysis\]. The step bunching occurs irrespective of the drift direction, but the form of the bunches changes with the drift direction. The bunches are straight with step-up drift (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](a)) and wander with step-down drift (Fig. \[fig:snapshot\](b)). With a strong repulsive interaction, $A = 300$, the step bunching is suppressed and the in-phase step wandering occurs. We have not studied the growth laws of the step width and the period of grooves, but the form of the grooves (Fig. \[fig:snapshot1\]) qualitatively agrees with the solution [@Gillet-pm00epjb; @Pierre-Louis-mskp98prl] of Eq. (\[eq:nonlinear-equation\]).
![Snapshots of a vicinal face for $D_1 <D_2$: with (a) step-up drift and (b) step-down drift. The repulsive interaction is absent. []{data-label="fig:snapshot2"}](fig4a.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
(a)
![Snapshots of a vicinal face for $D_1 <D_2$: with (a) step-up drift and (b) step-down drift. The repulsive interaction is absent. []{data-label="fig:snapshot2"}](fig4b.eps){width="0.6\linewidth"}
(b)
We also carry out the simulation with $D_1 < D_2$ (Fig. \[fig:snapshot2\]). The diffusion coefficients are $(D_1, D_2) = (0.1,1 )$ and the step-step repulsion is neglected ($A=0$). Other parameters are the same as Fig. \[fig:snapshot\]. With step-up drift (Fig. \[fig:snapshot2\](a)), neither step wandering nor step bunching occurs. With step-down drift, the step wandering occurs, but no indication of bunching is seen (Fig. \[fig:snapshot2\](b)). As time passes, periodicity selection proceeds, resulting in straight grooves as those of Fig. \[fig:snapshot1\].
Summary and discussion {#sec:summary}
======================
In this paper, we studied the drift-induced morphological instabilities on a vicinal face with two phases. As is seen from Eq. (\[eq:alpha2\]), the step wandering occurs with step-down drift unless $D_1=D_2$. If $D_1=D_2$, our model reduces to a model of a simple vicinal face. We have already found [@Sato-ush02prb] that, with step-down drift, wandering instability occurs in such a simple vicinal face if the kinetic coefficient of the step is finite. Although in the present paper we have assumed an infinite kinetic coefficient (local equilibrium at the steps), it must be finite in reality. Therefore we may say wandering instability is expected irrespective of the diffusion ratio. In all cases straight grooves parallel to the drift is produced due to the in-phase step wandering in Monte Carlo simulation if step bunching is suppressed.
In the Si(111) vicinal face near the transition temperature, the diffusion coefficient in the lower side of a step is larger than that in the upper side [@Hibino-HuOT]. With the assumption that the ratio of the widths of the two structures is constant, the step bunching occurs irrespective of the current direction and the step wandering occurs with step-down current. In a vicinal face of large inclination, however, the step bunching is suppressed due to the strong step-step repulsion, and only grooves induced by the step wandering may be observed with step-down current.
In our model, we assumed that the boundary of the two structures moves in concert with the steps and the ratio of the widths of two structures is constant. The drift direction to cause the instabilities does not depend on the ratio of the widths. In reality the ratio of the widths changes with temperature [@Yamaguchi-y93ss] and the motion of the boundary does not automatically follow the steps. To study the morphological development of this system in detail, we need to extend our model to include the freedom of the motion of the boundary [@kato-us04ss].
This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. M. U. and Y. S. benefited from the inter-university cooperative research program of the Institute for Materials Research, Tohoku University.
[999]{} M. Degawa, H. Nishimura, Y. Tanishiro, H. Minoda and K. Yagi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**38**]{} (1999) L308.
M. Degawa, K. Thürmer, I. Morishima, H. Minoda, K. Yagi and E. D. Williamas, Surf. Sci. [**493**]{} (2001) 487.
H. Minoda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**71**]{} (2002) 2944.
J.-F. Nielsen, M. S. Pettersen and J. P. Pelz, Surf. Sci. [**480**]{} (2001) 84.
S. Stoyanov, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**29**]{} (1990) L659.
M. Ichikawa and T. Doi, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**60**]{} (1992) 1082.
J.-J. Métois, J.-C. Heyraud and A. Pimpinelli, Surf. Sci. [**420**]{} (1999) 250.
M. Degawa, H. Minoda, Y. Tanishiro and K. Yagi, Surf. Sci. [**461**]{} (2000) L528.
M. Sato, M. Uwaha and Y. Saito, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{} (2000) 8452.
M. Sato, M. Uwaha, Y. Saito and Y. Hirose, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{} (2002) 245427.
M. Sato, M. Uwaha, Y. Saito and Y. Hirose, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{} (2003) 125408.
H. Hibino, Y. Homma, M. Uwaha and T. Ogino, Surf. Sci. [**573**]{} (2003) L222.
R. Kato, M. Uwaha, Y. Saito and H. Hibino, Surf. Sci. [**522**]{} (2003) 64 .
O. Pierre-Louis, C. Misbah, Y. Saito, J. Krug and P. Politi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} (1998) 4221.
F. Gillet, O. Pierre-Louis, C. Misbah, Eur. Phys. J. B [**18**]{} (2000) 519.
P. Politi and C. Misbah, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 090601.
Y. Saito, and M. Uwaha, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{} (1994) 10677.
H. Hibino, C.-W. Hu, T. Ogino and I. S. T. Tsong, Phys. Rev. B, [**64**]{} (2001) 245401.
H. Yamaguchi and K. Yagi, Surf. Sci. [**287/288**]{} (1993) 820.
R. Kato, M. Uwaha and Y. Saito, Surf. Sci. [**550**]{} (2004) 149.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Faculté des Sciences, Université de Mons Hainaut, Mons, Belgium\
email: [email protected]
author:
- 'T. Alderweireld'
title: Search for AMSB with the DELPHI data
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Anomaly Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking (AMSB) [@branes; @amsb] is an interesting solution to the flavour problem of mSUGRA. Rescaling anomalies in the supergravity Lagrangian always gives rise to soft mass parameters in the observable sector. It follows that anomalies contribute to the SUSY breaking in any case, whatever is the symmetry breaking mechanism. We’ll refer to AMSB as the model in which all other components that mediate the SUSY breaking are suppressed, and the anomaly mediation is the dominant mechanism.
AMSB is very predictive: all the low energy phenomenology can be derived by adding to the Standard Model (SM) just two extra parameters and one sign. Unfortunately, the minimal AMSB model results in tachyonic masses for sleptons at the electroweak scale. One way of getting rid of tachyons is to suppose additional, non anomaly, contributions to the SUSY breaking which can generate a positive contribution ($m_0^2$) to the soft masses squared. It has to be emphasized that AMSB scenarios favor light Higgs ($h^0$), i.e. $m_{h^0} < 120 \ \GeVcc$, hence if the Higgs is not be found in the runs at the Tevatron or, further on, at the LHC, the AMSB model itself will be completely ruled out.
Phenomenology of AMSB {#par:phenomenology}
=====================
If there is only one common squared mass term for all scalars, all masses and couplings can be derived in terms of just three parameters and one sign, namely, the mass of the gravitino, , the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values, , the common scalar mass parameter and the sign of the Higgs term, . In the model considered here, only the slepton mass spectrum and, to some extent, the Higgs depend on the assumptions of a common scalar term . All other features are characteristics of any AMSB scenario, whatever is the procedure used to cope with the tachyonic masses of the sleptons. Since is a free parameter, according to its value there are three possible candidates for the LSP: either the nearly mass degenerate /, the or the . Scenarios with any of the above as LSP were explored using the data collected by the DELPHI experiment during the period at high (LEP2) and low (LEP1) energy of the LEP operations.
Results {#par:results}
=======
The searches results used in the present work, include the search for nearly mass degenerate chargino and neutralino (always present in AMSB), the search for Standard Model like or invisible Higgs boson, the search for stable staus, and the search for cascade decays resulting in the LSP (neutralino or sneutrino) and a low multiplicity final state containing neutrinos. They are fully described in the DELPHI AMSB [@amsbex] paper and references therein. In any of the searches, no excess of candidates was observed with respect to the standard model predictions and limits on masses and AMSB theoretical parameters were set at 95 % confidence level using [ISAJET]{} 7.58 [@isajet] to compute the AMSB mass and cross-section spectra. Fig. \[fig:isajet-mm\] show, the remaining allowed points in the planes (,)(Up) and (,)(Down) after having applied all the results of the searches described in [@amsbex].
One sees from Fig. \[fig:isajet-mm\], that a gravitino lighter than 24 , a lightest neutralino lighter than approximately 69 and sneutrinos lighter than 105 should not be allowed in AMSB. Moreover, a limit on the theoretical parameter, $m_0$ arising from the non-anomalous contribution is set to be above 168 at the electroweak scale independently of the breaking mechanism.
=10.0cm
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} L. Randall, R. Sundrum, . G.F. Giudice, M. Luty, H.Murayama, R.Rattazzi, JHEP [**98**]{} (1998) 12. T. Alderweireld , DELPHI note 2002-06 CONF 547. H. Baer, F.E. Paige, S.D. Protopopescu, X. Tata, “Simulating Supersymmetry with ISAJET 7.0/ISASUSY 1.0”, Published in Argonne Accel.Phys.1993:0703-720.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
The research, both experimental and theoretical, on free neutron clusters gained renewed interest following our report of events exhibiting characteristics consistent with the detection of a bound $4n$ cluster liberated in the breakup of ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ [@FMM02]. The approach employed was based on the breakup of energetic beams of very neutron-rich nuclei and the subsequent detection of the multineutron cluster in liquid scintillator modules. The identification of such events was made through a comparison of the energy deposited in the modules ($E_p$), as generated by the interaction of the putative neutron cluster with the protons in the scintillator, with the energy derived from the flight time from the breakup target ($E_n$). Multineutron cluster events would then be associated with $E_p>E_n$.
As described in Ref. [@FMM02], the method was applied to data acquired for the breakup of intermediate energy (30–50 MeV/nucleon) beams of ${{^{11}{\mbox{Li}}}}$, ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ and ${{^{15}{\mbox{B}}}}$. In the case of the ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ beam, some 6 events were found exhibiting the characteristics consistent with the production and detection of a multineutron cluster in coincidence with a ${{^{10}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ fragment. Much effort was made to estimate the effects of pileup; that is the detection for a breakup event of more than one neutron in the same module. Three independent approaches were used to estimate the rate at which such pileup occurred. It was found that pileup could account for at most some 10% of the observed signal. It was thus suggested that at a level of some 2$\sigma$ a signal consistent with a bound ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ liberated in coincidence with ${{^{10}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ had been observed.
Not suprisingly these observations have solicited considerable interest. In particular, a number of theoretical studies were undertaken to investigate the conditions under which a bound $4n$ system is permissable (Ref. [@Pie03] and references therein). These studies all concluded that given our present unerstanding of the $n$-$n$ interaction and the physics associated with few-body systems (specifically the influence of three-body forces), it is impossible to generate a bound $4n$ system. Interestingly, however, the calculations of Pieper [@Pie03] suggested that it may be possible for the tetraneutron to exist as a relatively low-energy resonance.
Some interest has also focussed on the detection process employed in the experiment. In particular, Bertulani and Sherrill [@She03] have explored elastic $({{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}},p)$ scattering, the process proposed in our original analysis to be the dominant one in the production of the observed events [@FMM02]. Using what they considered to be reasonable parameters based on the very weak binding of the putative ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$, Bertulani and Sherrill concluded that the cross-section for backward angle scattering would be far too low to result in recoil protons with energies in excess of that of a single neutron (i.e., $E_p>E_n$).
In the present paper the detection process and the possibility of a resonant ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ are addressed. It is argued that the events observed in the breakup of ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ may be compatible with a low-energy ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ resonance because of the high probability of two or more neutrons being detected in the same detector module. In the case of a bound ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$, processes other than elastic proton scattering will contribute to the detection of events with $E_p>E_n$.
As outlined above, a crucial step in understanding the significance of the events observed in the breakup of ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$ with excess energies deposited in the scintillator modules (owing to the finite experimental resolutions $E_p/E_n>1.4$) was the estimate of the probability of pileup. In our original report, Monte-Carlo simulations constituted one of the approaches employed [@FMM02]. The parameters describing the breakup in the simulations were, as described in Ref. [@FMM02], adjusted so as to reproduce for each beam and reaction channel the measured energy, angular and multiplicity distributions of the neutrons, and included contributions from both the projectile and target. The pileup probabilities so obtained leading to events with $E_p/E_n>1.4$ were in line with the observed rates in the case of the ${{^{11}{\mbox{Li}}}}$ and ${{^{15}{\mbox{B}}}}$ beam data. In the case of the $({{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}},{{^{10}{\mbox{Be}}}})$ channel, a probability for pileup to occur of about $5\times10^{-4}$ was estimated, whereas the 6 events observed corresponded to a probability of $10^{-2}$, a factor $\sim$20 higher.
Importantly, these simulations did not include the possibility of any correlations occuring between the neutrons. In the light of the suggestion by Pieper [@Pie03] that the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ system might exist as a low-energy resonance, we have reappraised our original estimates to encompass this possibility.
If the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ system exists as a low-lying resonance[^1], the decay in flight will lead to four neutrons with very low relative momentum and, consequently, to an increased probability that two or more will be detected in the same module. The simulations have, therefore, been modified in order to include the decay of a ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ resonance. A complete treatment of the decay of such a resonance would require an examination of all possible decay modes: for example, decay via two dineutrons, via a dineutron and two neutrons, etc. Given our lack of knowledge regarding the ground-state structure of the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ system, such a comprehensive study seems unwarranted.
In the present context, however, whereby we wish to establish whether the signal observed might result from a resonant ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$, an estimate based on four-body phase-space decay is all that is required, as the absence of any final-state interactions between the neutrons will lead to the lowest rate of pileup of any of the decay scenarios.
Simulations have therefore been carried out for a range of values of the energy and width $(E,\Gamma)$ of the resonance, which was parameterised by a Breit-Wigner lineshape. As in the original work, both the geometric layout and intrinsic detection efficency of the neutron array were taken into account. The simulations display for a wide range of energies and widths the expected increase of the pileup probability at low resonance energies. For a given resonance energy, the results do not depend very strongly on the width. We therefore display in Fig. \[f:ErG\] the results obtained when the width of the resonance is set equal to the resonance energy. We also note that the probability for pileup is not very sensitive to the form of the resonance used to describe the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$. As is clearly evident in Fig. \[f:ErG\], a significant increase of the pileup probability occurs for $E<2$ MeV.
The results presented here should be considered as qualitative. In particular, the effects of a resonance will be reduced by the corresponding spectroscopic factor for the formation of the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ in the breakup of ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$. On the other hand, as outline above, the pileup associated with the decay of a resonant ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ would be enhanced by final-state interactions between the neutrons. We conclude, therefore, that the events reported in our original work could be consistent with the existence of the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ system as a resonance, with an energy of the order of 2 MeV or less above threshold. We note that similar results are obtained even if the resonance is very broad, as suggested in Ref. [@Pie03].
The technique proposed in our original paper [@FMM02] for the detection of a multineutron cluster liberated in breakup reactions was based on the characteristics of $(n,p)$ scattering, the predominant mechanism for the detection of neutrons in a liquid scintillator. More specifically, the energy recorded in a detector, and attributed to the recoil of a proton ($E_p$), cannot exceed the energy of the incident neutron as measured by the time-of-flight ($E_n$). Excluding the complications of pileup, events with $E_p>E_n$ will, in principle, be generated by the scattering of a heavier neutral particle. As described in Ref. [@FMM02], charged particles were vetoed out by the zero-degree Si-CsI telescope and lead shields on the entrance windows of the detector modules.
The calculations undertaken by Bertulani and Sherrill [@She03] suggest that the cross-section for elastic scattering of a very weakly-bound system, such as a ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$, on a proton would be very forward peaked. The elastic scattering towards backward angles, responsible for high-energy proton recoils, was estimated to be around five orders of magnitude below that of the forward angle scattering. This lead to an integrated $({{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}},p)$ cross-section at backward angles of only a few $\mu$b [@She03].
In the context of this result, it should be pointed out that another process involving reactions in the scintillator will occur; namely breakup. Indeed, the loss of yield in the elastic scattering channel may be attributed to breakup. In terms of reactions on the protons in the scintillator, it will occur via inelastic scattering or knockout of one of the neutrons. Breakup will, of course, also occur on the carbon component of the organic scintillator[^2] via absorption or diffractive dissociation.
In all cases, the breakup of the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ liberates 4 free neutrons. In the energy range considered in the original work, some 10–20 MeV, the intrinsic detection efficiency for a neutron is $P_n\sim40\%$. The probability for two or more neutrons to be detected, that is to scatter on protons in the same detector and deposit energies sufficent for them to be observed, is $$1-\bar{P}_n^4-4P_n\bar{P}_n^3 \ \sim \ 52\%$$ leading, therefore, to a fraction of events with $E_p/E_n>1.4$ similar to that of the isotropic elastic scattering scenario sketched in Fig. 3 of Ref. [@FMM02].
Based on the cross-section for breakup of similarly weakly bound systems, such as ${{^{11}{\mbox{Li}}}}$, one may expect that for a bound ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ to be of the order of 1 b or larger. The probability to detect a tetraneutron via breakup in a DEMON module will, therefore, be of the order of $\sim$0.5 b (i.e., $0.52\times1$ b) or more. Given that for energies in the range 10–20 MeV the cross-section for $(n,p)$ is of the order of 0.5 b [@Wan97], the probability for detecting a bound tetraneutron via breakup is comparable to that for detection via $({{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}},p)$ scattering under the original assumption of isotropic scattering.
In conclusion, it has been shown that the events reported in our original paper [@FMM02] are consistent with the detection of the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ system as a weakly bound cluster or a low-energy resonance. In the case of a bound ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$, breakup in the liquid scintillator modules has been identified as the principal detection process. As outlined above this mechanism is expected to lead to a detection probability of the same order or larger than that estimated in Ref. [@FMM02] under the assumption of ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$-$p$ elastic scattering.
In the resonant ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ scenario, it has been shown how the in-flight decay of a low-energy resonance into 4 neutrons with low relative momentum increases the probability of two or more of them to be detected in the same module, leading to events with $E_p/E_n>1.4$. A resonance with an energy of around 2 MeV or less above threshold was shown to be compatible with the events observed in Ref. [@FMM02].
In order to discriminate between a bound and resonant ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ we have undertaken a breakup measurement with an intense ${{^{8}{\mbox{He}}}}$ beam [@ENAM04]. As outlined in [@FMM02], provided that sufficent statistics are acquired, the centre-or-mass $\alpha$–${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ angular distribution should provide a means to discriminate between the bound and unbound scenarios. A complementary technique, which should in principle also be capable of distinguishing between a bound and a resonant ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$, is that of missing-mass-type experiments. In the light of presently available beams, the $\alpha$ transfer reaction $d({{^{8}{\mbox{He}}}},{{^{6}{\mbox{Li}}}})4n$ proposed by Beaumel [[*et al.*]{}]{} holds considerable promise [@Bea04]. In a similar fashion, inelastic scattering, such as the $p({{^{8}{\mbox{He}}}},p'\alpha)4n$ reaction, or at higher energies $\alpha$-knockout, may be employed. Unfortunately, similar studies are very difficult, if not impossible, in the case of ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$. If, therefore, the spectroscopic factor for the presence of a ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ system is very small in ${{^{8}{\mbox{He}}}}$ and significant in ${{^{14}{\mbox{Be}}}}$, the technique described here and in Ref. [@FMM02] may provide the only means to access the tetraneutron.
F.M. Marqués [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 044006 (2002)]{}. S.C. Pieper, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 252501 (2003)]{}. B.M. Sherrill, C.A. Bertulani, [Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 027601 (2004)]{}. J. Wang [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**397**]{}, 380 (1997)]{}. F.M. Marqués, Proc. of ENAM04, in press. D. Beaumel [[*et al.*]{}]{} (MUST collaboration), private communication.
[^1]: The reference in our original paper of a resonance referred only to a metastable state of the ${{^{4}{\mbox{n}}}}$ with a halflife long enough to reach the detector array ($\sim$100 ns).
[^2]: As well as on the materials making up the entrance window and lead shields of the detector modules.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have investigated the chaotic atomic population oscillations between two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) with time-dependent asymmetric trap potential. In the perturbative regime, the population oscillations can be described by the Duffing equation, and the chaotic oscillations near the separatrix solution are analyzed. The sufficient-necessary conditions for stable oscillations depend on the physical parameters and initial conditions sensitively. The first-order necessary condition indicates that the Melnikov function is equal to zero, so the stable oscillations are Melnikov chaotic. For the ordinary parameters and initial conditions, the chaotic dynamics is simulated with numerical calculation. If the damping is absent, with the increasing of the trap asymmetry, the regular oscillations become chaotic gradually, the corresponding stroboscopic Poincare sections (SPS) vary from a single island to more islands, and then the chaotic sea. For the completely chaotic oscillations, the long-term localization disappears and the short-term localization can be changed from one of the BECs to the other through the route of Rabi oscillation. When there exists damping, the stationary chaos disappears, the transient chaos is a common phenomenon before regular stable frequency locked oscillations. And proper damping can keep localization long-lived.'
address:
- |
State Key Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance and Atomic and Molecular Physics,\
Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics, The Chinese Academy of Sciences,\
Wuhan, 430071, P. R. China
- 'Department of Physics, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, 410081, P. R. China'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L3G1,Canada'
author:
- 'Chaohong Lee, Lei Shi, Xiwen Zhu, Kelin Gao'
- 'Wenhua Hai, Yiwu Duan'
- 'Wing-Ki Liu'
title: 'Chaotic atomic population oscillations between two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates with time-dependent asymmetric trap potential '
---
Introduction
============
The study of Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) in gases can give new understanding of atomic, condensed-matter, and statistical physics. Due to the remarkable development in the ability to control atomic motion by optical techniques, BEC was first produced in a weakly interacting gas of alkali metal atoms held in magnetic trap in 1995 \[1\]. Following the first observation, many important experiments were carried out. The group of Durfee and Ketterle detected the condensate in cooled gases, the collective excitations, the collisions between separately-prepared condensates, and the pulsed output of a prototype atom laser \[2,3\], they also observed the interference between two Bose condensates and demonstrated that Bose condensed atoms are $``$laser-like$"$, that is, they are coherent and show long-range correlations \[4\]. These results have direct implications for the atom laser and the Josephson effect for atoms. Recently, solitons have been generated in BEC by properly phase imprinting \[5\], the phase of a BEC wave-function was prepared with optical imprinting techniques and measured with a Mach-Zehnder matter-wave interferometer that makes use of optically induced Bragg diffraction.
Experimental achievements of BEC caused great theoretical interests in this novel field. There exists abundant nonlinear dynamics in BEC, for the macroscopic condensate wave function obeys a nonlinear equation, which is called as the Gross-Pitaveskii equation (GPE) \[6\]. Vortex stability in BEC is explained by using a two-mode model \[7\]. Oscillations of atomic populations and collective excitations at high energies was detailed \[8\], the complex dependencies of these excitation energies bring us close to the notion of chaos, and the role of chaotic motions in the dynamics of BEC remains to be studied. Large amplitude oscillations of condensed trapped atoms to external driving magnetic fields was analyzed by the group of Smerzi \[9\], their results of frequencies and excitation times of collective oscillations consistent with the experimental data very much. An appropriate semiclassical limit for GPE with an additional chaotic potential was given out by using a semiclassical interpretation of the Wigner function \[10\]. Assuming the background density and velocity vary slowly on the soliton scale, Busch derived the equation of motion for dark soliton propagating through an effectively one-dimensional cloud of BEC, by using a multiple scale boundary layer theory. Recently, Filho et al. investigated the dynamics of the growing and collapsing of BEC in a system of trapped ultracold atoms with negative scattering lengths and found that the number of atoms can go far beyond the static stability limit \[12\].
Current efforts are being focused on coupled two-component and multi-component BEC. Interference and dynamics of component separation in two-component BEC was observed \[4,13\]. The quantum statistics of the ground state of a two-mode model for coupled BECs was analyzed \[14\], and strong squeezing of the number difference for positive nonlinearities and a regime of squeezing in the relative phase for negative nonlinearities were revealed. The dynamics of Josephson-like oscillations between two coupled BECs was studied using the time-dependent variational method \[15\], from the calculation result, the tunneling dynamics is $``$coherent$"$ when the trap is not displaced, that is, the orbitals of each condensate do not change; on the other hand, the change in the condensate orbitals has a strong influence in the tunneling dynamics when the trap is displaced. Smerzi and Raghavan researched the coherent atomic tunneling and oscillations between two zero-temperature BECs confined in a double-well magnetic trap in the case of weakly Josephson coupling \[16,17\]. The coupling was provided by a laser barrier in a double well magnetic trap or by Raman coupling between two condensates in different hyperfine levels. The dynamics of phase difference and fractional population imbalance was described with the two-mode nonlinear GPE called as Bose Josephson junction (BJJ) equation. In addition to the nonsinusoidal anharmonic generalization of the ac Josephson effect and plasma oscillations occurring in the superconductor junction (SJJ), the macroscopic quantum self-trapping (MQST, a self-maintained population imbalance with nonzero average value of the fractional population imbalance.) and the $\pi -$phase oscillations ( the time averaged value of the phase difference is equal to $\pi $) were also observed.
In the case of time-dependent trapping potential and non-negative damping and finite temperature effects, the more interesting nonlinear dynamics emerges out, such as chaos. Abdullaev and Kraenkel analyzed the coherent atomic oscillations and resonances between two coupled BECs in a double-well trap with time-dependent tunneling amplitude for different damping \[18\]. With a slowly varying trap, the nonlinear resonances and chaos exist in the oscillations of the fractional imbalance. The conditions for chaotic macroscopic quantum tunneling phenomena were obtained with the use of the Melnikov function approach, and the chaotic oscillations depend on the frequency and modulation amplitude sensitively. For the rapidly varying case, the averaged system was given out by using the multiscale expansion method. They also considered the macroscopic quantum tunneling and resonances in coupled BECs with oscillating atomic scattering length \[19\]. The chaotic oscillations in the relative atomic population due to the overlaps between nonlinear resonances were showed. And the possibility of stabilization of the unstable -mode regime was derived from the analyzing of the oscillations in the rapidly varying case.
We know the laser barrier position and the laser beam intensity of the laser beam in the trap can be modified in experiments, so the trap asymmetry and the amplitude of the tunneling between the coupled BECs can be time-dependent. In our present paper, we will analyze the chaotic oscillation of the fractional population imbalance between two Josephson coupled BECs with time-dependent asymmetric trap potential, using both analytical and numerical approach. The structure of this paper is as follows. In this section, we briefly review both experimental and theoretical developing of BEC, and also show the purpose of the paper. The effective particle model for the oscillations of the fractional population imbalance is derived from the two-mode GPE in the next section. In the case of small time-dependent trap asymmetry and small damping, using the analytical method \[20,21\] developed by us, the chaotic dynamics of the fractional imbalance near the separatrix solution is analyzed in details in the third section. The conditions for chaotic oscillation and criteria for the onset of chaos are also obtained. And the regions of regular and chaotic oscillation are showed. In the fourth section, the population oscillations are simulated with numerical approach for arbitrary time-dependent trap asymmetry and damping. In the last section, a brief precise summary and discussion are given out.
The effective particle model for the oscillations of the fractional population imbalance
========================================================================================
Ignoring the damping and finite-temperature effects, the problem of coupled Bose-Einstein condensates in a double well trap can be described with the following nonlinear two-mode dynamical equations $$\begin{aligned}
i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi _{_{1}}}{\partial t} &=&[E_{1}+U_{1}\left| \psi
_{_{1}}\right| ^{2}]\psi _{_{1}}-K\psi _{_{2}}, \nonumber \\
i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi _{_{2}}}{\partial t} &=&[E_{2}+U_{2}\left| \psi
_{_{2}}\right| ^{2}]\psi _{_{2}}-K\psi _{_{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Where, $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ are zero-point energies in each well, $%
U_{1}\left| \psi _{_{1}}\right| ^{2}$ and $U_{2}\left| \psi _{_{2}}\right|
^{2}$ are proportional to the atomic self-interacting energies, and $K$ describes the amplitude of the tunneling between two condensates. These parameters are defined by the overlap integrals of the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevsky eigenfunctions. The above equations are named as BJJ equations, which have been derived from GPE in reference \[17\].
The wave function $\psi _{i}$ can be written in the form of $\psi _{_{i}}=%
\sqrt{N_{i}}\exp (i\theta _{i})$, here, $N_{i\text{ }}$and $\theta _{i}$ are the amplitudes for general occupations and phases respectively. Then the fractional population imbalance can be defined as $$z(t)=\frac{N_{1}(t)-N_{2}(t)}{N_{T}}=\frac{\left| \psi _{_{1}}\right|
^{2}-\left| \psi _{_{2}}\right| ^{2}}{\left| \psi _{_{1}}\right| ^{2}+\left|
\psi _{_{2}}\right| ^{2}}.$$ here, $N_{T}=N_{1}(t)+N_{2}(t)$ is a constant total number of condensed atoms. And the relative phase is $$\phi (t)=\theta _{2}(t)-\theta _{1}(t).$$ Then the fractional population imbalance and the relative phase obey the following differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dz}{dt} &=&-\frac{2K}{\hbar }\sqrt{1-z^{2}}\sin \phi , \nonumber \\
\frac{d\phi }{dt} &=&\frac{2K}{\hbar }(\Delta E+\Lambda z+\frac{z}{\sqrt{%
1-z^{2}}}\cos \phi ).\end{aligned}$$ The parameters $\Delta E$ and $\Lambda $ determine the dynamic regimes of the BEC atomic tunneling and they can be expressed as $$\Delta E=\frac{E_{1}-E_{2}}{2K}+\frac{U_{1}-U_{2}}{4K}N_{T}.$$ $$\Lambda =UN_{T}/2K
\begin{array}{lll}
& , &
\end{array}
U=(U_{1}+U_{2})/2.$$ Because of the overlapping condensate, there exists different kind of damping for different type of overlapping. For examples, if we take into account a noncoherent dissipative current of normal-state atoms, the differential equation which describes the oscillations of the atomic population including the damping term $-\eta d\phi /dt$; and the damping has the form $-\eta z(t)$ for the two interacting condensates with different hyperfine levels in a single harmonic trap. In the case of time-independent parameter $K$, we can rescale $(\frac{2K}{\hbar })t$ to a dimensionless time $t$. The motion of the fractional population imbalance and relative phase is very similar to a nonrigid pendulum. The Hamiltonian of the unperturbed $%
(\Delta E=cons\tan t,\eta =0)$ dimensionless system is as follows $$H=\frac{\Lambda z^{2}}{2}+\Delta Ez-\sqrt{1-z^{2}}\cos \phi .$$ The corresponding canonical equations of the motion are equivalent to the equations of the oscillations of the atomic population imbalance and relative phase, their forms are $$\frac{d\phi }{dt}=\frac{\partial H}{\partial z}
\begin{array}{lll}
& , &
\end{array}
\frac{dz}{dt}=-\frac{\partial H}{\partial \phi }.$$ For the time-independent trapping potential, the energy of the above system is conservative.
In order to see the oscillations of the fractional population imbalance more transparently, we introduce an effective classical particle whose coordinate is $z$, moving in a potential $V$ with the initial energy $E_{eff}^{0}=[%
\stackrel{.}{z}(t)|_{t=t_{0}}]^{2}/2+V|_{t=t_{0}}$. If the trapping potential is time-independent, the effective potential $V$ is time-independent too, and the motion of the effective particle is regular; otherwise, for the time-dependent trapping potential, $V$ varies with time and the corresponding motion is anharmonic and even chaotic. The chaotic dynamics in atomic tunneling will be detailed in the following sections. For the time-independent constant coupling $K$ , the Hamiltonian of the effective particle is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{eff} &=&\frac{1}{2}p_{z}^{2}+V=\frac{1}{2}(1-H^{2}) \nonumber \\
V &=&\frac{1}{2}z^{2}(1-\Lambda H+\frac{1}{4}\Lambda ^{2}z^{2})+(\frac{1}{2}%
\Delta E\Lambda z^{3}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta E^{2}z^{2}-\Delta EHz).\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian’s canonical equations of the motion are $$\frac{dz}{dt}=\frac{\partial H_{eff}}{\partial p_{z}}
\begin{array}{lll}
& , &
\end{array}
\frac{dp_{z}}{dt}=-\frac{\partial H_{eff}}{\partial z}.$$ For the symmetric trapping potential $(\Delta E=0)$, the effective potential $V$ is time-independent, increasing the value of $(1-\Lambda H)$ from negative to positive changes the effective potential from a double-well to a parabolic. The effective particle moves between the classical turning points, where the kinetic energy of the effective particle is zero. Fig. 1 shows the changing of the shape of the effective potential, $(A)$ for different values of $H$ with fixed value of $\Lambda $, and $(B)$ for different values of $\Lambda $ with fixed value of $H$.
The motion in the parabolic potential is Rabi oscillation with a zero time-average value of the fractional population imbalance $z$. For fixed parameters $\Lambda $ and $H$, the oscillations with small effective energies $H_{eff\text{ }}$are sinusoidal, the increasing of the effective energies adds higher harmonics to the sinusoidal oscillations.
In the case of double-well potential, the motion is very different from the case of the parabolic potential. If the effective energies is greater than the barrier between two wells, that is, $H_{eff}>0$, the motion is a nonlinear Rabi oscillation with a zero time-average value of $z$, it corresponds to the periodic flux of atoms from one BEC to the other. If the effective energy is little than the potential barrier, $H_{eff}<0$, the particle is confined in one of the two wells, it means the localization of atomic population in one of the two condensates, and this localizing phenomenon has been named as macroscopic quantum self-trapping (MQST). At the threshold point, the effective energy is equal to the potential barrier, $H_{eff}=0$, the corresponds threshold motion separating the above two regimes, the separatrix solution for the right-hand side well is $$z_{s}(t)=2\sqrt{(\Lambda H-1)/\Lambda ^{2}}\sec h\xi
\begin{array}{lll}
& , &
\end{array}
\xi =C_{0}+t\sqrt{\Lambda H-1}.$$ Where, constant $C_{0}$ is determined by the initial conditions. Considering the physical constrain, the amplitude of the fractional atomic population imbalance oscillations must be little than one, i.e.,$\left| z\right| _{\max
}\leqslant 1$ , so the abstract value $z$ of at points with the lowest potential energy must be little than one too, this requires the parameters satisfy $\sqrt{2(\Lambda H-1)/\Lambda ^{2}}\leqslant 1$, the atoms completely localize on one of the two condensates when $\sqrt{2(\Lambda
H-1)/\Lambda ^{2}}=1$. And if the amplitude of the separatrix solution is lager than one, i.e., $2\sqrt{(\Lambda H-1)/\Lambda ^{2}}>1$, then there only exists MQST.
Based upon the above analysis, we know that the pitchfork bifurcation occurs at the point with $\Lambda H=1$ for the time-independent symmetric trapping potential, that is to say the equilibrium point at the origin changes stability type and two new additional equilibrium points are created. For the asymmetric and time-dependent trapping potential, the bifurcation becomes more complex, the regular oscillations become chaotic through the route of period doubling.
Chaotic oscillations near the separatrix solution with small trap asymmetry
===========================================================================
It is very interesting to investigate the dynamics of the fractional population imbalance near the separatrix solution, that is, the initial conditions and physical parameters are very close to the separatrix of the unperturbed symmetric system. In the case of small trap asymmetry $\Delta E$ and small damping $\eta $, they can be looked as perturbations to the symmetric system, from the general theory of nonlinear driven oscillations, the chaotic macroscopic quantum tunneling phenomena appears when the trap asymmetry is time-dependent. For the two interacting condensates with different hyperfine levels in a single harmonic trap, the damping has the form $-\eta dz/dt$, driving from the effective potential in the previous section, the Newtonian equation of the motion for the fractional population imbalance is given as the following Duffing equation. $$\frac{d^{2}z}{dt^{2}}-(\Lambda H-1)z+\frac{\Lambda ^{2}}{2}z^{3}=-\frac{3}{2}%
\Delta E\Lambda z^{2}-\Delta E^{2}z+\Delta EH-{\normalsize \eta }\frac{dz}{dt%
}.$$ In addition to a time-independent trap asymmetry $\Delta E_{0}$, we impose a sinusoidal variation so that we can write the asymmetry term as $\Delta
E=\Delta E_{0}+\Delta E_{1}\sin \omega t$. When the intensity of the laser beam is fixed, varying the laser barrier position can realize this. Writing the trap asmmetry and the damping as following form $$\Delta E=\Delta E_{0}+\Delta E_{1}\sin \omega t=\varepsilon (F_{0}+F_{1}\sin
\omega t)
\begin{array}{lll}
& , &
\end{array}
\eta =\varepsilon \mu .$$ In the above, $\varepsilon $ is a dimensionless parameter. Using the analytical approach developed by us \[20,21\], we write the solution close to the separatrix solution as the following expansions $$z=\sum\limits_{i=0}^{+\infty }\varepsilon ^{i}z_{^{i}}=z_{_{0}}+\varepsilon
z_{_{1}}+\varepsilon ^{2}z_{_{2}}+...$$ Here, $z_{^{i}}$ are the $i-th$ order corrections. Substituting the above expression into the Newtonian equation of the motion, comparing the coefficient function of every $\varepsilon ^{i}$ of both sides of the differential equation, setting $\varepsilon $ as $1$, then we obtain $%
z_{^{i}}$ satisfy $$\frac{d^{2}z_{0}}{dt^{2}}-(\Lambda H-1)z_{0}+\frac{\Lambda ^{2}}{2}%
z_{0}^{3}=0.$$ $$\frac{d^{2}z_{i}}{dt^{2}}-(\Lambda H-1)z_{i}+\frac{3\Lambda ^{2}}{2}%
z_{0}^{2}z_{i}=\epsilon _{i},$$ $$\epsilon _{_{1}}=-\eta \frac{dz_{_{0}}}{dt}+\Delta EH-\frac{3}{2}\Delta
E\Lambda z_{0}^{2},\epsilon _{_{2}}=-\eta \frac{dz_{_{1}}}{dt}-3\Delta
E\Lambda z_{_{0}}z_{_{1}}-\frac{3}{2}\Lambda
^{^{2}}z_{_{0}}z_{_{1}}^{^{2}},...$$ The zero-order solution is the separatrix solution, and the basic solutions of the high-order corrections are as follows $$z_{i1}^{0}=\frac{dz_{0}}{dt}=-\frac{2(\Lambda H-1)}{\sqrt{\Lambda ^{2}}}\sec
h\xi \tanh \xi .$$ $$\begin{aligned}
z_{i2}^{0} &=&z_{i1}^{0}\int (z_{i1}^{0})^{-2}dt \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{-\sqrt{\Lambda ^{2}}}{16(\Lambda H-1)^{3/2}}\sec h^{2}\xi (\cosh
3\xi -9\cosh \xi +12\xi \sinh \xi ).\end{aligned}$$ So the general expressions of $i-th$ corrections are in form of $$z_{i}=z_{i2}^{0}\int\limits_{C_{1}}^{t}z_{i1}^{0}\epsilon
_{i}dt-z_{i1}^{0}\int\limits_{C_{2}}^{t}z_{i2}^{0}\epsilon _{i}dt.$$ Constants $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are determined by the initial conditions and physical parameters. Apparently, $\left| z_{i1}^{0}\right| \rightarrow 0$ and $\left| z_{i2}^{0}\right| \rightarrow +\infty $, when time $t\rightarrow
\pm \infty $. Solving the $i-th$ order equations one by one, we can obtain $%
\epsilon _{i}$ are time-periodic functions with finite amplitudes. This means the high-order corrections are non-convergent unless the coefficient functions of the growing function $z_{i2}^{0}$ are equal to zero. So the general motion is unstable periodic oscillations, the necessary-sufficient conditions for stable oscillations are $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \pm \infty }\int\limits_{C_{1}}^{t}z_{i1}^{0}\epsilon
_{i}dt=0.$$ The above conditions are non-integrable, clearly, they contain the following necessary conditions $$\int\limits_{-\infty }^{+\infty }z_{i1}^{0}\epsilon _{i}dt=0.$$ Apparently, the first integral $(i=1)$ of the necessary conditions is the Melnikov function of the system, the necessary conditions indicate that the Melnikov function is equal to zero; this means that the stable oscillations are Melnikov chaotic. But because of the non-sufficient property of the above condition, not all chaotic oscillations are stable. Integrating the above equations, one can obtain the necessary conditions are a series of relations of the initial conditions and parameters, for fixed initial conditions, modifying the parameters can control the instability of the chaotic oscillations. Substituting the expressions of $z_{11}^{0}$ and $%
\epsilon _{1}$ into the necessary condition, integrating it yields the first-order condition $$-\frac{8\eta (\Lambda H-1)\sqrt{\Lambda H-1}}{3\Lambda ^{2}}-\frac{2\Delta
E_{1}H}{\sqrt{\Lambda ^{2}}}\omega \pi \cos \frac{\omega C_{0}}{\sqrt{%
\Lambda H-1}}\sec h\frac{\omega \pi }{2\sqrt{\Lambda H-1}}$$ $$+\frac{2\Delta E_{1}(\Lambda H-1)\sqrt{\Lambda H-1}}{\Lambda \sqrt{\Lambda
^{2}}}(1+\frac{\omega ^{2}}{\Lambda H-1})\omega \pi \cos \frac{\omega C_{0}}{%
\sqrt{\Lambda H-1}}\sec h\frac{\omega \pi }{2\sqrt{\Lambda H-1}}=0.$$ The above necessary condition is irrelative to the time-independent trap asymmetry $\Delta E_{0}$, this means the chaotic oscillations are caused by the time-dependent trap asymmetry, but it is not to say that the stability is irrelative to the time-independent trap asymmetry, actually, the sufficient-necessary conditions and high-order necessary conditions are relations of it and other parameters. For the same parameters, the distribution of stability curves sensitive depends on the initial conditions, to show explicitly this dependence we have chosen a series of value of the initial constant $C_{0}$, with the growing of the value of $%
C_{0}$, the curves become denser and denser, this illustrates the existence of chaos, see Fig. 2. The changing between the regular oscillations and the chaotic oscillations is showed in Fig.3. Regions above the curves correspond to chaotic oscillations of the fractional population imbalance and those below correspond to regular oscillations. There exist two chaotic regions separated by a special frequency which is determined by the physical parameters, and this frequency can cause an unstable nonlinear resonance. When the damping becomes stronger and stronger, the regions of chaotic oscillations become smaller and smaller, and the regular region becomes larger and larger.
Numerical simulation
====================
In general, the atomic population oscillation is far away from the separatrix solution, and then the oscillation dynamics can not be obtained from the previous analytical method. In this section, using the fourth Runge-Kutta method with variable step-width, the chaotic population oscillations are simulated by straightforward numerical integration of the motion equations of the dimensionless model of system (4) with constant parameter $K$, and the trap asymmetry is in form of $\Delta E=\Delta
E_{0}+\Delta E_{1}\sin \omega t$, and the damping of the population oscillation is $-\eta z(t)$. In the time -independent symmetric trap $%
(\Delta E=0)$, because of the damping, both Rabi oscillation and MQST reach an equilibrium state with zero population imbalance, see Fig. 4 (B) and (F), for the time-independent asymmetric case, the equilibrium state departure from the zero population imbalance, see (D) and (H) of Fig.4. Ignoring the damping effects, the oscillations are regular, they contain two different kinds, Rabi oscillation and MQST,see (A), (E), (C) and (G) of Fig.4.
For the time-dependent asymmetric trap potential, the chaotic oscillation emerges out. Sampling a single trajectory every period of the varying of the trap asymmetry, then we can obtain the stroboscopic Poincare section (SPS). When the damping is absent, with the increasing of the time-dependent trap asymmetry $\Delta E_{1}$, the sections vary from a single island into a lot of islands, and at last all islands are submerged by the chaotic sea. This means the periodic oscillations become quasi-periodic, and then chaotic. Fig. 5 is the SPS of $(z,dz/dt)$, with $z(0)=0.5$, $\phi (0)=0.0$, $\Delta
E_{0}=0.0$, $\Lambda =10.0$, $\omega =4\pi $ and $\eta =0.0$, for these initial conditions if the damping and the trap asymmetry are absent, the corresponding oscillation is Rabi oscillation. When $\Delta E_{1}=3.000,$ there is only a single island. Then it is separated into six islands when $%
\Delta E_{1}$ increase to $6.000$. For larger trap asymmetry, $\Delta
E_{1}=6.750$, the regular islands are surrounded by the chaotic sea. For large enough trap asymmetry, $\Delta E_{1}=7.500$, the regular islands are all submerged by the chaotic sea, and the sea is symmetrical to $z=0$. Starting from the MQST, the SPS with $z(0)=0.75$, $\phi (0)=0.0$, $\Delta
E_{0}=0.0$, $\Lambda =10.0$, $\omega =2\pi $ and $\eta =0.0$ is showed in Fig. 6, the similar dynamics is exhibited. For small $\Delta E_{1}$ $%
(1.000,1.560$ and $1.565)$, the time-averaged value of the fractional population imbalance is non-zero, the atoms are localized on one of the condensates. However, for large enough $\Delta E_{1}$ $(1.700)$, the chaotic sea is symmetrical to $z=0$. This indicates that, in the completely chaotic oscillation, the time-averaged value of the fractional population imbalance is zero, and the long-lived MQST or localization disappears.
The completely chaotic oscillations of the fractional population imbalance from Rabi oscillation and MQST are presented in Fig. 7. The left column corresponds to $z(0)=0.5$, $\phi (0)=0.0$, $\Delta E_{0}=0.0$, $\Lambda
=10.0 $, $\omega =4\pi $, $\Delta E_{1}=7.500$ and $\eta =0.0$, the right column corresponds to $z(0)=0.75$, $\phi (0)=0.0$, $\Delta E_{0}=0.0$, $%
\Lambda =10.0$, $\omega =2\pi $, $\Delta E_{1}=1.700$ and $\eta =0.0$. The first row is the time evolution of $z$, the second row is the power spectra of the corresponding oscillation. Apparently, through the tunnel of Rabi oscillation, the short-term localization or MQST can be changed from one of the BECs to the other, and the corresponding power spectra is continuous.
Because of the existence of the damping, the dimensionless system is not a Hamiltonian system but a dissipative system and the volume in phase space will decrease through time evolution. Factually, these effects are the basic reason for the complex oscillation behavior. A common phenomenon in these dynamical systems is that they seem to behave chaotically during some transient periods, but eventually fall onto periodic stable attractors. This has been called as the transient chaos or chaotic transient. Superlong transient chaos occurs commonly in dissipative dynamical system, in this case, oscillations starting from random initial conditions oscillate chaotically for a very long time before they set into the final attractors which are usually regular and stable \[22,23\]. In our system, we also find the transient chaos and final attractors. Using the SPS of $(z,dz/dt)$, we exhibit the attracting process of the transient chaos and the fixed points of the final attractors. The phase trajectories of the final attractors are also showed.
For a certain damping parameter $\eta $, and fixed value of parameter $%
\Lambda $, $\Delta E_{0}$, there exist many types of attractors when $\Delta
E_{1}$ is changed. For the same $\Delta E_{1}$, different initial conditions will lead different final states. Starting from Rabi oscillation, with $%
z(0)=0.5$, $\phi (0)=0.0$, $\Delta E_{0}=0.0$, $\Lambda =10.0$, $\omega
=4\pi $ and $\eta =0.01$, for different parameter $\Delta E_{1}$, the SPS of the attracting processes and the final attractors, and the phase trajectories of the final attractors are presented in Fig. 8, the left column shows the SPS of the attracting processes, the right column shows the phase trajectories and SPS of the final states, (A) and (B) for $\Delta
E_{1}=3.000$, (C) and (D) for $\Delta E_{1}=7.500$. In the SPS, after the transient chaos, the sampled points gradually come to the final fixed points. The phase trajectories of final oscillations are closed curves, and the corresponding SPS only contain fixed points which are noted as small circles, so the final oscillations are frequency-locked (FL). When $\Delta
E_{1}=3.000$, there is only a single fixed point in the SPS, the corresponding final oscillation is a period-one limit-cycle with frequency $%
\omega $; while for $\Delta E_{1}=7.500$, there exist five fixed points, and then the final oscillation is a $\frac{1}{5}$ FL motion, this means the oscillating frequency is $\frac{1}{5}\omega $. Fig. 9 presents the similar dynamics starting form MQST, with $z(0)=0.75$, $\phi (0)=0.0$, $\Delta
E_{0}=0.0$, $\Lambda =10.0$, $\omega =2\pi $ and $\eta =0.001$, for different parameter $\Delta E_{1}$. Where, (A) and (B) for $\Delta
E_{1}=1.000$, (C) and (D) for $\Delta E_{1}=1.700$. The transient chaos and the FL oscillations appear too. When $\Delta E_{1}=1.000$, the eventual oscillation is a period-one limit cycle with a non-zero time-averaged value of the fractional population imbalance $z$, so the atoms are localized on one of the condensates. Amazedly, for large $\Delta E_{1}$ (1.700), due to the damping effects, the final $\frac{1}{6}$ FL oscillation possesses of a non-zero time-averaged value of $z$, comparing with the non-damping regime (Fig. 6), one can obtain that the proper damping can keep the MQST long-lived.
Summary and discussion
======================
Using both analytical and numerical methods, we analyzed the chaotic oscillations between two coupled Bose-Einstein condensates with time-dependent asymmetric trap potential. The trap asymmetry has been chosen as $\Delta E=\Delta E_{0}+\Delta E_{1}\sin \omega t$, this can be realized by varying the laser barrier position of the laser beam which possesses of fixed value of intensity. The damping of the oscillations of the fractional population imbalance is in form of $-\eta z(t)$, it commonly exists in the two interacting condensates with different hyperfine levels in a single harmonic trap.
In the perturbative regime, the population oscillations have been depicted with Duffing equation, the chaotic oscillations near the separatrix solution are detailed. The form of the general solution and the sufficient-necessary conditions for stable oscillations are obtained. These conditions sensitively depend on the initial conditions and the physical parameters, and the first necessary condition indicates that the Melnikov function of system is equal to zero, so the stable oscillations are Melnikov chaotic. The stable curves are presented out for different initial conditions, the sensitive dependence exhibits implicitly in the figures. Varying the damping strength, the regions of chaotic oscillations and regular oscillations can be changed into the other.
However, the general oscillations are not close to the separatrix solution, and the usual parameters are not in perturbative regime, in such case, the numerical method is very useful. Using the fourth Runge-Kutta method with variable step-width, the chaotic population oscillations are simulated by straightforward numerical integration of the dimensionless motion equations. When the damping disappears, with the increasing of $\Delta E_{1}$, the regular oscillations gradually become chaotic, and in the completely chaotic regime, the long-lived localization or MQST disappears. In the SPS, the single regular island is separated into many little islands, and then all islands are submerged into the chaotic sea. In the completely chaotic oscillations, the long-term localization or MQST disappears and the short-term localization or MQST can be changed from one of the BECs to the other through the tunnel of the Rabi oscillation. When the damping exists, due to the damping effects, the system is not a Hamiltonian system but a dissipative one, and the volume of the phase space is reduced by time evolution. Then the stationary chaos disappears, the transient chaos is a common phenomenon before regular stable frequency locked oscillations. Surprisingly, the proper damping strength can keep the localization or MQST long-lived.
In experiments, the long-term average lifetime of the transient chaotic oscillation requires the measurements must be long-term too. So the prediction of the relation between the average lifetime of the transient and the physical parameters $(\eta $, $\Delta E_{0}$, $\Delta E_{1}$ and $%
\Lambda )$ may be a practical problem. And if one want to observe the long-lived localization or MQST, the understanding of the basins of attraction of the eventual FL oscillations in the parameter space will give some useful indication of how to choose the physical parameters. We will report these results in other papers.
M. H. Anderson, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Science 269, 198 (1995).
K. B. Davis, M. -O. Mews, M. R. Anderson, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995).
D. S. Durfee, and W. Ketterle, Optics Express 2, 299 (1998).
M. R. Andrews, C. G. Tounsend, H. -J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Science 275, 637 (1997).
J. Denschlag, et al., Science 287, 97 (2000).
L. P. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961); E. P. Gross, Nuovo Cimento 20, 454 (1961), J. Math. Phys. 4, 195 (1963).
Victor M., et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 033601(2000).
L. You, R. Walsworth, and W. Hoston, Optics Express 1, 293 (1997).
Augusto Smerzi and Stefano Fantoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3589 (1997).
S. A. Gardiner, et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 023612 (2000).
Th. Busch and J. R. Anglin, arXiv: xxx.lanl.gov, cond-matter/980948.
D. S. Hall, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1539 (1998).
Victo S. Filho, et al., Phys. Rev. A 62, 033605 (2000).
M. J. Steel and M. J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2920 (1998).
Chi-Yong Lin and E. J. V. de Passos, Phys. Rev. A, 055603 (2000).
A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanzzi, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997).
S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. A 59, 620 (1999).
F. Kh. Abdullaev and R. A. Kraenkel, Phys. Rev. A 62, 023613 (2000).
F. Kh. Abdullaev and R. A. Kraenkel, arXiv: cond-mat/0005445 25 May 2000.
Wenhua Hai, et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 052105 (2000).
Chaohong Lee, et al., Acta Physica Sinica 47, 1409 (1998).
J. Hoffnagle and R. G. Brewer, Science 265, 213 (1994), Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1828 (1993), Phys. Rev. A 50, 4157 (1994).
Jing-Ling Shen, Hua-Wei Yin, and Jian-Hua Dai, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2159 (1997).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Continuous monitoring of cardiac health under free living condition is crucial to provide effective care for patients undergoing post operative recovery and individuals with high cardiac risk like the elderly. Capacitive Electrocardiogram (cECG) is one such technology which allows comfortable and long term monitoring through its ability to measure biopotential in conditions without having skin contact. cECG monitoring can be done using many household objects like chairs, beds and even car seats allowing for seamless monitoring of individuals. This method is unfortunately highly susceptible to motion artifacts which greatly limits its usage in clinical practice. The current use of cECG systems has been limited to performing rhythmic analysis. In this paper we propose a novel end-to-end deep learning architecture to perform the task of denoising capacitive ECG. The proposed network is trained using motion corrupted three channel cECG and a reference LEAD I ECG collected on individuals while driving a car. Further, we also propose a novel joint loss function to apply loss on both signal and frequency domain. We conduct extensive rhythmic analysis on the model predictions and the ground truth. We further evaluate the signal denoising using Mean Square Error(MSE) and Cross Correlation between model predictions and ground truth. We report MSE of 0.167 and Cross Correlation of 0.476. The reported results highlight the feasibility of performing morphological analysis using the filtered cECG. The proposed approach can allow for continuous and comprehensive monitoring of the individuals in free living conditions.'
author:
- |
\
\
\
- |
\
\
\
\
\
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Deep Network for Capacitive ECG Denoising
---
*Unet; IncResUnet; Capacitive ECG; signal denoising; Deep Learning*
INTRODUCTION
============
The increasing prevalence of cardiovascular diseases worldwide warrants the need to develop efficient tools for early screening cardiac ailments. Electrocardiogram (ECG) is a biosignal which is clinically used to diagnose a wide range of cardiovascular diseases. Conventional ECG recording systems use Ag/AgCl electrodes to pick up the biopotential associated with the heart activity through direct contact with the skin. This method, however, is unsuited for long term monitoring usage due to the discomfort and skin irritation associated with gel type electrodes. The use of dry conformal electrodes too introduces disturbances to the daily activity of the users due to the use of lead cables. Capacitive ECG provides an alternative for non-contact measurement of cardiac biopotential allowing for a viable compromise between user comfort and ubiquitous cardiac monitoring. The measurement is carried out using noncontact electrodes that sense the cardiac bioelectric signal through any insulator medium between the skin and the electrode [@komensky2012ultra]. The insulator medium can either be clothing, hair or air. cECG has been evaluated in several applications ranging from its usage in a common chair [@aleksandrowicz2007wireless] to sensors below the bed [@lim2007ecg] to driver monitoring in automobiles [@leonhardt2008non]. The value of cECG arises from its potential to detect cardiac anomalies such as arrhythmias and provide clinically useful parameters like heart rate variability. This, however, is held back due to its high sensitivity to motion artifacts [@sun2016capacitive]. Motion artifacts has a significant presence in cECG in applications where the user is conscious like while driving an automobile seat or while sitting on a chair. The motion artifacts are pronounced in cECG when compared to contact based ECG methods due to the variation of the coupling capacitance caused by relative motion of the user to the electrode [@ottenbacher2009motion]. This greatly increases the number of false detections in traditional QRS detectors. A few approaches have been proposed to reduce the effect of motion artifacts in capacitive ECG. Eilebrecht *et al.* proposed using data from the accelerometer to perform adaptive filtering [@eilebrecht2011motion]. Choi *et al.* proposed using an additional reference capacitive electrode to profile the nature of the motion artifact before applying an adaptive filter [@choi2016reduction]. Recently, Christoph *et al.* [@HoogAntink2018] have proposed using a deep learning network to perform the task of peak detection in a three channel cECG data collected under significant motion artifacts from subjects driving a car. The approach used three convolutional channels along with a moving window to detect peak location. This method, however, only provides peak locations as opposed to denoising the signal. Deriving morphological information from cECG is crucial for detecting a wide range of cardiac diseases. The cECG denoising application is analogous to the image denoising where certain filters need to be applied to the noisy image. With the advent of deep learning, however, the task of image denoising has been carried out using autoencoders [@vincent2010stacked]. One specific architecture, Unet has provided significant results while denoising CT images [@gupta2018cnn]. Stoller *et al.* proposed WaveU-net to perform sound source separation in the 1D audio domain using Unet [@Stoller2018]. Similarly, performing denoising on cECG would extend its clinical utility from rhythmic analysis to providing morphological analysis for screening cardiac ailments in free living conditions.
The contributions of this paper are as follows:
- [We propose a novel end-to-end deep learning network to perform capacitive ECG denoising from multichannel input capacitive ECG.]{}
- [We propose a novel joint loss function which combines L1 loss between model prediction and ground truth on the signal domain with Fourier domain L1 loss between model prediction and ground truth.]{}
- [We study the performance of the proposed network using the UnoViS\_auto2012 dataset for the task of localizing R-peaks using a comprehensive HRV analysis.]{}
- [We evaluate the feasibility of deriving morphological significance from the ECG generated by the proposed model by comparing similitude and signal reconstruction error against a reference LEAD I ECG.]{}
METHODOLOGY
===========
Problem formulation
-------------------
The task of the proposed deep learning model is to extract a denoised LEAD I ECG from given multichannel capacitive ECG signals. The dataset $X=\{(x^{(1)},y^{(1)}),(x^{(2)},y^{(2)}),....,(x^{(m)},y^{(m)})\}$ consists of the multichannel capacitive ECG signal $x^{(i)} = x^{(i)}_{ch1},x^{(i)}_{ch2},x^{(i)}_{ch3}$ and reference LEAD I ECG signal $y^{(i)}$, where $x^{(i)}_{ch1},x^{(i)}_{ch2},x^{(i)}_{ch3} \in R^{n}$ and $y^{(i)} \in R^{n}$.
The proposed deep learning network is designed in the topology of an encoder-decoder network making use of fully convolutional blocks. The encoder section produces feature vectors $z_{1}^{(i)}$ by performing repeated downsampling of the input $x^{(i)}$. The decoder section however, performs repeated upsampling using $z_{1}^{(i)}$ as its input and produces the predicted LEAD I ECG signal $y_{pred}^{(i)}$. These are represented by equations \[eq:encoder\] and \[eq:decoder\].
$$\label{eq:encoder}
z_{1}^{(i)} = F_{1}(x^{(i)};\theta_{1})$$
$$\label{eq:decoder}
y_{pred}^{(i)} = F_{2}(z_{1}^{(i)};\theta_{2})$$
Where $F_{1}$, $F_{2}$ are function representations of the encoder and decoder with parameters $\theta_{1}$ and $\theta_{2}$. The decoder network outputs $y_{pred}^{(i)}$ which denotes the predicted LEAD I ECG.
{width="\textwidth"}
Network Architecture
--------------------
The proposed network was inspired from the IncResU-Net network which is used for 2D medical image segmentation application [@ShankaranarayanaJBHI]. The network architecture of the proposed fully convolutional network for performing capacitive ECG denoising can be seen in Fig. \[arch\]. The network architecture consists of two sections namely the encoder and decoder. The downsampling operation is performed in encoder section with the 3 channel input cECG signals. The encoder section is made of 8 levels, at each level convolution operation is performed using filters of size 1x4. This is then followed by Batch Normalization [@ioffe2015batch], leaky ReLU [@xu2015empirical] with slope 0.2, Dropout and finally dilated residual inception block. Batch Normalization helps in accelerating the convergence of model as it transforms any input data to a distribution with zero mean and unit variance. Non-linearity in the network is achieved by introducing the leaky ReLU activation function. Dropout helps in reducing interdependent learning amongst neurons by randomly dropping out nodes in the network connection. Dilated residual inception blocks provide a larger receptive field without a significant increase in the number of parameters of the model. Applying multiple convolutions at different dilation rates within the dilated block prevents the vanishing gradient problem and significantly reduces the convergence time during training. In order to improve training efficiency during downsampling, strided convolution operation was used instead of Max-pooling to preserve spatial information [@springenberg2014striving]. The input size is decreased during downsampling operation while increasing the number of filters at each convolution layer. The number of filters in the encoder section are incremented by a factor of two till the total filters in a level is 512. The total filters in subsequent levels in the encoder are maintained at 512. Finally a 1x1 1D convolution operation was performed on 8$^{th}$ level of the encoder. Upsampling is carried out in the decoder section using the deconvolution operation at each level similar to encoder section. At each level, features from decoder section were concatenated with corresponding encoder pair similar to the original U-Net. In the final level of the decoder, a 1$\times$1 1D convolution operation is used to obtain the desired output LEAD I ECG predictions from the feature maps.
Loss Function
-------------
In the domain of deep learning based Magnetic Resonance Imaging reconstruction, it was found that incorporating loss terms from both image domain and frequency domain between the ground truth and model prediction resulted in better reconstruction [@yang2018dagan]. A similar approach can be used in the task of capacitive ECG denoising, where it is crucial to enforce similarity in both the signal and frequency domains. Hence, for training the proposed model, we apply a joint loss comprised of both signal domain loss and frequency domain loss which are represented as
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{s}(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}SmoothL_1(y^{(i)}-y_{pred}^{(i)})
\end{aligned}$$
$$L_{f}(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^{m}SmoothL_1(Y^{(i)}-Y_{pred}^{(i)})$$
$$L_{total}(\theta) = \alpha L_{s}(\theta) + \beta L_{f}(\theta)$$
$$SmoothL_1(y_{diff}) =
\begin{cases}
0.5(y_{diff})^2 &\text{if} \, \lvert y_{diff} \rvert < 0 \\
\lvert y_{diff}\rvert -0.5 &\text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$
Where $L_{s}$ and $L_{f}$ correspond to the signal domain and frequency domain losses. $y^{(i)}$ and $y_{pred}^{(i)}$ refer to the LEAD I ECG ground truth and model prediction, $Y^{(i)}$ and $Y_{pred}^{(i)}$ are the corresponding fourier tranform of the signals $y^{(i)}$ and $y_{pred}^{(i)}$. The two losses are added together after scaling with coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ resulting in total loss, $L_{total}$. $\theta$ refers to the parameters of the proposed network which require optimization.
Training Method
---------------
During training, the network was initialized using random weights. The signal domain loss term, as defined in equation 3, was found between the network prediction and ground truth. The frequency domain loss term as defined in equation 4 is found by applying 1024 point Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) for the network prediction and ground truth and determining the $SmoothL1$ loss between the two. The network parameters were optimized using Stochastic Gradient Descent for a minibatch comprising of 256 input windows. The learning rate of the network was set to 0.01 and the momentum to 0.7. The training was carried out for 2500 epochs. The model was developed and implemented in PyTorch [@paszke2017automatic]. The training was carried out in a workstation using a i7 8700K CPU and Nvidia GTX1080Ti 11GB GPU.
DATASET DESCRIPTION
===================
The UnoViS database is a comprehensive database for research in the domain of unobtrusive medical monitoring through measurement of PPG and capacitive ECG in free living conditions along with reference ECG [@wartzek2015unovis]. The database includes recording in diverse conditions like while driving a car and while sleeping. The data collected from the car driving condition, referred to as the UnoViS$\_$auto2012 dataset is the largest recording, accounting for over 13 hours. The UnoViS$\_$auto2012 dataset is however highly influenced by motion artifacts compared to the other conditions. The dataset is composed of 31 recording sessions of 6 different subjects whilst driving in different road types like highways, curvy roads and bad roads. Three bipolar capacitive ECG leads were obtained similar to the Einthoven’s triangle. Simultaneous reference LEAD I ECG was obtained from a clinical grade ICU monitor. Out of the 31 recordings, two recordings were sampled at 200 Hz while the remaining datasets were sampled at 1000 Hz. Both the capacitive ECG signals and the reference LEAD I ECG were resampled to 1024 Hz to ensure compatibility with the proposed network which requires an input and reference of size 2048 (1024$\times$2). We create a train-test split by using 22 files for training and 7 files for testing. Two second length windows of three lead capacitive ECG signals and reference ECG signal are extracted from both the train and test files. Table \[table\_dataset1\] summarizes the dataset size used for training and testing.
EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
=======================
Two different models are proposed for the task of cECG denoising, the first model was exclusively trained on the signal domain $SmoothL1$ loss while the second model was trained on both the signal domain and frequency domain $SmoothL1$ loss. The evaluation of the proposed models are carried out in two different methods. First comparison is performed on the RR interval and HRV related parameters derived from the denoised signals and reference signal. Second comparison is performed between the denoised predictions between the proposed models and the ground truth ECG.
R-peak detection evaluation
---------------------------
cECG based Heart Rate, HRV and rhythm analysis have shown significant clinical value [@arcelus2013design][@oehler2009novel]. A common source of error in such cECG based rhythm metrics is motion induced artifacts. An important criteria for evaluating such denoising solutions is through rhythm analysis. The predictions from the proposed models along with the corresponding reference LEAD I ECG for the 7 test files are provided to a Hamilton QRS detector [@hamilton2003open] after applying a 4$^{th}$ order butteworth bandpass filter with a cutoff frequency 0.5-60 Hz. For each of the test files, RR intervals obtained from the QRS detector are provided to the Kubios HRV analysis tool for the model predictions and ground truth [@tarvainen2014kubios]. Metrics like Mean RR intervals, Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences (RMSSD), pNN50 and Low Frequency-High Frequency ratio (LF/HF) were obtained through Kubios HRV tool to provide a comprehensive understanding of the performance of the proposed model for enabling HR, HRV and rhythmic abnormality measurement. Further we obtain cross correlation metrics between the R location predictions of the models and the R location predictions from LEAD I ECG. Table \[hrv\] shows HRV analysis of the proposed model and ground truth ECG.
Denoising evaluation
--------------------
For this evaluation we apply Min-Max normalization to all the signals used for this comparison by scaling the values between the range 0 and 1. The MSE difference and cross-correlation metrics including lag between the model predictions and the reference LEAD I ECG signals are found for all the test set windows. Table \[compare\] shows the performance of both the model trained on signal domain $SmoothL1$ loss and the model trained on joint signal domain and frequency domain $SmoothL1$ loss using mean cross-correlation, mean lags and mean MSE.
**Model** **MSE** **Lag**
----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
L1 0.235 0.241 0.989
L1 + RFFT **0.167** **0.476** **0.998**
: Comparison for LEAD I ECG reconsturction[]{data-label="compare"}
DISCUSSION
==========
As seen in Table \[hrv\], the predictions of the proposed models provide similar R-peak localization metrics when compared with the ground truth R-peak locations. The model using the joint loss on both the signal domain and frequency domain in particular provides significant improvement over the model that was exclusively trained on the signal domain loss. The similarity of the HRV metrics derived from proposed models with that of the reference ECG can be observed. It indicates the utility of HRV measurement from the cECG predictions. From Table \[compare\], it can be seen that the proposed models, in particular the model trained with joint loss display high cross correlation and low MSE when compared with the reference LEAD I ECG. This showcases the feasibility of performing morphological analysis using the model predictions and cECG input signals. An example of a denoised cECG window can be seen in Fig. \[preds\_new\]. From the figure, it can be observed that the prediction of the model trained exclusively on the signal domain loss is vulnerable to artifacts whereas the prediction of the model trained on both the signal and frequency domain shows lower amount of noise.
{width="\textwidth"}
CONCLUSION
==========
The present work describes a novel approach to denoise multichannel cECG signals using a learning based model. The proposed end-to-end deep learning framework takes motion corrupted three channel cECG signals as input and LEAD I ECG as reference training. We further propose a novel joint training loss which applies loss on both the signal domain and frequency domain. Through comparison of the RR intervals of the reference LEAD I ECG and proposed model outputs we report high similarity in HRV analysis. The model trained on joint loss provides lower error when compared to the model trained exclusively on the signal domain loss. Further we study the feasibility of performing morphological analysis on the predicted ECG by obtaining signal similarity metrics for both variants of the model. With a mean correlation of 0.476 and MSE of 0.167 the proposed model shows the feasibility of conducting morphological analysis using the model predictions along with rhythm analysis. This can potentially allow for long term unobstrusive monitoring of ECG in free living conditions. Extensive validation is crucial to determine the capability of the proposed predictions for providing morphological information. Training has to be carried out on a wide range of cardiac anomalies along with a corresponding performance study. Future scope of the proposed study would be to collect more capacitive ECG data for abnormal condition. The development of a robust SQI metric is required to allow elimination of noisy predictions along with characterization of scaling variance in capacitive ECG associated with motion artifacts. A comprehensive study using an ECG segmentation algorithm is required to verify if the model predictions retain morphological integrity in different segments of ECG.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We would like to acknowledge the Helmholtz-Institute for Biomedical Engineering who have provided the UnoVis capacitive ECG dataset.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It has been asked in [@godsil2012state] whether there are trees other than $P_2$ and $P_3$ which can admit perfect state transfers. In this note we show that the answer is negative.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran'
author:
- Bahman Ahmadi
- Ahmad Mokhtar
title: A note on perfect quantum state transfers on trees
---
perfect state transfer, tree, distance partition
**Introduction**
================
For any simple graph $X$ with the adjacency matrix $A$ and with $|V(X)|=n$, we define the function $H_X(t)$ as $$H_X(t)=\exp{(iAt)},\quad \text{for any } t.$$ If $X$ is clear from the context, we may just write $H(t)$. We say there is a *perfect state transfer* or a PST between distinct vertices $u$ and $v$ of $X$ at time $\tau$, if $|H(\tau)_{u,v}|=1$. For the motivation of this definition in designing quantum communication networks and a survey of important results, the reader may refer to [@christandl2004perfect; @godsil2010can; @godsil2012state].
Godsil provides a proof in [@godsil2012state] that there is a PST between the endpoints of the paths $P_2$ and $P_3$. Also, the following has been proved in [@christandl2004perfect].
\[P\_n\] The path $P_n$ has no PST for any $n\geq 4$.
Therefore, Godsil asks in [@godsil2012state] whether there are any trees besides $P_2$ and $P_3$ on which a PST can occur. We prove that the answer is no. The main tool to do this is the following result also from [@godsil2012state]. Given any vertex $u$ from a graph $X$, we denote by $\Delta_u$ the distance partition of the vertices of $X$ with respect to $u$.
\[partition\] Let $u$ and $v$ be vertices in $X$. If there is perfect state transfer from $u$ to $v$, then $\Delta_u = \Delta_v$.
There is no PST on trees {#trees}
========================
In this section we prove the main result of the note.
\[main\] If $T\neq P_2, P_3$ is a tree, then there is no PST on $T$.
Suppose that there is a PST on $T$ between two distinct vertices $u$ and $v$. Assume $P: u=w_0-w_1-w_2-\cdots- w_r - w_{r+1}=v$ is the unique path between $u$ and $v$. First we show that both $u$ and $v$ must be leaves. If $u$ is adjacent to a vertex $z\neq w_1$, then $w_1$ and $z$ belong to the same cell of the distance partition $\Delta_u$, while they are in distinct cells of the partition $\Delta_v$. Therefore $\Delta_u\neq \Delta_v$ which, according to Proposition \[partition\], is a contradiction. Hence $u$ is a leaf and with the same argument, $v$ is a leaf as well. Then we show that indeed $T=P$. To do this, suppose (for contrary) that there is an $i\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ such that $w_i$ has a neighbour $z$ other than $w_{i-1}$ and $w_{i+1}$. Then $w_{i-1}$ and $z$ belong to the same cell of $\Delta_v$ while they belong to distinct cells of $\Delta_u$. This, similarly, is a contradiction. Thus the claim is proved; that is, $T$ is a path and since $T\neq P_2, P_3$, according to Proposition \[P\_n\], $T$ cannot have a PST.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The first author would like to thank the financial support the Iranian National Elites’ Foundation.
[1]{}
Matthias Christandl, Nilanjana Datta, Artur Ekert, and Andrew J Landahl. Perfect state transfer in quantum spin networks. , 92(18):187902, 2004.
Chris Godsil. When can perfect state transfer occur? , 2010.
Chris Godsil. State transfer on graphs. , 312(1):129–147, 2012.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[We study ground states of two-component condensates in a harmonic trap. We prove that in the strongly coupled and weakly interacting regime, the two components segregate while a symmetry breaking occurs. More precisely, we show that when the intercomponent coupling strength is very large and both intracomponent coupling strengths are small, each component is close to the positive or the negative part of a second eigenfunction of the harmonic oscillator in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. As a result, the supports of the components approach complementary half-spaces, and they are not radially symmetric. ]{}'
author:
- |
[Jimena Royo-Letelier]{}\
\
[ Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Versailles]{}\
[ Université Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines]{}\
[ 45 avenue des États-Unis, 78035 Versailles Cédex, France]{}\
[ [email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Segregation and symmetry breaking of strongly coupled two-component Bose-Einstein condensates in a harmonic trap'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The segregation limit {#segregation}
=====================
Properties of fully segregated two-component BECs {#propsegr}
=================================================
The non interacting limit {#noninter}
=========================
The author would like to thank C. Kenig, J. Wei, A. Aftalion and S. Terracini for their help and suggestions, and P. Mason for sharing with me his physical insights.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the stochastic control problem of maximizing expected utility from terminal wealth under a non-bankruptcy constraint. The wealth process is subject to shocks produced by a general marked point process. The problem of the agent is to derive the optimal insurance strategy which allows “lowering” the level of the shocks. This optimization problem is related to a suitable dual stochastic control problem in which the delicate boundary constraints disappear. We characterize the dual value function as the unique viscosity solution of the corresponding a Hamilton Jacobi Bellman Variational Inequality (HJBVI in short).'
author:
- |
Mohamed MNIF\
LAMSIN\
Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis\
B.P. 37, 1002, Tunis Belvédère, Tunisie\
[email protected]
date: 'August 18, 2010'
title: 'Optimal insurance demand under marked point processes shocks: a dynamic programming duality approach'
---
[**Key words :**]{} Optimal insurance; stochastic control; duality; optional decomposition; dynamic programming principle; viscosity solution
[**MSC Classification (2000) :**]{} 93E20, 60J75, 49L25.
Introduction
============
We study the optimal insurance demand problem of an agent whose wealth is subject to shocks produced by some marked point process. Such a problem was formulated by Bryis [@bri86] in continuous-time with Poisson shocks. Gollier [@gol94] studied a similar problem where shocks are not proportional to wealth. An explicit solution to the problem is provided by Bryis by writing the associated Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB in short) equation. In Bryis [@bri86] and Gollier [@gol94], they modeled the insurance premium by an affine function of the insurance strategy $\theta=(\theta_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$ which is the rate of insurance decided to be covered by the agent. If the agent is subject to some accident at time $t$ which costs an amount $Z$, then he will pay $\theta_t Z$ and the insurance company reimburses the amount $(1-\theta_t)Z$. They didn’t assume any constraint on the insurance strategy which is not realistic.\
In risk theory, Hipp and Plum [@hipplu00] analysed the trading strategy, in risky assets, which is optimal with respect to the criterion of minimizing the ruin probability. They derived the HJB equation related to this problem and proved the existence of a solution and a verification theorem. When the claims are exponentially distributed, the ruin probability decreases exponentially and the optimal amount invested in risky assets converges to a constant independent of the reserve level. Hipp and Schmidli [@hipplu01] have obtained the asymptotic behaviour of the ruin probability under the optimal investment strategy in the small claim case. Schmidli [@sch99] studied the optimal proportional reinsurance policy which minimizes the ruin probability in infinite horizon. He derived the associated HJB equation, proved the existence of a solution and a verification theorem in the diffusion case. He proved that the ruin probability decreases exponentially whereas the optimal proportion to insure is constant. Moreover, he gave some conjecture in the Cramér-Lundberg case. Højgaard and Taksar [@hoj98] studied another problem of proportional reinsurance. They considered the issue of reinsurance optimal fraction, that maximizes the return function. They modelled the reserve process as a diffusion process.\
Touzi [@tou00] studied the problem of maximizing the expected utility from terminal wealth when the insurance strategy is valued in $[0,1]$ at each time . He modeled the wealth process by a Doléans-Dade exponential process. He assumed a boundedness assumption on the jump term which guarantees the positivity of the wealth process. He solved this stochastic control problem by using duality method.\
Duality method was introduced by Karatzas et al. [@karle] and Cox and Huang [@cox89]. Cox and Huang characterized the optimal consumption- portfolio policies when there exist non-negativity constraints on consumption and on final wealth. They gave a verification theorem which involves a linear partial differential equation unlike the nonlinear Bellman equation. In few cases they constructed the optimal control. Extensions to the case of constrained investment are considered by Cvitanić and Karatzas [@cvikar92] and to the case of incomplete markets by Karatzas et al. [@karlehshrxu91]. Typically, in incomplete markets, we have to solve a dual problem which leads in the Markov case to nonlinear partial differential equation.\
In this paper, we model the claims by using a compound Poisson process. The insurance trading strategy is constrained to remain in $[0,1]$. We impose a constraint of non-bankruptcy on the wealth process $X_t$ of the agent for all $t$. The objective of the agent is to maximize the expected utility of the terminal wealth over all admissible strategies and to determine the optimal policy of insurance.\
In our case the wealth process positivity constraint is a real one unlike the problem formulated in Touzi [@tou00].\
Our stochastic optimization problem is a particular case of a general structure of problems developed in Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01] who considered the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{optimdyn}
\Max_{X\in\Xc_+(x)} E[U(X_T)], \;\;\; x\in \R, \end{aligned}$$ where $\Xc_+(x):=\left\{ x+ X~: X \in \Xc \mbox{ s.t }\,\, X_t\geq 0 \mbox{
for all } 0\leq t\leq T\right\}$ where $\Xc$ is a family of semi-martingales. Existence and uniqueness of solution of problem (\[optimdyn\]) is then proved. The optimal solution characterization is obtained from a dual formulation under minimal assumptions on the objective function.\
In this paper, we study the dual value function by a PDE approach. The dual problem appears as a mixed control/singular optimization problem with dynamics $(Y_t=Z_t D_t,\,t\in [0,T])$ governed by a classical control term $Z$ which comes from the insurance strategy and a singular term $D$ which comes from the state constraint.\
The originality of this paper is to study a stochastic control problem with state constraint. The wealth of the investor must be non-negative even after a jump. The duality method is not another alternative to solve this problem. In fact the primal problem leads to a HJB equation with boundary conditions. Because of the state space constraints these boundary conditions are not obvious to obtain. However, these delicate boundary conditions disappear in the dual problem. The regularity of the dual value function is not obvious to obtain. This explains the use of the notion of discontinuous viscosity solutions. The comparison theorem is not proved in a general framework since the operator which appears in the HJBVI contains an inf on a unbounded set which makes it discontinuous. In this paper, we prove the comparison theorem only when the space of claims is a finite one.\
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the model. In Section 3, we formulate the dual optimization problem and we derive the associated HJBVI for the value function. In Section 4, we prove that the dual value function is a viscosity solution of our HJBVI. In Section 5, we prove a comparison theorem.
Problem formulation
===================
Let $(\Omega,\Fc,P)$ be a complete probability space. We assume that the claims are generated by a compound Poisson process. More precisely, we consider an integer-valued random measure $\mu (dt,dz)$ with compensator $\pi(dz)dt$. We assume that $\pi(dz)=\varrho G(dz)$ where $G(dz)$ is a probability distribution on the bounded set $C\subseteq \R_+$ and $\varrho$ is a positive constant. In this case, the integral, with respect to the random measure $\mu (dt,dz)$, is simply a compound Poisson process: we have $
\int_0^t \int_C z\mu(du,dz)=\sum_{i= 1}^{N_t}Z_i$, where $N=\{N_t,t\geq 0\}$ is a Poisson process with intensity $\varrho$ and $\{Z_i,i\in \N\}$ is a sequence of random variables with common distribution $G$ which represent the claim sizes.\
Let $T>0$ be a finite time horizon. We denote by $\F=(\Fc_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ the filtration generated by the random measure $\mu (dt,dz)$.\
By definition of the intensity $\pi(dz)dt$, the compensated jump process: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \mu(dt,dz):= \mu(dt,dz)-\pi(dz)dt\end{aligned}$$ is such that $\{\tilde \mu([0,t]\times B),0\leq t\leq T\}$ is a $(P,\F)$ martingale for all $B\in \Cc$, where $\Cc$ is the Borel $\sigma$-field on $C$.\
An insurance strategy is a predictable process $\theta=(\theta_t)_{0\leq t\leq
T}$ which represents the rate of insurance covered by the agent. We assume that the insurance premium is an affine function of the insurance strategy. Given an initial wealth $x\geq 0$ at time t and an insurance strategy $\theta$, the wealth process of the agent at time $s\in [t,T]$ is then given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eds}
X_s^{t,x,\theta} &:=& x + \int_t^s \left( \alpha - \beta (1-\theta_u)
\right) du - \int_t^s \int_C\theta_u z \mu(du,dz).\end{aligned}$$ We assume that $\alpha\geq \beta \geq 0$ which means that the premium rate received by the agent is lower then the premium rate paid to the insurer. In the literature, this problem is known as a proportional reinsurance one. The agent is an insurer who has to pay a premium to the reinsurer. We impose that the insurance strategy satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bornekm}
\theta_s \in [0,1]\,\,\, \mbox{ a.s. for all } t\leq s \leq T.
\end{aligned}$$ We also impose the following non-bankruptcy constraint on the wealth process: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contraintem}
X_s^{t,x,\theta} \geq 0 \,\,\mbox{ a.s. for all } t \leq s\leq T.\end{aligned}$$ Given an initial wealth $x\geq 0$ at time $t$, an admissible policy $\theta$ is a predictable stochastic process $(\theta_s)_{t\leq s\leq T}$ , such that conditions (\[bornekm\]) and (\[contraintem\]) are satisfied. We denote by $\Ac(t,x)$ the set of all admissible policies and $\Sc(t,x):=\{X^{t,x,\theta}\mbox{ such that } \theta\in \Ac(t,x)\}$.\
Our agent has preferences modeled by a utility function $U$.\
We assume that the agent’s utility is described by a CRRA utility function i.e. $U(x)=\frac{x^\eta}{\eta}$, where $\eta\in (0,1)$.\
We denote by $I$ the inverse of $U^{\prime}$ and we introduce the conjugate function of $U$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deftildeU}
\tilde U(y)&:=&\sup_{x>0}\{U(x)-xy\},\;\;\; y >0 \nonumber\\
&=&U(I(y))-yI(y).\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward calculus shows that $\displaystyle{\tilde U(y)=\frac{y^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}}$ where $\gamma=\frac{\eta}{1-\eta}$ and $\tilde U'(y) = -I(y)$ for all $ y >0$.\
The objective of the agent is to find the value function which is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pvaleur}
v(t,x):=\Sup_{\theta \in \Ac(t,x)}E(U(X_T^{t,x,\theta})). \end{aligned}$$ [**Notations:**]{} The constants which appear in the paper are generic and could change from line to line.
Dual optimization problem
=========================
First we introduce some notations. Let $x\geq 0$ and $t\in[0,T]$. We denote by $\Pc(\Sc(t,x))$ the set of all probability measures $Q$ $\sim$ $P$ with the following property: there exists $A$ $\in$ $\Ic_p$, set of non-decreasing predictable processes with $A_0$ $=$ $0$, such that : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pc}
X - A \; \mbox{is a} \; Q-\mbox{local super-martingale for any} \;
X \in \Sc(t,x). \end{aligned}$$ The upper variation process of $\Sc(t,x)$ under $Q$ $\in$ $\Pc(\Sc(t,x))$ is the element $\tilde{A}^{\Sc(t,x)}(Q)$ in $\Ic_p$ satisfying and such that $A-{\tilde A^{\Sc(t,x)}}(Q)$ $\in$ $\Ic_p$ for any $A$ $\in$ $\Ic_p$ satisfying .\
From Lemma 2.1 of Föllmer and Kramkov [@folkab97], we can derive $\Pc(\Sc(t,x))$ and ${\tilde A^{\Sc(t,x)}}(Q)$. This result states that $Q\in\Pc(\Sc(t,x))$ iff there is an upper bound for all the predictable processes arising in the Doob-Meyer decomposition of the special semi-martingale $V$ $\in$ $\Sc(t,x)$ under $Q$. In this case, the upper variation process is equal to this upper bound.\
It is well-known from the martingale representation theorem for random measures (see e.g. Brémaud [@bre81]) that all probability measures $Q$ $\sim$ $P$ have a density process in the form : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exporetiel}
Z^\rho_s &=& \Ec \left( \int_t^s\int_C (\rho_u(z) -1) \tilde \mu(du,dz) \right),\,\, s\in [t,T],\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ $\in$ ${\cal U}_t$ $=$ $\{(\rho_s(z))_{t\leq s\leq T}$ predictable process : $\rho_s(z)$ $>$ $0$, a.s., $t\leq s \leq T$,$z\in C$, $\int_t^T \int_C\Big(|\log\rho_s(z)| + \rho_s(z) \pi(dz)\Big) ds <\infty$ and $E[Z_T^\rho] = 1\}$.\
By Girsanov’s theorem, the predictable compensator of an element $X^\theta \in \Sc(t,x)$ under $P^\rho$ $=$ $Z_T^\rho.P$ is : $$\begin{aligned}
A_s^{\rho,\theta} &=& \int_t^s (\alpha -\beta)du + \int_t^s \theta_u (\beta-\int_C\rho_u(z)\, z\,\pi(dz)) du.\end{aligned}$$ We deduce from Lemma 2.1 of Föllmer and Kramkov [@folkab97] that $\Pc(\Sc(t,x))$ $=$ $\{P^\rho~: \rho \in {\cal U}_t\}$ and the upper variation process of $P^\rho$ is : $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde A^{\Sc(t,x)}_s(P^\rho) &=& \int_t^s (\alpha -\beta)du +\int_t^s (\beta-\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\,\pi(dz))_+ du.\end{aligned}$$ From the non-decreasing property of $U$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
v(t,x)=\Sup_{H\in\Cc_+(t,x)}E[U(H)],\end{aligned}$$ where $\Cc_+(t,x)=\{H\in L^0_+(\Fc_T): X_T^{t,x,\theta} \geq H \,a.s. \mbox{ for
}
\theta\in \Ac(t,x)\}$. It is easy to check the convexity property of the family $\Cc_+(t,x)$. For the closure property of this family in the semi-martingale topology, we refer to Pham [@pham00].\
The semi-martingale topology is associated to the Emery distance between two semi-martingales $\tilde X^1$ and $\tilde X^2$ defined as : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emery}
D_E(\tilde X^1,\tilde X^2) &:=& \sum_{n\geq 1} 2^{-n}
E\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T\wedge n}|\tilde X_t^1-\tilde X_t^2|\wedge 1 \right].\end{aligned}$$ We refer to Mémin [@m80] for details on the semi-martingale topology. Since $\Cc_+(t,x)$ is convex and closed and using the optional decomposition under constraints of Föllmer and Kramkov [@folkab97], Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01] gave the following dual characterization of the set $\Cc_+(t,x)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{carac}
& &H\in \Cc_+(t,x)\\
&\Longleftrightarrow&
J(H):=\Sup_{ Z\in \Pc^0(t,x)\,,\tau\in \Tc_t}
E\left[Z_TH 1_{\tau = T} - \int_t^\tau Z_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du
\right]
\leq x\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pc^0(t,x)$ is the subset of elements $P^\rho \in \Pc(\Sc(t,x))$ such that $\tilde A_T^{\Sc(t,x)}(P^\rho)$ is bounded and $\Tc_t$ is the set of all stopping times valued in $[0,T]$.\
As a corollary (see their corollary 4.1 ), they deduce that the set of admissible insurance strategies $\Ac(0,x)$ is non empty iff $ x\geq
b:=(\beta-\alpha)T$.
If the agent initial wealth is equal to $ x=b$ and since $\Ac(0,x)$ is not empty, then the wealth process is given by $X_t^{0,x,\theta}=(\beta-\alpha)(T-t)$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$ and so the only admissible strategy is $\theta_t=0$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$ which implies that the dynamic version of the value function satisfies $v\left(t,(\beta-\alpha)(T-t)\right)=0$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$. These boundary conditions obtained from the duality approach are not obvious from the primal approach.
Now, we fix some initial wealth $x\geq b$. We make the following assumption
\[hyputil\] We assume that there exist $\bar \gamma \in (0,1)$, $\bar Q \in\Pc^0(t,x)$ with density $\bar Z_T = \frac {d\bar Q}{dP}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{integrable}
(\bar Z_T)^{-1}\in L^{\bar p}(P)\end{aligned}$$ for some $\bar p > \frac{\bar\gamma}{1-\bar\gamma}$.
Under Assumption \[hyputil\], Existence and uniqueness of problem are proved (see Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01]). We focus now on the study of the dual formulation.\
The two following lemmas allow us to give an expression of the dual value function. We denote by ${\cal D}_t$ the set of nonnegative, nonincreasing predictable and càdlàg processes $D$ $=$ $(D_s)_{t\leq s\leq T}$ with $D_t$ $=$ $1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Yc^0(t):=\{Y^{\rho,D}=Z^\rho D,\,Z^\rho \in \Pc^0(t,x),\, D\in {\cal D}_t\}\end{aligned}$$ for all $ t\in [0,T]$ and $L_+^0(\Fc_T)$ is the set of nonnegative $\Fc_T$-measurable random variables.
[We omit the dependence of $\Yc^0(t)$ in the initial wealth $x$, since $x$ is fixed in all the paper. ]{}
[The set ${\cal D}_t$ is introduced in the paper of Elkaroui and Jeanblanc [@elkjea98] in the continuous case. In our case, we must enlarge this set to include càdlàg processes and extend some results of Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01].]{}
\[lemdc\] For all $x$ $\geq$ $b$, $X$ $\in$ $\Sc(t,x)$, $Y$ $=$ $ZD$, $Z$ $\in$ $\Pc^0(t,x)$, $D$ $\in$ $\Dc_t$, the processes : $$\begin{aligned}
& & Z_.X_.- \int_t^. Z_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du, \\
& \mbox{and} & Y_.X_.- \int_t^. Y_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du\end{aligned}$$ are supermartingales under $P$.
[**Proof.**]{} By definition of $\Pc^0(t,x)$, the process $Z_.(X_.- \int_t^.(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du)$ is a $P$-local supermartingale. From Theorem VII.35 in Dellacherie and Meyer [@delmey82], the process $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M}
M= Z_.X_.- \int_t^.Z_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du\end{aligned}$$ is a $P$-local supermartingale. Moreover, $M$ is bounded from below by the random variable $-\int_t^.Z_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du)$, which is integrable under $P$. We deduce by Fatou’s lemma that $M$ is a $P$-supermartingale. On the other hand, by Itô’s product rule and since $D$ is predictable with finite variation, we get : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{surmarD}
& &Y_TX_T- \int_t^T Y_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du\nonumber\\
&=& Y_tX_t + \int_t^T D_{u^-} dM_u+
\int_t^T Z_{u^-} X_{u^-} dD_u + \Sum_{t\leq u\leq T} \triangle M_u \triangle D_u. \end{aligned}$$ From Equation , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle M_s\neq 0 \,\,\,\mbox{iff} \,\,\, s=T_i=\inf\{u\geq t\,\, \mbox{s.t.} N_u=i\},\,\, i\in \N\end{aligned}$$ where $T_i$ is the time of the claim number $i$ and $N$ is the Poisson process representing the number of claims. If the stopping time $T_i$ is accessible, then from Theorem 15.1 in Rogers and Williams [@roge], we have $Z_{T_i^-}=Z_{T_i}$ which is false and so $(T_i)_{i\in \N}$ is a sequence of totally inaccessible stopping times. On the other hand, $D$ is predictable process and so from Lemma 27.3 in Rogers and Williams [@roge] we have $\triangle D_\tau =0$ for every totally inaccessible stopping time $\tau$. Since $\triangle M_s=0$ if $s\neq T_i$ and $\triangle D_s=0$ if $s$ is a totally inaccessible stopping time, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{var}
\triangle M_s\triangle D_s=0\,\,ds\otimes dP \mbox{ a.s. }\end{aligned}$$ Since $D$ is nonnegative and nonincreasing, and $Z$, $X$ are nonnegative, this shows that the process : $Y_.X_.- \int_t^. Y_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du$ is a $P$-local supermartingale, bounded from below by an $L^1(P)$ random variable, and hence a $P$-supermartingale.
\[lemelk\] For all $H\in L_+^0(\Fc_T)$, we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vhegal}
J(H) =
\sup_{Y\in\Yc^0(t)} E\left[Y_TH-
\int_t^T Y_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du\right]\leq x\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} Fix some $H$ $\in$ $L^0_+(\Fc_T)$. Given an arbitrary $\tau$ $\in$ $\Tc_t$, we define a sequence $(D^n)_{n}$ of elements in $\Dc_t$ by : $$\begin{aligned}
D^n_s\ &=& \exp\left(-\int^{s}_{t}n1_{\tau \leq u}du\right),\;\;
t\leq s\leq T, \; n \in \N.\end{aligned}$$ We then have for all $Z$ $\in$ $\Pc^0(t,x)$ : $$\begin{aligned}
& &E \left[Z_T D^n_T H - \int_t^T
Z_uD^n_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right]\\
& &\leq \sup_{Z\in \Pc^0(t,x),D\in\Dc_t}
E \left[Z_T D_T H - \int_0^T
Z_uD_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right].\end{aligned}$$ Since $D^n_u$ $\rightarrow$ $1_{u\leq \tau}$ a.s., for all $t\leq u\leq T$, we have by Fatou’s lemma : $$\begin{aligned}
& & E\left[Z_TH 1_{\tau = T} - \int_0^\tau Z_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du
\right] \\
&\leq & \sup_{Z\in\Pc^0(t,x),D\in\Dc_t}
E \left[Z_T D_T H - \int_t^T
Z_uD_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right].\end{aligned}$$ Identifying a probability measure $Q$ $\in$ $\Pc^0(t,x)$ with its density process $Z$, we then obtain from Bayes formula : $$\begin{aligned}
J(H) &= & \sup_{Q\in\Pc^0(t,x),\tau\in\Tc_t}
E^Q\left[H 1_{\tau = T} - \int_0^\tau (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du
\right] \\
&\leq & \sup_{Z\in\Pc^0(t,x),D\in\Dc_t}
E \left[Z_T D_T H - \int_0^T
Z_uD_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right]. \end{aligned}$$ Conversely, by the supermartingale property of $Y_.X_.- \int_0^. Y_u(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du$ for any $Y$ $\in$ $\Yc^0(t)$, see Lemma \[lemdc\], we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interH}
\sup_{Y\in\Yc^0(t)}
E \left[Z_T D_T H - \int_t^T
Z_uD_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right] \leq x, \; \forall H \in \Cc_+(x).\end{aligned}$$ Now, by characterization , any $H$ $\in$ $L_+^0(\Fc_T)$ lies in $\Cc_+(J(H))$. We then deduce from inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{Y\in\Yc^0(t)}
E \left[Y_T H - \int_0^T
Y_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right] &\leq& J(H),\end{aligned}$$ which proves the required equality .\
The dual problem of is written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{valeurm}
\tilde v(t,y) :=\inf_{Y\in\Yc^0(t)} E\left[ \tilde U(yY^{\rho,D}_T) +
\int_t^T yY^{\rho,D}_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_{+})du \right], \end{aligned}$$ We shall adopt a dynamic programming principle approach to study the dual value function . We recall the dynamic programming principle for our stochastic control problem: for any stopping time $0\leq \tau\leq T$, $0\leq t\leq T$ and $0\leq h\leq T-t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pppd}
\tilde v(t,y)&=&\Inf_{Y^{\rho,D}\in \Yc^0(t)}
E\left[\tilde v\left((t+h)\wedge \tau,Y^{\rho,D}_{(t+h)\wedge \tau}\right)\right.\\
&+&\left.\int_{t}^{(t+h)\wedge
\tau}Y^{\rho,D}_u\left(\alpha-\beta+\left(\beta-\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz)\right)_+\right)du\right],\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $a\wedge b=\min(a,b)$ ( see e.g. Fleming and Soner [@fleson]).\
Let $t\in [0,T]$ and $Y^{\rho,D}\in \Yc^0(t)$. Then the process $Y^{\rho,D}$ evolves according to the following stochastic differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etat}
dY^{\rho,D}_s&=&Y_{s^-}^{\rho,D}\Big(-dL_s+\int_C(\rho_s(z)-1)\tilde \mu(ds,dz)\Big),\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{controll}
dL_s=-\frac{dD_s}{D_s}1_{\{D_s>0\}},\,\, t\leq s\leq T,\,\,L_{t^-}=0.\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} By Itô’s product rule, we have $$\begin{aligned}
dY^{\rho,D}_s
=Z_{s^-}
dD_s
+D_{s^-}dZ_s
+\triangle Z_s\triangle D_s.\end{aligned}$$ From Equation , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\triangle Z_s\neq 0\,\,\,\mbox{iff} \,\,\, s=T_i=\inf\{u\geq t\,\, \mbox{s.t.} N_u=i\},\,\, i\in \N.\end{aligned}$$ Repeating the same argument as in equation , we have $\triangle Z_s\triangle D_s=0$ $ds\otimes dP \mbox{ a.s. }$ and so equation is proved.\
\
We denote by $\Lc_t$ the set of adapted processes $(L_s)_{t\leq s\leq T}$ with possible jump at time $s=t$ and satisfying equation .\
The Hamilton Jacobi Bellman Variational Inequality arising from the dynamic programming principle is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HJB2}
&&\min \left \{
\frac{\partial \tilde v}{\partial t}(t,y) +
H\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right),-\Dy {\tilde v}(t,y)
\right\}=0,\,(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty),\end{aligned}$$ with terminal condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HJB2t}
\tilde v(T,y)=\tilde U(y)\,,y\in (0,\infty),\end{aligned}$$ where $$H\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right):=\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma}\left\{A^\rho\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right)+
y\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_+\right)\right\},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A^\rho\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right) :=
\int_C\left( \tilde v(t,\rho(z) y)- \tilde v(t,y)-(\rho(z) -1)y \Dy {\tilde v}(t,y)\right)\pi(dz), \end{aligned}$$ and $\Sigma:=\left\{\rho
\mbox{ positive Borel function defined on }C
\mbox{ s.t.}
\int_C\Big(|\log\rho(z)| + \rho(z) \Big)\pi(dz) <\infty
\right\}$. This divides the time-space solvency region $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$ into a no-jump region $$\begin{aligned}
R_1=\left \{
(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty),\mbox{ s.t. }\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \tilde v}{\partial t}(t,y) +
H\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right)=0}
\right\}\end{aligned}$$ and a jump region $$\begin{aligned}
R_2=\left \{
(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty),\mbox{ s.t. }\displaystyle{\frac{\partial \tilde
v}{\partial y}(t,y)}=0\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Viscosity solution
==================
In this section, we provide a rigorous characterization of the dual value function $\tilde v$ as a viscosity solution to the HJBVI (\[HJB2\]). The function $\tilde v$ is not known to be continuous and so we shall work with the notion of discontinuous viscosity solutions. We prove that the dual value function lies in the set of functions $D_{\gamma}([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$ defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\gamma}([0,T]\times (0,\infty)):=\Big\{\displaystyle{f:[0,T]\times (0,\infty)\rightarrow\R}\mbox{ such that },\\
\,\Sup_{y>0} \frac{| f(t,y)|}{y+y^{-\gamma}}<\infty \mbox{ and }\,\Sup_{x>0,y>0} \frac{|f(t,x)-f(t,y)|}{|x-y|(1+x^{-(\gamma+1)}+y^{-(\gamma+1)})}<\infty\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma gives some properties of the dual value function $\tilde v$.
\[classe\] We assume that there exists a solution the the dual problem . The following properties hold:\
1) The dual value function $\tilde v$ is convex in $y$,\
2) The dual value function $\tilde v$ satisfies the following growth condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{growthc}
\Sup_{y>0} \frac{|\tilde v(t,y)|}{y+y^{-\gamma}}<\infty\end{aligned}$$ 3)The dual value function $\tilde v$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{acc}
\Sup_{y_1>0,y_2>0} \frac{|\tilde v(t,y_1)-\tilde
v(t,y_2)|}{|y_1-y_2|(1+y_1^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_2^{-(\gamma+1)})}<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} See Appendix.\
\
When we assume that there exists a solution the the dual problem , one can use the conjugate duality relation proved in theorem 5.1 of Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01].
Since the dual value function $\tilde v$ is locally bounded, the upper and the lower semi-continuous envelope of the function $\tilde v$ are well-defined. The definition of the upper and the lower semi-continuous envelope of a function $\phi$ are given as follows.
\(i) The upper semi-continuous envelope of a function $\phi$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^*(t,y)= \Limsup_{\stackrel{(t^\prime,y^\prime)\rightarrow (t,y)}{t^\prime\in [0,T),\,y^\prime>0}}
\phi(t^\prime,y^\prime),\,\, \mbox{ for all }(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$ (ii) The lower semi-continuous envelope of a function $\phi$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_*(t,y)= \Liminf_{\stackrel{(t^\prime,y^\prime)\rightarrow (t,y)}{t^\prime\in [0,T),\,y^\prime>0}}
\phi(t^\prime,y^\prime),\,\, \mbox{ for all }(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
Since the continuity of the Hamiltonian $H$ in his arguments is not obvious, we define lower semi-continuous envelope of $H$ by\
$H_*(t,y,\psi,\Dy \psi):=
\Liminf_{\stackrel{(t^\prime,y^\prime)\rightarrow (t,y)}{t^\prime\in [0,T),\,y^\prime>0}}H(t^\prime,y^\prime,\psi,\Dy
\psi)$ for all $(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$.\
\
Adapting the notion of viscosity solutions introduced by Crandall and Lions [@cralio86] and then by Soner [@son86b]for first integrodifferential operators, we define the viscosity solution as follows:
\(i) A function $\phi$ is a viscosity supersolution of (\[HJB2\]) in $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{superdef}
&&\min \left\{
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}(\bar t,\bar y) +
H_*\left(\bar t,\bar y,\psi, \Dy \psi \right), -\Dy \psi(\bar t,\bar y) \right\} \leq 0, \end{aligned}$$ whenever $\psi\in C^1([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$ and $\phi_*- \psi$ has a strict global minimum at $(\bar t,\bar y)\in [0,T)\times
(0,\infty)$.\
(ii) A function $\phi$ is a viscosity subsolution of (\[HJB2\]) in $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{subdef}
&&\min \left\{
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}(\bar t,\bar y) +
H\left(\bar t,\bar y,\psi, \Dy \psi \right), -\Dy \psi(\bar t,\bar y) \right\} \geq 0, \end{aligned}$$ whenever $\psi\in C^1([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$ and $\phi^*-
\psi$ has a strict global maximum at $(\bar t,\bar y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$.\
(iii) A function $\phi$ is a viscosity solution of (\[HJB2\]) in $[0,T)\times
(0,\infty)$ if it is both super-solution and sub-solution in $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$.
As it is seen in the definition of viscosity solutions, we use the lower semi-continuous envelope of the Hamiltonian H. In fact to prove that the dual value function $\tilde v$ is viscosity solution of our HJBVI, we need only the regularity of $H_*$ to derive inequality .
The following theorem relates the dual value function $\tilde v$ to the HJBVI .
\[viscosite\] The dual value function $\tilde v$ is a viscosity solution of (\[HJB2\]) in $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$.
[**Proof.**]{} See Appendix.\
\
The HJBVI associated to our problem does not provide a complete characterization of the dual value function $\tilde v$. We need to specify the terminal condition. From the definition of $\tilde v$, it’s obvious that $\tilde v(T,y)=\tilde U(y)$. Since we use the notion of discontinuous viscosity solutions, we need to characterize $ \tilde v^*(T,y)$ and $ \tilde v_*(T,y)$ for all $y\in (0,\infty)$ which is the object of the following theorem.
The terminal conditions of the upper and lower semi-continuous envelope of $\tilde v$ satisfy the following inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{upperterminal}
\tilde v^*(T,y):=\Limsup_{\stackrel{(t^\prime,y^\prime)\rightarrow (T,y)}{t^\prime\in [0,T),\,y^\prime>0}}
\tilde v(t^\prime,y^\prime)\leq \tilde U(y) ,\,\,\mbox{ for all } y\in (0,\infty),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lowerterminal}
\tilde v_*(T,y):=\Limsup_{\stackrel{(t^\prime,y^\prime)\rightarrow (T,y)}{t^\prime\in [0,T),\,y^\prime>0}}
\tilde v(t^\prime,y^\prime)\geq \tilde U(y) ,\,\,\mbox{ for all } y\in (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} We first prove inequality . Suppose on the contrary that there exists a constant $\eta >0$ such that $\tilde v^*(T,y)\geq \tilde U(y) +2 \eta$. From the definition of $\tilde v^*$, there exists a sequence $((t_n,y_n))_{n\in \N}$ such that $(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow (T,y)$ and $\tilde v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow\tilde v^*(T,y)$ when $n$ tends to infinity, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
E[\tilde
U(y_nY_{T}^{\rho_n,D_n})+\int_{t_n}^{T}y_nY_s^{\rho_n,D_n}(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_{n_{s}}(z)\,z\,\pi(dz))_+)ds]\geq
\tilde U(y) +\eta,\end{aligned}$$ for all $Y^{\rho_n,D_n}\in \Yc^0(t_n)$.Choosing $\rho_{n_{s}}=1$ and $D_{n_{s}}=1$ for all $s\in[t_n,T]$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde U(y_n)+\int_{t_n}^{T}y_n(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\,z\,\pi(dz))_+)ds\geq \tilde U(y) +\eta. \end{aligned}$$ Sending $n$ to infinity, we have $\tilde U(y) \geq \tilde U(y) +\eta$ which is wrong and so inequality is proved.\
We prove now inequality . From the definition of $\tilde v_*$, there exists a sequence $((t_n,y_n))_{n\in \N}$ such that $(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow (T,y)$ and $\tilde v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow\tilde v_*(T,y)$ when $n$ tends to infinity.\
From the definition of the dynamic version of the value function, we have for all $x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t_n)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dyntn}
v(t_n,x)\geq U(x+(\alpha-\beta)(T-t_n)).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\epsilon>0$, there exists $n_0\in \N$ such that for all $n\geq n_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dyntnn}
U(x+(\alpha-\beta)(T-t_n))\geq U(x)-\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Using the conjugate duality relation of Theorem 5.1 of Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01] and relations and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dyntnnn}
\tilde v(t_n,y_n)&=&\Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t_n) }[v(t_n,x)-xy_n]\nonumber\\ &\geq& \Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t_n) }[U(x)-xy_n]-\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow (T,y)$ when $n$ tends to infinity, there exists $n_1\in \N$ such that for all $n\geq n_1$, $I(y_n)\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t_n)$ and so $\Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t_n) }[U(x)-xy_n]=\tilde U(y_n)$. For $n\geq n_0 \vee n_1$, inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(t_n,y_n)\geq \tilde U(y_n)-\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Sending $n$ to infinity and $\epsilon$ to $0$, we prove inequality.
Uniqueness
==========
We turn now to uniqueness questions. Our next main result is a comparison principle for discontinuous viscosity solutions to the HJBVI . It states that we can compare a viscosity sub-solution and a viscosity super-solution to the HJBVI on $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$, provided that we can compare them at terminal date as usual in parabolic problems.\
The main difficulty in the comparison theorem comes from the discontinuity of the Hamiltonian. Here, we assume that the claims take values in the set $C=\{\delta_1,\delta_2,...,\delta_d\}$, $\delta_i>0$, $1\leq i\leq d$. In this case the Hamiltonian contains an inf on a bounded set which makes it continuous. We denote by $\pi_i$, $1\leq i\leq d$ the intensity of the Poisson process associated to the claim having the size $\delta_i$. The set $\Sigma$ is defined as follows : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigmaprime}
\Sigma:=\left\{ \rho =(\rho_i)_{1\leq i\leq d},\,\, \rho_i>0,\,1\leq i\leq d\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian $H$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildeH}
H\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right)=\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma}\left\{A^\rho\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right)+
y\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_+\right)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A^\rho\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right) :=\Sum_{i=1}^d \pi_i\left( \tilde v(t,\rho_i y)-
\tilde v(t,y)-(\rho_i -1)y \Dy {\tilde v}(t,y)\right).\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma sates some properties of the functions $\tilde v_*$ and $\tilde v^*$.
\[conv\] We assume that there exists a solution the the dual problem . The following properties hold :\
1) The functions $\tilde v^*$ and $\tilde v_*$ are convex in $y$.\
2) The functions $\tilde v^*$ and $\tilde v_*$ are nonincreasing on $(0,\infty)$.\
3) The functions $\tilde v_*$ and $\tilde v^*$ satisfy the following growth condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{growthc}
\Sup_{y>0} \frac{|\tilde v_*(t,y)|}{y+y^{-\gamma}},\,\,\Sup_{y>0} \frac{|\tilde v^*(t,y)|}{y+y^{-\gamma}}<\infty\end{aligned}$$ 4) The functions $\tilde v_*$ and $\tilde v^*$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\Sup_{y_1>0,y_2>0}
\frac{|\tilde v_*(t,y_1)-\tilde v_*(t,y_2)|}
{|y_1-y_2|(1+y_{1}^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_{2}^{-(\gamma+1)})}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Sup_{y_1>0,y_2>0}
\frac{|\tilde v^*(t,y_1)-\tilde v^*(t,y_2)|}
{|y_1-y_2|(1+y_{1}^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_{2}^{-(\gamma+1)})}<\infty.
\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} 1) Fix $\lambda \in (0,1)$ and $(y,y^{'},y^{''})\in (0,\infty)^3$ such that $y=\lambda y^{'}+(1-\lambda)y^{''}$. From the definition of $\tilde v^*(t,y)$, there exists a sequence $\big((t_n,y_n)\big)_n$ such that $v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow \tilde v^*(t,y)$ when $n$ goes to infinity. We set $y_n=\lambda y^{'}+(1-\lambda)y^{''}_n$, then we have $y^{''}_n\longrightarrow y^{''}$ when $n$ goes to infinity. Since $\tilde v$ is convex in $y$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v*conv}
\tilde v(t_n,y_n)&\leq& \lambda\tilde v(t_n,y^{'})+(1-\lambda)\tilde v(t_n,y^{''}_n)\end{aligned}$$ Sending $n$ to infinity, inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v^*(t,y)\leq \lambda\tilde v^*(t,y^{'})+(1-\lambda)\tilde v^*(t,y^{''}),\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired result.\
We turn to the convexity of $\tilde v_*$. From Theorem 5.1 of Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conv1}
\tilde v(t,y)=\Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t)}[v(t,x)-xy].\end{aligned}$$ We fix $(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty)$. From the definition of $\tilde v_*$, there exists a sequence$\big((t_n,y_n)\big)_n$ such that $v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow \tilde v_*(t,y)$ and $(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow (t,y)$ when $n$ goes to infinity. From equation , we have $\tilde v(t_n,y_n)\geq v(t_n,x)-xy_n \geq v_*(t,x)-xy_n $ for all $x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t_n)$. Sending $n$ to $\infty$, we have $\tilde v_*(t,y)\geq v_*(t,x)-xy$ for all $x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t)$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conv2}
\tilde v_*(t,y)\geq \Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t)}[v_*(t,x)-xy].\end{aligned}$$ From Theorem 5.1 of Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01], there exists $\hat x$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conv3}
\tilde v(t,y)= v(t,\hat x)-\hat xy\end{aligned}$$ and $\Dy{\tilde v}(t,y)=-\hat x$. We consider a sequence $\big((t_n,y_n)\big)_n$ such that $v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow \tilde v_*(t,y)$ and $(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow (t,y)$ when $n$ goes to infinity. From equation , there exists $\hat x_n$ such that $\tilde v(t_n,y_n)= v(t_n,\hat x_n)-\hat x_ny_n$. Since $\tilde v \in D_{\gamma}([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$, we have $\hat x_n:=|\Dy{\tilde v}(t_n,y_n)|\leq K(1+y_n^{-(\gamma+1))})$ where $K$ is a positive constant independent of $n$. Since $y_n\longrightarrow y$ when $n$ goes to infinity, the sequence $(\hat x_n)_n$ is bounded, and so long a subsequence $\hat x_n\longrightarrow \hat x $ when $n$ goes to infinity and so we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conv4}
\Lim_{n\longrightarrow \infty}v(t_n,\hat x_n)= \tilde v_*(t,y)+\hat xy= v_*(t,\hat x)\end{aligned}$$ From inequality and equation , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v_*(t,y)= \Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t)}[v_*(t,x)-xy].\end{aligned}$$ and so $\tilde v_*$ is convex in $y$.\
2) Fix $(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$. Since at time $t$, only $D\in \Dc_t$ could make a jump, we have $y=Y_t\geq Y_{t^+}$. From the dynamic programming principle we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(t,y)\leq \tilde v(t,y(1-\delta))\,\mbox{ for all }0<\delta<1,\end{aligned}$$ and so the dual value function $\tilde v$ in non-increasing with respect to $y$. This yields that $\tilde v_*$ and $\tilde v^*$ are nonincreasing.\
3) Fix $(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$. From the definition of $\tilde v^*(t,y)$, there exists a sequence $\big((t_n,y_n)\big)_n$ such that $v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow \tilde v_*(t,y)$ when $n$ goes to infinity. From the growth condition of $\tilde v$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde v(t_n,y_n)| \leq K(y_n+y_n^{-\gamma}),\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is a positive constant. Sending $n$ to infinity, we obtain the desired result. We use similar arguments to prove that $\Sup_{y>0} \frac{|\tilde v^*(t,y)|}{y+y^{-\gamma}}<\infty$.\
4) We prove only the first inequality. The second one is obtained by using similar arguments. Fix $(t,y_1,y_2)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)\times (0,\infty)$. From the definition of $\tilde v^*(t,y_2)$, there exists a sequence $\big((t_n,y_{2,n})\big)_n$ such that $v(t_n,y_{2,n})\longrightarrow \tilde v_*(t,y_2)$ when $n$ goes to infinity. From inequality , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(t_n,y_{1})-\tilde
v(t_n,y_{2,n})\leq K |y_{1}-y_{2,n}|(1+y_{1}^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_{2,n}^{-(\gamma+1)}), \end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is a positive constant. Since $ \Liminf_{n\longrightarrow \infty}\tilde v(t_n,y_{1})\geq\tilde v_*(t,y_{1}) $, we obtain after sending $n$ to infinity $$\begin{aligned}
-\tilde v_*(t,y_{2}) \leq K|y_{1}-y_{2}|(1+y_{1}^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_{2}^{-(\gamma+1)}) - \tilde v_*(t,y_{1}). \end{aligned}$$ Using similar arguments, we deduce the inverse inequality and so $$\begin{aligned}
\Sup_{y_1>0,y_2>0}
\frac{|\tilde v_*(t,y_1)-\tilde v_*(t,y_2)|}
{|y_1-y_2|(1+y_{1}^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_{2}^{-(\gamma+1)})} <\infty.
\end{aligned}$$\
[One could prove the monotinicity of $\tilde v^* $ by using viscosity solutions arguments. In fact for each $\epsilon >0$, we define $W(t,y)=\tilde v(t,y)-\epsilon y$, $(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$. The function $W$ satisfies in the viscosity sense $\Dy {W} \leq -\epsilon$, i.e. for all $(y_0,\psi)\in ((0,\infty),C^1([0,T]\times (0,\infty))) $ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{devr}
(W^*-\psi)(t,y_0)=\Max_{y\in (0,\infty)}(W^*-\psi)(t,y)\end{aligned}$$ and so we have $\Dy {\psi}(t,y_0)\leq -\epsilon$. This proves that $\psi(t,.)$ is nonincreasing on a neighborhood $V(y_0)$. Let $(y_1,y_2)\in V(y_0)$, we want to prove that $W^*(t,y_1)\geq W^*(t,y_2)$.\
Suppose that $W^*(t,y_1)<W^*(t,y_2)$. We consider the function $V(t,y)=W^*(t,y_1)$ which solves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equaaux}
\Dy {V}=0 \mbox{ on }(y_1,y_2),\end{aligned}$$ together with the boundary conditions $V(t,y_1)=V(t,y_2)=W^*(t,y_1)$. Since $W$ is a viscosity subsolution of Equation , From the comparison theorem ( see Barles [@B], Theorem 2.7 in the case of continuous viscosity solutions), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Inf_{[y_1,y_2]}(V-W^*)(t,y)=\Inf((V-W^*)(t,y_1),(V-W^*)(t,y_2))=0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $V(t,y)\geq W^*(t,y)$ for all $y\in [y_1,y_2]$. Since $W^*(t,y_0)\leq V(t,y_0)=W^*(t,y_1)$ and $\psi(t,y_0)>\psi(t,y_1)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
(W^*-\psi)(t,y_0)<(W^*-\psi)(t,y_1),\end{aligned}$$ which contradicts . Sending $\epsilon \longrightarrow 0^+$, we obtain the desired result.\
]{}
Now, we are able to prove the following comparison principle :
\[comparaison\] Let $\tilde v_1$ (resp $\tilde v_2$) $\in D_\gamma ([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$ be a viscosity subsolution (resp supersolution) of in $[0,T]\times (0,\infty)$ such that $\tilde v_1^*(T,y)\leq \tilde v_{2*}(T,y)$. We assume that $\tilde v_{2*}$ is convex and nonincreasing in $y$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comp}
\tilde v_1^*(t,y)\leq \tilde v_{2*}(t,y),\,\mbox{ for all }(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty)\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} See Appendix.\
\
By combining the previous results, we finally obtain the following PDE characterization of the dual value function.
\[coro\]We assume that there exists a solution the the dual problem . The dual value function $\tilde v$ is the unique viscosity solution of with terminal condition $\tilde v(T,y)=\tilde U(y)$ in the class of functions $D_\gamma ([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$.
In this remark, we formally discuss the numerical implications of Corollary \[coro\]. We can solve numerically the associated HJBVI by using an algorithm based on policy iterations. Then thanks to a verification theorem, We characterize the optimal insurance strategy by the solution of the variational inequality. These results are the object of the paper Mnif[@mnif10].
Appendix
========
Proof of Lemma \[classe\]
-------------------------
$1)$ From Theorem 5.1 of Mnif and Pham [@mnipham01], we have $\tilde v(t,y)=\Max_{x\geq (\beta-\alpha)(T-t)}[v(t,x)-xy]$. The convexity property of $\tilde v$ in $y$ holds since it is the upper envelope of affine functions.\
$2)$ Since the controls $\rho_s=1$ and $D_s=1$, $s\in [t,T]$ lie in $\mathcal{U}_t \times \mathcal{D}_{t}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant4}
\tilde v(t,y)\leq \tilde U(y)+Ky, \end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is a constant.\
Let $(Z^n:=Z^{\rho^n},D^n)$ be a minimizing sequence of $\tilde v(t,y)$. From the definition of these minimizing sequences, there exist $\epsilon_n$ and $n_0\in \N$ such that $\epsilon_n \longrightarrow 0$ when $n \longrightarrow \infty$ and for all $n\geq n_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant}
\tilde v(t,y) &\geq & E\left[ \tilde U(yZ^n_TD^n_T)\right] \nonumber\\
&+& y E\left[\int_t^T Z^n_uD^n_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^n_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right]-\epsilon_n.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\epsilon_n \longrightarrow 0$ when $n\longrightarrow \infty$, there exists $n_1\in \N$ such that for all $n\geq n_1$, we have $\epsilon_n\leq \tilde U(y)+y$. We recall That $\tilde U(y)\geq U(0^+)\geq 0$ and so $\tilde U(y)+y>0$ since $y>0$. Using the boundedness of $D^n$, Jensen’s inequality and the martingale property of $Z^n$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant3}
E\left[\tilde U(yZ^n_TD^n_T)\right]&\geq& \tilde U(yE\left[Z^n_T\right])\nonumber\\
&\geq& \tilde U(y).\end{aligned}$$ For the second term of the r.h.s of inequality , since $D^n_s\leq 1$ for all $s\in [t,T]$, using Fubini’s theorem and the martingale property of $Z^n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant2}
E\left[\int_t^T y Z^n_uD^n_u (\alpha -\beta +(\beta
-\int_C\rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+})du \right]&\geq& y(\alpha-\beta)E\left[ \int_t^T Z^n_uD^n_u du\right]\nonumber\\
&\geq& y(\alpha-\beta) \int_t^T E\left[Z^n_u\right] du\nonumber\\
&\geq& K^\prime y,\end{aligned}$$ where $K^\prime$ is a constant independent of $y$. Inequalities and imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant5}
\tilde v(t,y)\geq \tilde U(y)+ K^{\prime}y.\end{aligned}$$ From inequalities and , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comportement}
\Sup_{y>0} \frac{|\tilde v(t,y)|}{y+\frac{y^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}}<\infty\end{aligned}$$ $3)$ Using the convexity in $y$ of the dual value function $\tilde v$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{accroissement}
\frac{|\tilde v(t,y_1)-\tilde v(t,y_2)|}{|y_1-y_2|}\leq |\tilde v^{\prime}_d(t,y_1)|+|\tilde v^{\prime}_d(t,y_2)|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde v^{\prime}_d$ is the right-hand derivative with respect to the variable $y$. Let $(Z^n:=Z^{\rho^n},D^n)$ be a minimizing sequence of $\tilde v(t,y_1)$. Let $\delta >0$ and $(Z^{\prime n}:=Z^{\prime \rho^n},D^{\prime n})$ be a minimizing sequence of $\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)$. From the definition of these minimizing sequences, there exist $\epsilon_n$, $\epsilon^{\prime}_n$ and $n_0\in \N$ such that $\epsilon_n \longrightarrow 0$, $\epsilon^{\prime}_n \longrightarrow 0$ when $n
\longrightarrow \infty$ and for all $n\geq n_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{accroissement1}
\tilde v(t,y_1) &\geq& y_1^{-\gamma}E\left[ \frac{(Z^n_TD^n_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right] \nonumber\\
&+& y_1 E\left[\int_t^T Z^n_uD^n_u
\Big(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^n_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right]-\epsilon_n,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{accroissement5}
\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)
&\geq& (y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}E\left[ \frac{(Z^{\prime n}_TD^{\prime
n}_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right] \nonumber\\
&+& (y_1+\delta) E\left[\int_t^T Z^{\prime n}_uD^{\prime n}_u
\Big (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^{\prime n}_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du
\right]\nonumber\\
&-&\epsilon^\prime _n.\end{aligned}$$ Using the definition of $\tilde v(t,y_1)$ and $\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(t,y_1) \leq y_1^{-\gamma}E\left[\frac{( Z^{\prime n}_TD^{\prime
n}_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right] + y_1 E\left[\int_t^T Z^{\prime n}_uD^{\prime n}_u
\Big (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^{\prime n}_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{accroissement2}
\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)& \leq & (y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}E\left[\frac{( Z^{
n}_TD^{n}_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right] \\
&+& (y_1+\delta) E\left[\int_t^T Z^{n}_uD^{n}_u
\Big(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^{n}_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Using inequalities and , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivedte}
& &\frac{\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)-\tilde v(t,y_1)}{\delta}\nonumber\\
&\leq&\frac{(y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}-y_1^{-\gamma}}{\delta}E\left[\frac{(
Z^{n}_TD^{n}_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right]\nonumber\\
&+& E\left[\int_t^T Z^{n}_uD^{n}_u
\Big(\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^{n}_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right]
+\frac{\epsilon_n}{\delta}.\end{aligned}$$ From inequality , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant11}
E\left[(Z^{n}_TD^{n}_T)^{-\gamma}\right]\geq K, \end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is a positive constant independent of $y$ and $\delta$. Since $\epsilon_n
\longrightarrow 0$ when $n\longrightarrow \infty$, there exists $n_1$ such that for all $n\geq n_1$, we have $\frac{\epsilon_n}{\delta}\leq 1$. For the second term of the r.h.s of inequality , since $D_s\leq 1$ for all $s\in [t,T]$, using Fubini and martingale property of $Z$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minorant10}
E\left[\int_t^T Z^n_uD^n_u \Big(\alpha -\beta +(\beta
-\int_C\rho^n_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right]
&\leq& \alpha E\left[ \int_t^T Z^n_uD^n_u du\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq& \alpha \int_t^T E\left[Z^n_u\right] du\nonumber\\
&\leq& K .\end{aligned}$$ Using inequalities , and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)-\tilde v(t,y_1)}{\delta} \leq K(\frac{(y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}-y_1^{-\gamma}}{\delta}+1).\end{aligned}$$ Sending $\delta \longrightarrow 0^+$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivedte2}
\tilde v^{\prime}_d(t,y_1) \leq K(-y_1^{-(\gamma+1)}+1).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivedte3}
& &\frac{\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)-\tilde v(t,y_1)}{\delta}\nonumber\\
&\geq&\frac{(y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}-y_1^{-\gamma}}{\delta}E\left[\frac{(
Z^{\prime n}_TD^{\prime n}_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right]\nonumber\\
&+& E\left[\int_t^T Z^{\prime n}_uD^{\prime n}_u
\Big (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\rho^{\prime n}_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right]-\frac{\epsilon^\prime_n}{\delta}.\end{aligned}$$ We define $\tilde \rho_s:=C^{\tilde \rho}=\frac{\beta}{\int_Cz\pi(dz)}$ and $\tilde D_s=1$ for all $s\in[t,T]$. From the definition of $\tilde v$ and using the martingale property of $Z^{\tilde
\rho}$ , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{acc1}
& &\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)\nonumber\\ &\leq&
(y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}
E\left[\frac{(
Z^{\tilde \rho}_T \tilde D_T)^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right]+
(y_1+\delta) E\left[\int_t^T Z^{\tilde \rho}_u \tilde D_u
\Big (\alpha -\beta +(\beta -\int_C\tilde \rho_u(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_{+}\Big)du \right]\nonumber\\
&=&(y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}
E\left[\frac{(
Z^{\tilde \rho}_T )^{-\gamma}}{\gamma}\right]+
(y_1+\delta) (\alpha -\beta ) (T-t).\end{aligned}$$ From inequality , using the martingale of $Z^{\prime n}$ and since $0 \leq D^{\prime n}_s\leq 1$ for all $s\in [t,T]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{acc2}
\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta) &\geq& (y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}E\left[(\frac{Z^{\prime n}_TD^{\prime n}_T}{\gamma})^{-\gamma}\right]
+ (y_1+\delta) (\alpha -\beta ) (T-t)-\epsilon^\prime_n\end{aligned}$$ from and , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[(Z^{\prime n}_TD^{\prime n}_T)^{-\gamma}\right]\leq E\left[(Z^{\tilde
\rho}_T )^{-\gamma}\right]+\gamma \epsilon^\prime_n (y_1+\delta)^\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ We know that $Z^{\tilde \rho}$ is given by the formula [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{\tilde \rho}_T=\exp(\varrho(t-T)(C^{\tilde \rho}-1))(C^{\tilde \rho})^{N_T-N_t}\end{aligned}$$ and so $ E\left[(Z^{\tilde
\rho}_T )^{-\gamma}\right]<\infty$. Since $\epsilon_n^\prime \longrightarrow 0$ when $n\longrightarrow \infty$, there exists $n_2$ such that for all $n\geq n_2$, we have $E\left[(Z^{\prime
n}_TD^{\prime n}_T)^{-\gamma}\right]\leq K^\prime$, where $K^\prime$ is a positive constant independent of $y_1$ and $\delta$. Using the boundedness of $D$, inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tilde v(t,y_1+\delta)-\tilde v(t,y_1)}{\delta}
\geq K^\prime\Big(\frac{(y_1+\delta)^{-\gamma}-y_1^{-\gamma}}{\delta}-1\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Sending $\delta \longrightarrow 0^+$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{derivedte4}
\tilde v^{\prime}_d(t,y_1) \geq -K^\prime(y_1^{-(\gamma+1)}+1).\end{aligned}$$ Using , and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Sup_{y_1>0,y_2>0} \frac{|\tilde v(t,y_1)-\tilde
v(t,y_2)|}{|y_1-y_2|\Big(1+y_1^{-(\gamma+1)}+y_2^{-(\gamma+1)}\Big)}<\infty\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[viscosite\]
------------------------------
We first prove that $\tilde v$ is a viscosity sub-solution of (\[HJB2\]) in $[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$.\
Let $(t,y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$ and $\psi\in C^1([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$ such that without loss of generality $$\begin{aligned}
0=(\tilde v^*-\psi)(t,y)=\Max_{[0,T)\times (0,\infty)}(\tilde v^*-\psi).\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $\tilde v^*$, there exists a sequence $(t_n,y_n)\in
[0,T)\times (0,\infty) $ such that\
$(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow (t,y)$ and $\tilde
v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow \tilde
v^*(t,y)$ when $n\longrightarrow \infty$.\
For $\eta >0$, ${\rho_n}_s=\tilde \rho $ a positive Borel function and ${D_{n}}_s=1$ for all $s\geq t_n$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_n:=\inf\{t\geq t_n\mbox{ such that }(t,y_nY_t^{\rho_n,D_n})\notin B_\eta(t_n,y_n)\}\wedge T,\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{\eta}(t_n, y_n)=\{(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty) \mbox{ such that }|t-t_n|+|y-y_n|\leq \eta
\}$. By the right continuity of the paths, we have $\theta_n>t_n$ a.s. For all $0<h<T-t_n$, the dynamic programming principle $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(t_n,y_n)&=&\Inf_{Y^{\rho,D}\in \Yc^0(t_n)}E\left[\tilde
v\left((t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n, y_n Y^{\rho,D}_{(t_n+h)\wedge
\theta_n}\right)\right.\\
&+&\left.\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge
\theta_n} y_n Y^{\rho,D}_s\left(\alpha-\beta+\left(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz)\right)_+\right)ds\right] \end{aligned}$$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ppdgam}
\gamma_n +\psi(t_n,y_n)&\leq& E\left[\psi \left((t_n+h)\wedge
\theta_n, y_n Y^{\rho_n, D_n}_{(t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n}\right)\right.\\
&+&\left.\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n} y_n Y^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\left(\alpha-\beta
+\left(\beta-\int_C\rho_n(z)\,z\, \pi(dz)\right)_+\right)ds\right]\nonumber, \end{aligned}$$ where the sequence $\gamma_n:= \tilde v(t_n,y_n)-\psi(t_n,y_n)$ is determinist and converges to zero when $n$ tends to infinity. Applying Itô’s formula to $\psi (t_n+h,y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_{t+h})$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& &E\left[\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n}\frac{\partial
\psi}{\partial t}\left(s, y_n Y^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\right) +
A^{\rho_{n}}\left(s, y_n Y^{\rho_n,D_n}_s,\psi, \Dy \psi\right)ds\right]\\
&+&E\left[
\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge
\theta_n} y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\left(\alpha-\beta+\left(\beta-\int_C\rho_{n}(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz)\right)_+\right) ds\right]\\
&+&E\left[\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n}\psi\left(s,\rho_{n}(z)
y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_{s^-}\right)-\psi\left(s, y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_{s^-}\right)\tilde
\mu(ds,dz)\right]\geq \frac{\gamma_n}{h}.\\ \end{aligned}$$ By the martingale’s property, the third expectation on the left hand-side of the last inequality vanishes and so we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pm}
& &E\left[\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n}\frac{\partial
\psi}{\partial t}\left(s, y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\right) +
A^{\rho_{n}}\left(s, y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_s,\psi, \Dy \psi\right)ds\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left.
\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge
\theta_n} y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_{n}(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\right) ds\right]
\geq \frac{\gamma_n}{h}. \end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $\gamma_n$, two cases are possible:\
$\star$ Case $1$: if the set $\{n\geq 0: \gamma_n=0\}$ is finite, then there exists a subsequence renamed $(\gamma_n)_{n\geq 0}$ such that $\gamma_n\neq 0$ for all $n$ and we set $h=\sqrt{\gamma_n}$.\
$\star$ Case $2$: if the set $\{n\geq 0: \gamma_n=0\}$ is not finite, then there exists a subsequence renamed $(\gamma_n)_{n\geq 0}$ such that $\gamma_n= 0$ for all $n$ and we set $h=n^{-1}$.\
In both cases $\displaystyle{\frac{\gamma_n}{h}}\longrightarrow 0$ as $n$ tends to $\infty$ . We now send $n$ to infinity. The a.s. convergence of the random value inside the expectation is obtained by the mean value Theorem. Since $\int_C\pi(dz)<\infty$ and using the definition of $\theta_n$, the random variable $$\begin{aligned}
& &\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_n}^{(t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n}\frac{\partial
\psi}{\partial t}\left(s, y_n Y^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\right) +
A^{\rho_{n}}\left(s, y_nY^{\rho_n,D_n}_s,\psi, \Dy \psi\right)\\
&+& y_n Y^{\rho_n,D_n}_s\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_{ns}(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\right) ds\end{aligned}$$ is essentially bounded, uniformly in $n$, on the stochastic interval $[t_n, (t_n+h)\wedge \theta_n]$. Sending $n$ to infinity, it follows by the dominated convergence theorem $$\begin{aligned}
\Dt \psi(t,y) + A^{\tilde \rho}(t,y,\psi, \Dy
\psi)+y\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\tilde \rho(z)\,z\, \pi(dz))_+\right)\geq 0, \end{aligned}$$ for all $\tilde \rho\in \Sigma$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pm0}
\Dt \psi(t,y) + H(t,y,\psi, \Dy \psi)\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ It remains to prove $$\begin{aligned}
-\Dy \psi(t,y) \geq 0. \end{aligned}$$ For $\delta \in(0,1)$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
L_{s}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 \mbox{ if } s=t_n^- \\
\delta \mbox{ if } s\geq t_n,
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and so the process $D$ is a constant for all $s \geq t_n$. We choose $\rho_s(z)=\tilde \rho(z)$ for all $s\geq t_n$ and $z\in C$, where $\tilde \rho\in \Sigma$. We have $y_nY^{\rho,D}\in \Yc^0(t_n)$. Sending $n$ to infinity, we have $y Y_{t^+}^{\rho,D}=y(1-\delta)$. Sending $n\longrightarrow \infty$ in , by the dominated convergence theorem we get $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t,y)\leq \psi(t,y(1-\delta)).\end{aligned}$$ Sending $\delta \longrightarrow 0^+$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sm}
-\Dy \psi(t,y) \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Combining and (\[sm\]), we conclude that $\tilde v$ is a viscosity subsolution.\
For supersolution inequality (\[superdef\]), let $\psi \in C^1([0,T]\times
(0,\infty))$, $(\bar t,\bar y)\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$ such that $(\tilde v_{*}-\psi)(\bar t, \bar
y)=\min (\tilde v_{*}-\psi)=0$, we need to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{superbar}
&&\min \left\{
\frac{\partial \psi(\bar t,\bar y)}{\partial t} + H_*\left(\bar t,\bar y,\psi, \Dy \psi\right),-
\Dy \psi(\bar t,\bar y) \right\}
\leq 0. \end{aligned}$$ Suppose the contrary. Hence the left-hand side of is positive. By smoothness of $\psi$ and since $H_*$ is lower semi-continuous, there exist $\eta$ and $\epsilon$ satisfying: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{superbargamma}
& &\min \left\{
\frac{\partial \psi(t,y)}{\partial t} + H_*\left(t, y,\psi, \Dy
\psi\right),-\Dy \psi(t,y) \right\}\geq \epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ for all $(t,y)\in B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$, where $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar
y)=\{(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty) \mbox{ such that }|t-\bar t|+|y-\bar y|\leq \eta \}$. By changing $\eta$, we may assume that $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)\subset
[0,T)\times (0,\infty)$.\
Since $(\bar t, \bar y)$ is a strict global minimizer of $\tilde v_{*} -\psi$ , there exists $\xi >0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Min_{(t,y)\in {\partial B_{\eta}}(\bar t,\bar y)}(\tilde v_{*} -\psi)(t,y)=\xi,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $\tilde v_{*}(t,y) \geq \xi+\psi(t,y)$ for all $(t,y)\in
\partial B_\eta(\bar t,\bar y)$ the parabolic boundary of $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$. From the definition of $\tilde v_{*}$, there exists a sequence $(t_n,y_n)\in
[0,T)\times (0,\infty) $ such that $(t_n,y_n) \longrightarrow (\bar t,\bar y)$ and $\tilde v(t_n,y_n)\longrightarrow \tilde v_{*}(\bar t,\bar y)$ when $n\longrightarrow \infty$. We suppose that $(t_n,y_n)\in B_{\eta}(\bar
t,\bar y) $. Let $Y^{\rho,D}\in \Yc^0(t_n)$ be given and the stopping time $\theta_n$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_n=\inf\{t\geq t_n\mbox{ such that }(t,y_nY_t^{\rho,D})\notin B_{\eta}(\bar
t,\bar y)\}\wedge T.\end{aligned}$$ Since the control $L\in \Lc_{t_n}$ is singular with possible jump at $t=t_n$, the couple $(t,y_nY_t^{\rho,D})$ might jump out of $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$ at $t_n$. If the control $D$ makes alone the latter couple jump out of $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$, we set $\theta_n^D:=\theta_n$ else $\theta_n^D:=T$. In this case, the process $Y$ decreases. We know, from the dynamic programming principle that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(t,y)\leq \tilde v(t,y(1-\delta))\,\mbox{ for all }0<\delta<1,\end{aligned}$$ and so the dual value function $\tilde v$ in non-increasing with respect to $y$. However, the point Poisson process could contributes to the jump out of $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$. In this case the dual value function $\tilde v$ is not necessarily non-increasing in the direction of the jump. The control $\rho$ could also contributes to hit the boundary of $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$. To overcome this problem, we introduce $\theta_j$ the first time after $t_n$ the state process $Y$ jumps because of the point Poisson process and we set $\theta_n^\rho:=\theta_n$ when $y_nY^{\rho,D}$ jumps out $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$ because of the control $\rho$ else $\theta_n^\rho:=T$. We set also $\theta_p:=\theta_n^\rho \wedge \theta_j$. Note that, by right continuity of the paths, we have $\theta_p>t_n$ a.s. Let $\theta$ be the stopping time defined as follows $\theta:=\theta_n^D \wedge \theta_p$.\
$\star$ On the set $\{\theta_n^D < \theta_p\}$. Let $(\theta_{n}^D,y^{'})$ be the intersection between $\partial B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$ the parabolic boundary of $B_{\eta}(\bar t,\bar y)$ and the line between $(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^{D-}})$ and $(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^D})$ . From , we deduce that $\psi$ is non-increasing along this line in $\overline {B_{\eta}(\bar
t,\bar y)}$. Since the dual value function $\tilde v$ is non-increasing with respect to $y$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^D})
\geq \tilde v(\theta_{n}^D,y^{'})
\geq \psi(\theta_{n}^D,y^{'})+\xi
\geq \psi(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^{D-}})+\xi\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality above and applying Itô’s formula to $\psi(t,y_nY_t^{\rho,D})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{itoy}
& & \tilde v(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^D}) \\
&\geq& \psi(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^{D-}})+\xi \nonumber\\
&\geq &\psi(t_n,y_n)+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_n^D}\Dt
\psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D}) + A^{\rho}(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D},\psi, \Dy
\psi)ds-\int_{t_n}^{\theta_n^D}\Dy \psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D})y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}dL_s\nonumber\\
&+& \int_{t_n}^{\theta_n^D}\int_C\psi\left(s,\rho_s(z)
y_n Y^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)-\psi\left(s,y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)\tilde
\mu(ds,dz)+\xi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $t_n\leq s<\theta_n^D$, implies: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction1}
\Dt \psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D})&+&
A^{\rho}(s, y_nY_s^{\rho,D},\psi, \Dy \psi)\nonumber\\
&+&y_nY_s^{\rho,D}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\right)\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction2}
-\Dy \psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D}) \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting and into , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction22}
& &\tilde v(\theta_{n}^D,y_nY_{\theta_{n}^D}^{\rho,D})+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_n^D}y_nY_s^{\rho,D}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\right)ds\\
&\geq& \psi(t_n,y_n)+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_n^D}\int_C\psi\left(s,\rho_s(z)
y_n Y^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)-\psi\left(s,y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)\tilde
\mu(ds,dz)
+\xi. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\star$ On the set $\{\theta_n^D \geq \theta_p\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{itoy1}
\tilde v(\theta_{p},y_nY_{\theta_{p}})
&\geq& \psi(\theta_{p},y_nY_{\theta_{p}}) \\
&\geq &\psi(t_n,y_n)+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_p}\Dt
\psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D}) + A^{\rho}(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D},\psi, \Dy
\psi)ds\nonumber \\
&-&\int_{t_n}^{\theta_p}\Dy \psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D})y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}dL_s\nonumber\\
&+& \int_{t_n}^{\theta_p}\int_C\psi\left(s,\rho_s(z)
y_n Y^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)-\psi\left(s,y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)\tilde
\mu(ds,dz).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $t_n\leq s<\theta_p$, implies: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction5}
\Dt \psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D})&+&
A^{\rho}(s, y_nY_s^{\rho,D},\psi, \Dy \psi)\nonumber\\
&+&y_nY_s^{\rho,D}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\right)\geq \epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction6}
-\Dy \psi(s,y_nY_s^{\rho,D}) \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting and into , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction23}
& &\tilde v(\theta_{p},y_nY_{\theta_{p}})+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_p}y_nY_s^{\rho,D}
\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,\pi(dz))_+\right)ds\\
&\geq& \psi(t_n,y_n)+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_p}\int_C\Big(\psi\left(s,\rho_s(z)
y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)-\psi\left(s,y_nY^{\rho,D}_{s^-}\right)\Big)\tilde
\mu(ds,dz)+\epsilon (\theta_{p}-t_n). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Putting the two cases and together, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction25}
& &E\left[\tilde
v(\theta,y_nY_{\theta}^{\rho,D})+\int_{t_n}^{\theta}y_nY_s^{\rho,D}
\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,\pi(dz))_+\right)ds\right]\\
&\geq&E\left[1_{\{\theta_n^D<\theta_p\} }\left(\tilde
v(\theta_n^D,y_nY_{\theta_n^D}^{\rho,D})+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_n^D}
y_nY_s^{\rho,D}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,\pi(dz))_+\right)ds\right)
\right]\nonumber\\
&+&E\left[1_{\{\theta_n^D\geq\theta_p\} }\left(\tilde
v(\theta_p,y_nY_{\theta_p}^{\rho,D})+\int_{t_n}^{\theta_p}y_nY_s^{\rho,D}
\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,\pi(dz))_+\right)ds\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&\geq&\psi(t_n,y_n)+\xi P(\theta_n^D<\theta_p)+\epsilon
E[1_{\{\theta_n^D\geq\theta_p\}}(\theta_p-t_n)]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that for all $\xi^{'}>0$, there exists $Y\in \Yc^0(t_n)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xip}
\xi P(\theta_n^D<\theta_p)+\epsilon
E[1_{\{\theta_n^D\geq\theta_p\}}(\theta_p-t_n)] \leq \xi^{'}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\theta_p>t_n$ a.s. and $0\leq \epsilon E[1_{\{\theta_n^D\geq\theta_p\}}(\theta_p-t_n)]
\leq \xi^{'}$, for $\xi^{'}$ sufficiently small, we deduce that $\theta_n^D<\theta_p$ a.s. Inequality implies $\xi\leq 0$ for $\xi^{'}$ sufficiently small which is false and so there exists $\zeta>0$ such that for all $Y\in
\Yc^0(t_n)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xipj}
\xi P(\theta_n^D<\theta_p)+\epsilon
E[1_{\{\theta_n^D\geq\theta_p\}}(\theta_p-t_n)] \geq \zeta.\end{aligned}$$ Inequalities and imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contradiction3}
& &\tilde v(t_n,y_n) +\delta_n\\
&\leq& E\left [
\tilde v(\theta,y_n Y_{\theta}^{\rho,D})
+\int_{t_n}^{\theta}y_nY_s^{\rho,D}\Big(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\Big)ds\right]-\zeta\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_n:=\psi(t_n,y_n)-\tilde v(t_n,y_n) $.\
Since $\delta_n=\psi(t_n,y_n)-\psi(\bar t,\bar y)+\tilde v_{*}(\bar t,\bar
y)-\tilde v(t_n,y_n)$, there exists $n_0\in \N$ such that for all $n\geq n_0
$, $\delta_n\geq -\frac{\zeta}{2}$. Inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
& &\tilde v(t_n,y_n) \nonumber\\
&\leq& \inf_{Y^{\rho,D}\in \Yc^0(t_n)}E\left[\tilde v(\theta,y_n Y_{\theta}^{\rho,D})
+\int_{t_n}^{\theta}y_nY_s^{\rho,D}\Big(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\int_C\rho_s(z)\,z\,
\pi(dz))_+\Big)ds\right]- \frac{\zeta}{2}, \end{aligned}$$ which is a contradiction with the dynamic programming principle and so we conclude that the dual value function $\tilde v$ is a viscosity super-solution.
Proof of Theorem \[comparaison\]
--------------------------------
For $\epsilon$, $\lambda$, $\delta$, $\zeta>0$, we define $\Phi :[0,T]\times (0,\infty)\times (0,\infty)\longrightarrow \R\cup \{-\infty\}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t,y_1,y_2)&:=&\tilde v_1^*(t,y_1)- \tilde
v_{2*}(t,y_2)-\frac{1}{\epsilon}(y_1-y_2)^2\\
&-& \delta \exp{(\lambda(T-t))} \left(y_1^{\gamma+1}+ y_2^{\gamma+1}\right)
- \zeta(\frac{1}{y_1^{\gamma+1}}+\frac{1}{y_2^{\gamma+1}}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tilde v_1^*$, $\tilde v_{2*}\in D_{\gamma}([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$, there exists $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
x^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty)\times (0,\infty)$ which maximizes $\Phi$. By using the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
& &2\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&\geq&
\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
+\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}), \end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majxt}
\frac{2}{\epsilon}(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}-
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^2
&\leq&
\tilde v_1^*(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})-
\tilde v_1^*(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\nonumber\\
&+& \tilde v_{2*}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})-
\tilde v_{2*}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ since $\tilde v^*_1$, $\tilde v_{2*}\in D_{\gamma}([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{difference}
\frac{2}{\epsilon}
|y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
-y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}|\leq
C(1+\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}
+\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}).\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality $\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\geq \Phi(T,1,1)$ and since $\tilde v^*_1$, $\tilde v_{2*} \in D_{\gamma}([0,T]\times (0,\infty))$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yz}
& &\delta \left((y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
+(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}\right)\\
&+&\zeta\left(\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{*\gamma+1}}
+\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{*\gamma+1}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq& C^{\delta,\zeta}\left(1+y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}+
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
+\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}
+\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{\delta,\zeta}$ is a constant depending only on $\delta$ and $\zeta$. Inequality implies either $$\begin{aligned}
\label{separation}
\delta (y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
+\zeta\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}
\leq C^{\delta,\zeta}
\left(1+y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}+\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}\right) \end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\delta (y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
+\tilde \zeta \frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}
\leq C^{\delta,\zeta}\left(1+y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
+\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Assume the first case, then there exist $M_1^{\delta,\zeta}$, $M_2^{\delta,\zeta}>0$ depending only on $ \delta$ and $\zeta$ such that $M_1^{ \delta,\zeta}
\leq y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\leq M_2^{\delta,\zeta}$. Using Inequality , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\delta
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
\leq
C^{\delta,\zeta}
(1+y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
+y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
+\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}
+\frac{1}
{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma})\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}
\leq C^{\delta,\zeta}
(1+y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
+y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
+\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}
+\frac{1}
{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma}),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $M_1^{\delta, \zeta}
\leq y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\leq M_2^{\delta,\zeta}$. Since $y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$ and $y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$ are bounded from below, inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diff}
\big|y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}-y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\big|\leq C_1\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ is a positive constant independent of $\epsilon$. Using the boundedness of $y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$ and $y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$ and , along a subsequence $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})$ converges when $\epsilon \longrightarrow 0$. Let’s denote $(t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})$ its limit.\
From the definition of $t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$, two cases are possible:\
$\star $ Case $1$: If the set $\{\epsilon
>0:\,t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}=T \}$ is not finite, then there exists a subsequence renamed $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})_{\epsilon}$ such that $t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}=T$. From inequality $$\Phi(t,y,y)\leq
\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})$$ and since $\Phi$ is upper semi-continuous, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t,y,y)&\leq&
\Limsup_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}
\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&\leq&\Phi(T,y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}),\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
& &\tilde v_1^*(t,y)- \tilde v_{2*}(t,y)
-2 \delta \exp{(\lambda(T-t))}y^{\gamma+1}-2\zeta \frac{1}{y^{\gamma+1}}\\
&\leq& \tilde v_1^*(T,y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
- \tilde v_{2*}(T,y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}).\end{aligned}$$ Using inequality $ \tilde v_1^*(T, y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
\leq \tilde v_{2*}(T,y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})$ and sending $\lambda$, $\delta$, $\zeta$ $\longrightarrow 0^+$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde u^*(t,y) \leq \tilde v_*(t,y),\,\mbox{ for all }(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$ $\star$ Case $2$: If the set $\{\epsilon >0:\,t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}=T \}$ is finite, then there exists a subsequence renamed $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})_{\epsilon}$ such that $t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}<T$. Our aim is to construct a regular function denoted $\tilde \psi_1$ (resp. $\tilde \psi_2$) satisfying inequality (resp. ). We define $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1(t,y)&:=&
\tilde v_{*2}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
+\frac{1}{\epsilon}(y-y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^2\\
&+&\delta\left( \exp{( \lambda(T-t))}y^{\gamma+1}
+\exp{(\lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}\right)\\
&+&\zeta(\frac{1}{y^{\gamma+1}}+\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
^{\gamma+1}})+\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}),\,\,(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_2(t,y)&:=&\tilde v^*_1(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
-\frac{1}{\epsilon}(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}-y)^2\\
&-&\delta\left( \exp{(\lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}+\exp{( \lambda(T-t))}y^{\gamma+1}\right)\\
&-& \zeta(\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}+\frac{1}{y^{\gamma+1}})
-\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
,\,\,(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$ From inequalities and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bornetildev}
\tilde U(y)-|K^{'}| y \leq \tilde v(t,y)\leq \tilde U(y)+|K| y.\end{aligned}$$ We define $\tilde \psi_1$ and $\tilde \psi_2$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sub-1}
\tilde \psi_1(t,y)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
2\tilde U(y)&\,\mbox{ for all }0<y\leq \underline y_1\wedge \frac{M_1^{\delta,\zeta}}{2} ,\\
\psi_1(t,y)&\,\mbox{ for all } M_1^{\delta,\zeta}\leq y\leq M_2^{\delta,\zeta}\\
M_1 y&\,\mbox{ for all }y\geq 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta},
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sub-}
\tilde \psi_2(t,y)=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\tilde U(y)}{2}&\,\mbox{ for all }0<y\leq \underline y_2\wedge \frac{M_1^{\delta,\zeta}}{2} ,\\
\psi_2(t,y)&\,\mbox{ for all } M_1^{\delta,\zeta}\leq y\leq M_2^{\delta,\zeta}\\
M_2 y+M_2^{'}&\,\mbox{ for all }y\geq 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta},
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\underline y_1= \big(\gamma|K|\big)^{-\frac{1}{\gamma+1}}$, $M_1$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{croi1}
M_1\geq \frac{ (2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta})^{-(\gamma +1)}}{\gamma}+|K|
\vee \frac {\partial \psi_1 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} )}{\partial y} ,\end{aligned}$$ $\underline y_2= \big(2\gamma|K^{'}|\big)^{-\frac{1}{\gamma+1}}$, $M_2$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{choixm2}
\frac {\partial \psi_2 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} )}{\partial y}
\leq M_2\leq \tilde v_{2*d}^{'}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta} ),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde v_{2*d}^{'}$ is the right-hand derivative of $\tilde v_{2*}$ with respect to the variable $y$ and $M_2^{'}=\tilde v_{*2}(t,2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta})- 2 M_2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}-1$. The choice of $M_2$ is possible since $\tilde v_{2*}$ is convex and nonincreasing ( see assumptions of the comparison theorem ) and so $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v_{2*d}^{'}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} )
\leq \tilde v_{2*d}^{'}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta} )\end{aligned}$$ and from the optimality of $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} )$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{croi2}
\frac {\partial \psi_2 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} )}{\partial y}\leq \tilde v_{2*d}^{'}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} ).\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $\underline y_1$ and inequalities , , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\tilde v(t,y)\leq 2\tilde U(y) &\mbox{ for all }0<y\leq \underline y_1 \\
\tilde v(t,y)\leq \tilde U(y)+|K|y\leq M_1y&\mbox{ for all }y\geq 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and so one could obtain inequality for $\tilde \psi_1$.\
From the definition of $\underline y_2$, inequalities , and using the convexity of $ \tilde v_{2*d}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\tilde v(t,y)\geq \frac{\tilde U(y)}{2} &\mbox{ for all }0<y\leq \underline y_2 \\
\tilde v(t,y)\geq M_2y+M_2^{'}&\mbox{ for all }y\geq 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and so one could obtain inequality for $\tilde \psi_2$.\
To prove the comparison theorem, we need to derive an equivalent formulation of viscosity solutions an in Soner [@son86b] Lemma 2.1. For this, we show that the control $\rho$ runs along a compact set and the lower semi-continuous envelope of $H$ is continuous in its arguments which is the object of the next lemma. We denote by $\bar \rho:=\frac{\beta}{\Min_{1\leq i\leq d}\delta_i\pi_i}$. We define $\Sigma^{'}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigmap}
\Sigma^{'}=\left\{ \rho =(\rho_i)_{1\leq i\leq d},\,\,
0\leq\rho_i\leq\frac{ 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}+1}{y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}}
\vee \frac{ 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}+1}{y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}}
\vee \bar \rho \right\}\end{aligned}$$ and the Hamiltonian $\tilde H$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildeH}
\tilde H\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right)
=\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma^{'}}\left\{A^\rho\left(t,y,\tilde v, \Dy {\tilde v}\right)+
y\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_+\right)\right\},\end{aligned}$$
We assume that $\tilde v_{2*}$ is convex and nonincreasing. Then, we have the following inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comparaison1}
& &\min \left\{
\frac{\partial \psi_1}{\partial t}
(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
+\tilde H\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
\tilde v_1^*,
\Dy {\psi_1}\right),\right.\\
& &\left.-\Dy {\psi_1}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) \right\}\geq 0,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{comparaison2}
&&\min \left\{
\frac{\partial \psi_2}{\partial
t}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
+\tilde H \left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde v_{2*}, \Dy {\psi_2}\right),\right.\\
&&\left.-\Dy {\psi_2}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) \right\}\leq 0.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
[**Proof.**]{} If there exists $0\leq i_0\leq d$ such that $\displaystyle{\rho_{i_0}\geq \bar \rho}$, then $(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_+=0$. Let $\rho\in \Sigma$ be a fixed vector. If $\rho_i \geq \frac{ 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}}{y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}}
\vee \bar \rho$, $0\leq i \leq d$ , then we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(\rho_i)&:=&\tilde \psi_1(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho_i y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})-
\tilde \psi_1 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&-&(\rho_i -1) y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\Dy {\tilde \psi_1}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&=&(M_1- \Dy {\psi_1}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))
\rho_i y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
-\psi_1 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&+&y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} \Dy {\psi_1}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}).\end{aligned}$$ From , we deduce that the function $\rho_i \longrightarrow F_1(\rho_i)$ is non-decreasing and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ham1}
& &\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma}
\left\{A^\rho\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_1, \Dy {\tilde \psi_1}\right)+
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_+\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma^{'}}
\left\{A^\rho\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_1,
\Dy {\tilde \psi_1}\right)+
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_
+\right)\right\}\nonumber\\
&:=&\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma^{'}}f_1(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho )\nonumber\\
&:=&v_1^{opt}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}).\end{aligned}$$ The criterion of the optimization problem is continuous with respect to $\rho$, $\Sigma^{'}$ is a compact and so there exists $\rho^*_1$ solution of . We consider a sequence $(t_k,y_k)_{k}\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty)$ such that $(t_k,y_k)\longrightarrow(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) $ when $n$ goes to infinity. We denote by $\rho_k$ the optimum i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conH1}
v_1^{opt}(t_k,y_k)=f_1(t_k,y_k,\rho_k ).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho_k\in \Sigma^{'} $ which is compact, then along a subsequence denoted also by $(\rho_k)_k$, we have $\rho_k\longrightarrow \bar \rho$. From the Taylor expansion formula and using the continuity of $f_1$ in her arguments, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conH2}
f_1(t_k,y_k,\rho_k )&=& f_1(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\bar \rho )+o(1)\nonumber\\
&\geq&v_1^{opt}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})+o(1)\end{aligned}$$ From and , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
v_1^{opt}(t_k,y_k)&\geq&v_1^{opt}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the converse inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
v_1^{opt}(t_k,y_k)&\leq& f_1(t_k,y_k, \rho^*_1 )\\
&=&f_1(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}, \rho^*_1 )+o(1)\\
&=&v_1^{opt}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})+o(1),\end{aligned}$$ and so $\Lim_{k\longrightarrow \infty}v_1^{opt}(t_k,y_k)=v_1^{opt}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})$. This proves that $v_1^{opt}$ is continuous in $
(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H*}
H_*\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_1, \Dy {\tilde \psi_1} \right)
=\tilde H\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_1, \Dy {\tilde \psi_1} \right).\end{aligned}$$ From equality , the function $\tilde v^*_1- \tilde \psi_1$ has a strict global minimum at $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$. Using the definition of viscosity supersolutions (see inequality ), equation and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sub1}
&&\min \Big\{
\frac{\partial \tilde \psi_1}{\partial t}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) +
\tilde H
\Big(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_1, \frac{\partial \tilde \psi_1}{\partial y} \Big),\nonumber \\
&-&\frac{\partial \tilde \psi_1}{\partial y}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) \Big\}
\geq 0, \end{aligned}$$ Let $\rho\in \Sigma$ be a fixed vector. If $\rho_i \geq \frac{ 2 M_2^{\delta,\zeta}}{y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}}
\vee \bar \rho$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &F_2(\rho_i)\\
&: =&\tilde \psi_2(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho_i y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})-
\tilde \psi_2 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
-(\rho_i -1) y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\Dy {\tilde \psi_2}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&=&(M_2- \Dy {\psi_2}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))
\rho_i y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
-\psi_2 (t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&+&y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} \Dy {\psi_2}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}).\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $\tilde \psi_2$ and inequality , we deduce that the function $\rho_i \longrightarrow F_2(\rho_i)$ is non-decreasing and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ham}
& &\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma}
\left\{A^\rho\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_2, \Dy {\tilde \psi_2}\right)+
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_+\right)\right\}\\
&=&\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma^{'}}
\left\{A^\rho\left(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
,\tilde \psi_2, \Dy {\tilde \psi_2}\right)+
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\left(\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^d\rho_i \delta_i \pi_i)_+\right)\right\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From equality ,$\tilde v_{2*}-
\tilde \psi_2$ has a strict global maximum at $(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\in [0,T)\times (0,\infty)$. Using the definition of viscosity sub-solutions (see inequality ) and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sub2}
&&\min \Big\{
\frac{\partial \tilde \psi_2}{\partial t}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
+
\tilde H
\Big(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\tilde \psi_2, \frac{\partial \tilde \psi_2}{\partial y} \Big), \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\partial \tilde \psi_2}{\partial y}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) \Big\} \geq 0. \end{aligned}$$ From inequalities and , using the fact the control $\rho$ runs along a compact set and repeating arguments of Soner [@son86b] Lemma 2.1, we easily obtain an equivalent formulation of viscosity solutions given by inequalities and .\
\
We come back to the proof of the comparison theorem. Remarking that $\min\{d,e\}-\min\{f,g\}\geq 0$ implies either $d-f\geq 0$ or $e-g\geq 0$, inequalities and imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uniqueness1}
- \delta \lambda
\exp{(\lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
\left(
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}+
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}\right)
+T_1-T_2\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uniqueness2}
& &-\delta \exp{\left( \lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\right)}
\left((y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma
+(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma}\right)\\
&+& \zeta\left(\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+2}}
+\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+2}}\right)\geq 0,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{criter}
&T_1&:=\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma^{'}}
\left\{
\Sum_{i=1}^d
\pi_i
\Big(\tilde v_1^*(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho_i
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
-\tilde v_1^*(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
\right.
\\
&-&(\rho_i-1)y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\Big(\frac{2}{\epsilon}
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
-y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})+ \delta(\gamma+1)
\exp{( \lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma\nonumber\\
&-&
\left. \zeta(\gamma+1)\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma
+2}}
\Big)
\Big)
+y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\left(
\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^{d}\rho_i\delta_i\pi_i)_+
\right)
\right\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&T_2&:=\Inf_{\rho \in \Sigma^{'}}\left\{\Sum_{i=1}^d
\pi_i
\Big(
\tilde v_{2*}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho_i
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
-\tilde v_{2*}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\right.\nonumber\\
&-&(\rho_i-1)y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\Big(
\frac{2}{\epsilon}(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
-y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})- \delta(\gamma+1)
\exp{(\lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma\nonumber\\
&+& \left. \zeta(\gamma+1)\frac{1}
{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+2}}
\Big)
\Big)
+y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\left(\alpha-\beta
+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^{d}\rho_i\delta_i\pi_i)_+\right)\right\}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $\Sigma^{'}$ is defined in . From Lemma \[conv\] $\tilde v_{2*}$ is continuous w.r.t the state variable ($\tilde v_{2*}$ is convex on $(0,\infty)$) and so the criterion of the optimization problem is continuous w.r.t $\rho$. The set $\Sigma^{'}$ is compact and since $\Lim_{y\longrightarrow 0} v_{2*}(t,y)=\infty$, there exists a solution denoted by $\rho^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$, to the optimization problem satisfying $\rho^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}_i>0$, for all $1\leq i\leq d$.\
We define $f$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
f(\rho)&:=&\Sum_{i=1}^d
\pi_i
\Big(\tilde v_{2*}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho_i
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
-\tilde v_{2*}(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
\\
&-&(\rho_i-1)y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\Big(\frac{2}{\epsilon}
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
-y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})- \delta(\gamma+1)
\exp{( \lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^\gamma\nonumber\\
&+&
\zeta(\gamma+1)\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma
+2}}
\Big)
\Big)
+y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\left(
\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^{d}\rho_i\delta_i\pi_i)_+
\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $f$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t1}
T_2=f(\rho^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})&\leq& f({\bf 1})=y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}
\big(
\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^{d}\delta_i\pi_i)_+
\big)\nonumber \\
&\leq & C^{\delta,\zeta},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf 1} $ denotes a $\R^d$-valued vector with all components equal to $1$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
\geq \Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
\rho_i^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
\rho_i^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta} y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\end{aligned}$$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$, inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uniqueness11}
&-&\delta \lambda
\left(\exp{(\lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
+\exp{(\lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}\right)\nonumber
\geq T_2-T_1\geq T^{\rho^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&T^\rho&:=\left\{
\Sum_{i=1}^d
\pi_i
\Big( (2(\rho_i-1)+1-\rho_i^2)\frac{(
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}-
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^2}{\epsilon}\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\delta
\big(
(\gamma+1)(\rho_i-1)-\rho_i^{\gamma+1}+1
\big)
\Big(
\exp{( \lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
\nonumber\\
&+&
\exp{( \lambda(T-t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}))}
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}
\Big)\nonumber\\
&+&\zeta
\left((\gamma+1)(1-\rho_i)-\frac{1}{\rho_i^{\gamma+1}}+1
\right)
\left(
\frac{1}{(y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}+
\frac{1}{(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}
\right)
\Big)\nonumber\\
&+&\left.
(y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta}-y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})
\big(
\alpha-\beta+(\beta-\Sum_{i=1}^{d}\rho_i\delta_i\pi_i)_+
\big)
\Big)
\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Sending $\epsilon \longrightarrow 0^+$ , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uniqueness111}
&-&2 \delta \lambda \exp{\left( \lambda(T-t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\right)}
(
y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}\nonumber\\
&\geq &
\Sum_{i=1}^d
\pi_i
\Big(
2 \delta
\left((\gamma+1)(\rho_i^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}-1)+
( \rho_i^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}-1
\right)
\exp{\left(\lambda(T-t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\right)}
(y^{*\delta,\lambda, \zeta})^{\gamma+1}\nonumber\\
&+&2 \zeta\left((\gamma+1)(1- \rho_i^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})-
\frac{1}{(\rho_i^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}+1\right)
\frac{1}{(y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Using the boundedness of $y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$ and $\rho^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}\in \Sigma^{'}$, along a subsequence $(y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta},\rho^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}) $ converges when $\lambda \longrightarrow \infty$. Let’s denote $(y^{*\delta,\zeta},\rho^{*\delta,\zeta} )$ its limit. Sending $\lambda \longrightarrow \infty$ in inequality , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& &\Sum_{i=1}^d
\pi_i
\Big(
2 \delta
\left((\gamma+1)(\rho_i^{*\delta,\zeta}-1)+
( \rho_i^{*\delta,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}-1
\right)
\exp{\left(\lambda(T- t^{*\delta,\zeta})\right)}
(y^{*\delta, \zeta})^{\gamma+1}\nonumber\\
&+&2 \zeta\left((\gamma+1)(1- \rho_i^{*\delta,\zeta})-
\frac{1}{( \rho_i^{*\delta,\zeta})^{\gamma+1}}+1\right)
\frac{1}{y^{*\delta,\zeta}}\Big)=-\infty\end{aligned}$$ which implies, there exists $i_0$, $1\leq i_0\leq d$ such that $\rho_{i_0}^{*\delta,\zeta}=0$. Sending $\epsilon \longrightarrow 0$ and $\lambda \longrightarrow \infty$ in inequality , we obtain $f(\rho^{*\delta,\zeta})=\infty\leq C^{\delta,\zeta}$ which is false.\
Sending $\epsilon\longrightarrow \infty$ in inequality , we have $$\begin{aligned}
-\delta \exp{\left( \lambda (T-
t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\right)}
(y^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})+
\zeta \frac{1}{(y^{*\delta, \lambda,\zeta})^{\gamma+2}}\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2terme}
\frac{\delta \exp{\left(\lambda(T-
t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\right)}}{\zeta}
\leq \frac{1}{(M_1^{\delta,\zeta})^{2(\gamma+1)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the boundedness of $t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$, along a subsequence $ t^{*\delta,\lambda,\zeta}$ converges when $\lambda \longrightarrow \infty$. From inequality , we have necessarily $t^{*\delta,\zeta}=T$.\
From inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t,y,y)\leq
\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\end{aligned}$$ and since $\Phi$ is upper semi-continuous, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t,y,y)&\leq&
\Limsup_{ \lambda \rightarrow \infty} \Limsup_{ \epsilon \rightarrow 0}
\Phi(t^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_1^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta},
y_2^{*\epsilon,\delta,\lambda,\zeta})\\
&\leq&\Phi(T,
y^{\delta,\zeta},
y^{\delta,\zeta})\\
&\leq & \tilde v^*_1(T,y^{\delta,\zeta})
-\tilde v_{2*}(T,y^{\delta,\zeta})\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Sending $\delta$, $\zeta$ $\longrightarrow 0^+$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v^*_1(t,y) \leq \tilde v_{2*}(t,y),\,\mbox{ for all }(t,y)\in [0,T]\times (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$ and so Theorem \[comparaison\] is proved.
[abc99xyz]{}
G. Barles: Solutions de viscosité des Equations de Hamilton Jacobi. Springer (1986).
P. Brémaud, Point Processes and Queues, Springer Verlag, New York (1981).
E. Briys: Insurance and consumption: the continuous-time case.J. Risk, 53, 718-723, (1986).
M. G. Crandall and P, L, Lions, On existence and uniqueness of solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations, Nonlinear Anal., 4, 353-370, (1986).
J. Cox and C.Huang: Optimal consumption and portfolio policies when asset prices follow a diffusion process , Journal of Economic Theory,49,33-83, (1989).
J. Cvitanić and I. Karatzas (1992) : Convex Duality in Convex Portfolio Optimization, Annals of Applied Probability, 2, 767-818.
C. Dellacherie and P.A. Meyer (1982) : Probabilités et Potentiel, ch. V à
VIII, Théorie des Martingales, Hermann.
El Karoui N. and M. Jeanblanc (1998) : “Optimization of Consumption
with Labor Income”, [*Finance and Stochastics*]{}, 4, 409-440.
C. Hipp and M. Plum, Optimal investment for insurers, Insurance Math. Econom., 27, PP. 215-228,(2000).
C. Hipp and H. Schmidli, Asymptoptics of ruin probabilities for controlled risk processes in the small claims case, Preprint, (2002).
Højgaard, B. and M. Taksar, Optimal proportional reinsurance policies for diffusion models with transaction costs, Insurance Math. Econom. 22,41-51, (1998).
W. H. Fleming and H. M. Soner, Controlled Markov Processes and Viscosity solutions, Springer Verlag, New York (1993).
H. Föllmer and D. Kramkov, Optional Decomposition under Constraints, Probab. Theory Related Fields, 109, PP. 1-25,(1997).
C. Gollier: Insurance and precautionary capital accumulation in a continuous -time model. J. of Risk and Insurance, 61, 78-95, (1994).
I. Karatzas, J.P. Lehoczky and S.Shreve :Optimal portfolio and consumption decisions for a small investor on a finite horizon, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 25,1557-1586, (1986).
I. Karatzas, J.P. Lehoczky, S. Shreve and G. Xu : Martingale and Duality Methods for Utility Maximization in an Incomplete Market, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 29, 702-730, (1991).
J. Mémin :Espaces de semimartingales et Changement de probabilités , Zeitscrift f$\ddot{u}$r Warscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, 52, 9-39, (1980).
M. Mnif : Numerical methods for optimal insurance demand under marked point processes shocks, Submitted, (2010).
M. Mnif and H. Pham, Stochastic optimization under constraints, Stochastic Process. Appl., 93, 149-180, (2001).
H. Pham, Minimizing Shortfall Risk and Applications to Finance and Insurance Problems, Ann. Appl. Probab, 12, 143-172, (2002).
L. C. G. Rogers and D. Williams, Diffusions, Markov Processes and Martingales, Cambridge Mathematical Library, (2006).
H. Schmidli, Optimal Proportional Reinsurance Policies in a Dynamic Setting, Scand. Actuar. J., 55-68, (2001).
H. M. Soner, Optimal control with state-space constraint II, SIAM J. Control. Optim., 24, 1110-1122, (1986).
N. Touzi, Optimal insurance demand under marked point processes shocks, Ann. Appl. Proba., 10, 283-312, (2000).
[^1]: The solution of the SDE $dZ_t=Z_{t^-}dH_t$ is given by the Doléans Dade exponential formula $Z_t=\exp{(H_t-\frac{1}{2}<H^c>_t)}{\displaystyle \prod_{0\leq s\leq t}}(1+\triangle H_s)\exp{(-\triangle H_s)}
$ where $<H^c>$ is the quadratic variation of the continuous part of $H$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The structure of the Sagittarius stream in the Southern Galactic hemisphere is analysed with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 8. Parallel to the Sagittarius tidal track, but $\sim
10^\circ$ away, there is another fainter and more metal-poor stream. We provide evidence that the two streams follow similar distance gradients but have distinct morphological properties and stellar populations. The brighter stream is broader, contains more metal-rich stars and has a richer colour-magnitude diagram with multiple turn-offs and a prominent red clump as compared to the fainter stream. Based on the structural properties and the stellar population mix, the stream configuration is similar to the Northern “bifurcation”. In the region of the South Galactic Cap, there is overlapping tidal debris from the Cetus Stream, which crosses the Sagittarius stream. Using both photometric and spectroscopic data, we show that the blue straggler population belongs mainly to Sagittarius and the blue horizontal branch stars belong mainly to the Cetus stream in this confused location in the halo.
author:
- 'Sergey E. Koposov, V. Belokurov, N.W. Evans, G. Gilmore, M. Gieles, M.J. Irwin, G.F. Lewis, M. Niederste-Ostholt, J. Pe[ñ]{}arrubia, M.C. Smith, D. Bizyaev, E. Malanushenko, V. Malanushenko, D.P. Schneider, R.F.G. Wyse'
title: The Sagittarius Streams in the Southern Galactic Hemisphere
---
\
\
Introduction
============
The Milky Way has clearly not finished assembling, as the two Magellanic Clouds are coalescing into the Galaxy. As stochastic satellite infall continues in the Galactic halo, it gives us a chance to bootstrap our cosmological theories of structure formation to the local observables. By measuring the signatures of accretion of galactic fragments – manifested in streams of stripped gas and stars – onto the Milky Way, we can study the Galaxy’s underlying matter distribution.
Of the Galactic satellites surviving to date, the Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf galaxy is one of the most massive, third after the LMC and SMC (e.g. @Ni10). It is however, not going to survive for much longer. After its discovery by @Ib94, it was quickly realized that the Sgr dwarf was losing its stars to the Galactic tides at a high rate (e.g. @Jo95 [@Ly95; @Ma96]). It was only when most of the sky was imaged by the 2MASS and the SDSS surveys that the amount of damage done to Sgr became really apparent (e.g. @Ne02 [@Ma03]). Currently, it is established that the stellar debris torn from the dwarf wraps around the Galaxy at least once, i.e. leading and trailing tails can be each seen covering over $\pi$ radians on the sky [@Ma03; @Be06]. Hundreds of stars in the Sgr tails have their radial velocities measured and some of these also have reliable chemical abundances [@Ma04; @Ch07; @Mo07; @Ya09; @Ch10]. A number of star clusters are believed to have originated in Sgr and are now left free-floating in the Milky Way halo after having been torn from the disrupting galaxy (e.g. @Law10b).
Unfortunately, the unbound stars (and star clusters) are not simply tagged according to their past Sgr membership. Instead, objects are typically classified as such based on their proximity to the Sgr orbital plane, their heliocentric distances and radial velocities. Models have had some considerable success explaining this data [e.g. @LM10a], but difficulties remain. In particular, the Virgo Over-density [@Ju08] and the “bifurcation” of the leading tail [@Be06] are both examples of substructures that lie close to the Sgr plane whose origins remain obscure. Although there were attempts to include these in the picture of Sgr disruption (e.g @Fe06 [@Ma07; @Pe10]), it now seems that little progress has been made.
Finally, another stream (the Cetus stream) on a polar orbit has recently been announced to overlap with Sgr debris in the Southern Galactic hemisphere by @Ne09. Although this has a different kinematical signature to Sgr, it coincides in space and metallicity. Untangling the debris in the South is crucial to an understanding of the Cetus stream, as well as the Sgr.
This is the first of two observational papers in which we report new insights into the formation of the Sgr stream and its neighbouring stellar halo substructures. In a companion paper, we use the multi-epoch observations of Sgr stars in Stripe 82 to measure the proper motion of the stream [cf. @Ca12]. Here, we revisit the photometric data previously available from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) [@Fu96; @Gu98; @Gu06; @Yo00] archives as well as new measurements made public as part of the new Data Release 8 (DR8)[@Ai11; @Ei11]. Crucially, this dataset now includes significant coverage of the southern Galactic hemisphere not available to @Be06.
The paper is arranged as follows. We extend the ‘Field of Streams’ plot [@Be06] to the south in Section 2. This shows immediately that the Sgr stream – in the somewhat misleading nomenclature of our earlier paper – is bifurcated. Everywhere we look, in both the south and the north, there is evidence for what appears to be two streams. In Section 3, we use starcounts and Hess diagrams [@He24] to characterise the density profiles and stellar populations of the streams. Where the streams cross Stripe 82, we can take advantage of the coadded photometry [@An11], which reaches $\sim$ 2 magnitudes deeper than the single epoch SDSS measurements. We use photometric metallicities to demonstrate that the two streams have different chemical properties. Untangling the substructure is considerably complicated by the existence of a further stream, already noticed by @Ne09 and dubbed the Cetus stream. This is studied in Section 4 using blue straggler (BS) and blue horizontal branch (BHBs) stars.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
![Full lines show the centers of the bright and faint streams as a function of longitude $\Lambda$ as determined by a double Gaussian fit to the profile of Figure \[fig:crosssects\]. The dashed lines show the 1 $\sigma$ widths of the streams, whilst the dotted lines show the extrapolation of the streams’ centroids on approach to the Sgr remnant, which is marked by the red star.[]{data-label="fig:twoGauss"}](f3)
[ccccc]{}
75& -1.3& 9.5& 4.6& 2.7\
85& -2.5& 10.3& 5.3& 4.1\
95& -1.3& 10.3& 5.8& 2.8\
105& -0.9& 10.7& 5.6& 2.9\
115& -1.4& 11.8& 5.3& 3.1
[ccccc]{}
92.5& 16.69 &0.06\
97.5& 16.72 &0.06\
102.5& 16.86 &0.04\
107.5 &17.01 &0.07\
112.5 &17.17 &0.09\
117.5 &17.31 &0.06\
122.5 &17.27 &0.05\
127.5 &17.28 &0.10
The Stellar Halo in the South
=============================
To study substructure in the Galactic stellar halo, we select old and moderately metal-poor stars with the simple color and magnitude cuts $0 < {g}-{i} < 0.7$ and $19.5 < {i} <
22$. According to model isochrones, (e.g., @Gi04), our sample is dominated by the Main Sequence turn-off (MSTO) stars with metallicity $Z \lesssim 0.02$ and absolute magnitude $3 \lesssim M_i
\lesssim 6$, occupying the range of heliocentric distances $10
\lesssim {\rm D (kpc)} \lesssim 60$.
The density of $\sim$ 13,000,000 stars that passed the above color and magnitude cuts in the SDSS DR8 dataset is shown in Figure \[fig:fos\_dr8\] in equatorial and Galactic coordinates as well as in the coordinate system approximately aligned with Sgr orbit. The arc of the Sgr tail – note the two distinct streams, or branches A and B in the notation of @Be06 – is clearly visible in the area around the North Galactic Cap (NGC), as has been seen in the previous SDSS data releases. Also visible in the north are the Orphan Stream and the Monoceros structure crossing the branches of the Sgr. DR8 reveals a large continuous portion of the Sgr tail in the Southern Galactic hemisphere. Curiously, this tail too is seemingly accompanied by another fainter stream following it at slightly higher declination. In fact this is not the first sighting of this structure. @Wa09 showed that the density slice through the Sgr stream in the southern Stripe 82 contains at least two maxima.
![Background subtracted Hess diagram of the Sgr stream in the area defined by $100^\circ<\Lambda<110^\circ$ and $-5^\circ<B<15^\circ$. The background has been obtained from the symmetric area relative to the Galactic plane (which is marked by the blue dotted lines in Figure \[fig:fos\_dr8\]). Multiple stellar evolutionary phases are clearly seen: MSTO, subgiants, red giant branch, blue stragglers and BHBs at $i \sim 18.2$. The curvy black region at bright magnitudes ($i\lesssim 19$, $g-i\gtrsim0.5$) is caused by the imperfections of the background subtraction. On top of that problematic region, the red clump is located ($i \sim 17.5$).[]{data-label="fig:hess"}](f4)
![ Measurement of distances and distance gradients along the stream using two different tracers: sub-giant branch stars and red clump stars. Left: 2D-histogram of red clump star counts as a function of longitude along the stream $\Lambda$ and $i$-band magnitude. The distance gradient is clearly visible. Right: similar 2D-histogram for sub-giant stars, selected using a combination of $g\!-\!i$ and $g\!-\!r$ colors. The exact same gradient as for the red clump is clearly visible. The red line on both panels shows the distance gradient of 0.023 magdeg$^{-1}$ (offset for clarity). []{data-label="fig:distgrad"}](f5){width="3.39in"}
It is useful to define a heliocentric coordinate system aligned with the Sgr stream. Such coordinate systems, whose equator aligns with the stream, have already proved useful in similar studies [e.g. @Ma03; @Ko10]. Using the notation of @Ma03, we introduce coordinates ($\Lambda, B$) given by their eqn (9). The equator of this spherical cooordinate system coincides with the Sgr debris midplane. The bottom panel of Figure \[fig:fos\_dr8\] shows the data in this coordinate system, with the Sgr debris now straddling the equator. This reveals that, in the new projection, rather than a “bifurcation” of the Sgr stream [the somewhat misleading term introduced in @Be06], the stellar density appears resolved into two, sometimes superposed, independent streams with seemingly different angular widths and density profiles.
We are led to the conclusion that everywhere where the Sgr tidal debris can be detected in SDSS there exists at least one additional density component following or over-lapping the Sgr stream. In what follows, we will attempt to empirically describe and untangle these structures by examining their density profiles, distances and chemical abundances.
The Sgr Stream in the South
===========================
Starcounts
----------
We begin by quantifying the difference in the centroids, widths and density profiles of the streams visible in the South Galactic Region. The left panel of Figure \[fig:crosssects\] shows the density of MSTO stars across the stream in the region ($90^\circ<\Lambda<120^\circ$). For comparison, we also show the density of M giants extracted from the 2 Micron All-Sky Survey (2MASS, see e.g., @Ma03) using the cuts from @Ma03, namely $J-K_s>0.85$, $0.22<J-H-0.561\,(J-K_s)<0.36$, $10<K_s<12$. Both profiles show clear evidence for bimodality, though it is unclear whether the two structures are distinct or overlapping. The right panel of Figure \[fig:crosssects\] shows cross-sections across the stream in different slices. As we march along the stream, at least in the region $90^\circ <\Lambda<
120^\circ$, the cross-section remains quite invariant, but the offset of the secondary stream from the main stream changes gently with longitude.
Let us assume that the one-dimensional profile of each stream is a Gaussian whose centroid and full width at half maximum may vary with longitude. This simple model of the stellar density in a tidal stream is of course not completely physical, but nevertheless should be sufficient to describe the pieces of the streams in the south. We now extract the centroids and widths by fitting two Gaussians to the starcount data. Figure \[fig:twoGauss\] shows their behavior as a function of longitude $\Lambda$ along the stream. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the tracks of the centers of two streams are not exactly parallel, but they are slightly converging. Nonetheless, it is surprising that the convergence point is not close to the Sgr remnant (marked as a red star). This gap decrease along the stream is already a broad hint that the the two structures seen in Figure \[fig:crosssects\] are separate streams following similar but slightly different orbital paths, as opposed to a single stream with substructure. In Table \[tab:locs\] we provide the data on the centroids of the streams used for Figure\[fig:crosssects\].
Although @Be06 used the term “bifurcation” to describe the Sgr stream in the north, the new data and analysis suggests that the term is misleading – rather, in both the north and the south, the stellar density appears to be resolved into two independent streams with different angular widths.
Of course, we have made the assumption that the profiles are Gaussian. There is evidence from simulations that stream profiles can be lop-sided [@LM10a]. With the current data, it is not possible to distinguish with absolute certainty between the hypotheses of two streams and a single lopsided stream. Nonetheless, in our opinion, the presence of two peaks in the M giants, the detailed shape of the MSTO density profile and the behavior of centroids argues in favour of the hypothesis of two streams.
{width=".49\textwidth"} {width=".49\textwidth"}
Color Magnitude Diagrams and Distance Gradients
-----------------------------------------------
Distances to many different parts of the Sgr stream have been measured in the past using various stellar tracers: Carbon stars (e.g. @To98), BHBs (e.g. @Ya00 [@Ne03]), sub-giant branch stars (e.g. @Be06), red-clump stars (e.g. @Co10) and RR Lyrae variables (e.g. @Pri09 [@Wa09]). However, when combined to provide as continuous a coverage of the stream as possible, the results of these methods do not always appear to be fully consistent. Distances to the stream in the south still rely on the comprehensive study of M giants extracted from the 2MASS dataset (e.g. @Ma03).
Here, we will rely on the SDSS photometric data and concentrate on the area in the Southern Galactic hemisphere where the stream is imaged contiguously. Our aim is to construct clean Hess diagrams of the two streams so as to analyse their stellar populations. Distances, or more accurately, relative distances along the stream are needed. If uncorrected for distance gradients, the features in our Hess diagrams lose sharpness. Here, we will use red clump and subgiant stars as distance indicators.
To construct the Hess diagrams, we make use of the fact that the Galaxy is, to a good approximation, symmetric about the Galactic plane. The blue dotted line in Figure \[fig:fos\_dr8\] outlines the area in the North corresponding to the main patch of Southern SDSS data mirrored in the Galactic plane. In Figure \[fig:hess\], we show the Hess diagram of the Sgr streams in the range $100^\circ < \Lambda <110^\circ$ and $-5^\circ<B<15^\circ$. We have subtracted the equivalent mirrored patch as a proxy for the background region. The existence of multiple stellar populations is immediately apparent from the richness and thickness of the features in the Hess diagram. We can identify a fattened MSTO, subgiant and red giant branches, as well as populations of BHBs and BSs. Nonetheless, our background subtraction is not perfect and is the cause of some graininess in the figure, especially at brighter magnitudes. This is particularly troublesome in the region of the red clump stars.
Some of the blurring and thickening of features is of course due to the fact that the heliocentric distance is changing along the streams. Our next step is to measure the distance gradient, which we quantify by studying two different tracer populations in Figure \[fig:hess\]. We select red clump stars by the colour cut (cf. @Co10) $$0.8 < g\!-\!i < 0.95.$$ With a little more effort, we can select subgiant stars using the a linear combination of $g\!-\!i$ and $g\!-\!r$ colors, namely $$0.45<0.628\,(g\!-\!i)+0.529\,(g\!-\!r)-0.028<0.55.$$ For both populations, we show 2D histograms of $i$ band magnitude versus longitude along the stream $\Lambda$ in Figure \[fig:distgrad\]. We see that the gradient is linear to an excellent approximation, and reassuringly the same for both populations. In this area of sky, the longitudinal gradient is $\sim$0.023 mag deg$^{-1}$. The distances measured along the brighter stream from the the red clump population are shown in the Table \[tab:sgr\_dist\] under the assumption that $M_i=0.6$ [@Bela06].
Having identified the relative distances of populations along the stream, we can correct for the gradient and obtain cleaner Hess diagrams, as shown in Figure \[fig:superHess\]. Here, the left panel refers to the brighter stream $(-5^\circ < B< 5^\circ$), while the right panel to the fainter stream $(8^\circ < B <12^\circ)$. It is noticeable that the Hess diagram of the fainter stream shows much thinner sub-giant and red-branch regions. Furthermore, it does not possess multiple turn-offs and a prominent red-clump like the brighter southern stream. To check that the latter is not an artefact caused by low number statistics in the faint stream, we modelled the ratio of red clump to MSTO stars using a decomposition of the density profile into two Gaussians (as used for Fig. \[fig:crosssects\]). With 95 % confidence, this ratio in the fainter stream is smaller than that in the brighter. This suggests the existence of a simpler and more metal-poor population in the fainter stream, and more complex and more metal-rich population in the brighter stream.
We can confirm this result by making use of the Stripe 82 data. Stripe 82 has multi-band and multi-epoch imaging, which @An11 exploited to build a catalogue that reaches $\sim$ 2 magnitudes deeper than the single epoch SDSS measurements. We compute photometric metallicities using the formula provided by @Bo10 and report the results in Figure \[fig:metallicities\] both for Stripe 82 (left panel) with $19 < r < 21.5$ and for the Sgr streams in the north between $205^\circ < \Lambda < 240^\circ$ with $19 < r < 21$. Since Stripe 82 crosses the Sgr streams at a significant angle, it is important to understand that the left part of the plot corresponds to the $\Lambda\sim 110^\circ$ region while the right corresponds to $\Lambda \sim 50^\circ$, which is much closer to the Sgr progenitor. Despite this limitation, Figure \[fig:metallicities\] shows clearly that the brighter stream has significant numbers of high metallicity stars, while the secondary stream has fewer.
![Magnitude distribution of BHB/BS-like stars as a function of the angle along the stream. The diagram shows two classes of objects coming from two structures: BS from Sgr stream with the same distance gradient as the subgiants/red clump (shown as an offset red line), and BHBs from Cetus stream with an opposite distance gradient at $g\approx 18$ and $80^\circ\lesssim\Lambda\lesssim 120^\circ$.[]{data-label="fig:bhbs"}](f8)
{width="35.00000%"} {width="30.60000%"} {width="32.10000%"}
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
The Cetus and Sgr Streams
=========================
[ccccc]{} -17.5 & 17.74 & 0.03\
-12.5 & 17.73 & 0.01\
-7.5 & 17.65 & 0.02\
-2.5 & 17.54 & 0.02\
2.5 & 17.51 & 0.02\
7.5 & 17.43 & 0.01\
12.5 & 17.35 & 0.02\
17.5 & 17.34 & 0.02\
22.5 & 17.39 & 0.04\
Whilst the picture so far is reasonably clear-cut, complications emerge when we study the bluer populations, particularly the BHB and BS stars. Of course, there is a long history of use of BHB stars for studying structure in the stellar halo. The stars are relatively abundant, and they occupy a narrow absolute magnitude range, which makes them valuable distance indicators. However, there has been a slight confusion as to the absolute magnitude of a typical BHB star in the SDSS filter system: for example @Ya00 and @Ni10 have used $M_g=0.7$, while @Ne09 advocate the use of $M_g=0.5$. It also known that the BHB absolute magnitude is also a function of color and metallicity. Fortunately, we do not need to address this issue here, as we will mostly use relative distances.
Guided by the photometric properties of the globular cluster BHBs studied by @An08, we choose to use the following simple color cuts to select candidate BHB stars in the SDSS data: $0.9<u\!-\!g<1.3,
-0.35<g\!-\!r<0.0$. At higher values of $g\!-\!r$, the contamination from main sequence stars increases sharply. Of course, this color selection also identifies out the BS stars [@Ya00]. We therefore might expect that the density distribution along the distance axis typically shows two enhancements corresponding to BHB and BS stars separated by $\sim$ 2 magnitudes. Note that the BHBs have a narrow band of intrinsic luminosities and so generate tight structures, whereas the BSs are poorer distance indicators and produce more diffuse structures [see e.g., Figure 4 of @De11].
Figure \[fig:bhbs\] shows the density of stars satisfying our colour cut as a function of apparent magnitude and longitude. There are indeed two evident structures present, but they do not correspond to two roughly parallel density peaks which might be naturally interpreted as BS and BHBs from the same structure. Rather the figure forces upon us the interpretation that there are two classes of objects arising from two distinct structures: the thick structure possesses the same longitudinal distance gradient as the subgiant and red clump stars, and this can be identified with BSs from the Sgr stream. The other, thinner structure has the opposite distance gradient, and we shall see that these are BHB stars lying in an entirely different structure, namely the Cetus stream.
The discovery of the Cetus stream was announced by @Ne09. They noticed a stream-like overdensity in low metallicity stars in SDSS DR7 that crosses the Sgr stream in the south at $b \sim -70^\circ$. The Cetus stream can be distinguished from the Sgr on the basis of its markedly lower ratio of BS to BHB stars and its different kinematics. They also suggested that some BHB stars previously attributed to the Sgr stream instead properly belong to the Cetus stream.
In the middle panel of Figure \[fig:bsstars\], we display the density distribution of stars on the sky satisfying the color cuts $-0.3<g\!-\!r<0$ and $0.9<u\!-\!g<1.35$ together with $18.5 <g <
20$. The magnitude cut ensures that these stars are primarily BSs, and they do indeed align with the Sgr stream along $B \approx 0^\circ$ (following the MSTO distribution showed on the left panel of Figure \[fig:bsstars\]). There is, however, some patchiness in the stellar distribution; this seems to be associated with granularity in the extinction. We show the extinction map of @Sc98 in the right panel of Figure \[fig:bsstars\], and there is indeed an anomalous patch of high extinction along the path of the stream at $\Lambda \approx 85^\circ,
B \approx 5^\circ$.
The spatial distribution of the Cetus stars in Figure \[fig:bhbs\] is not easy to understand as the coordinate system is aligned with the Sgr orbit. To reconstruct the orientation of Cetus, we first select the BHBs in the range $17 < g< 18.5$ and $80^\circ< \Lambda < 130^\circ$ and $-5^\circ <B< 30^\circ$. We find the direction of the stream by fitting a Gaussian to their magnitudes, allowing the center of the Gaussian to vary linearly with $\Lambda$ and $B$. The fit yields the magnitude of the BHBs as $$g = -0.0112\,(\Lambda\!-\!100)-0.0064\,B\!+\!18.08.$$ together with the width of the Gaussian as $0.1$ mag. This allows us to refine our selection of Cetus candidate members, as shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig:bhbstwo\]. The arrow shows our measured distance gradient of Cetus BHBs, which should lie roughly along the extension of the stream. Despite low number statistics, the stream is clearly visible and is at significant angle to the Sgr stream. To confirm the orientation of the stream, the middle panel shows the distance modulus of BHBs as a function of angular distance along the Cetus stream. This angular distance has been derived as longitude in the rotated coordinate system with the pole at $(\alpha_p,\delta_p)=(294^\circ,30^\circ)$ and longitude zero-point at $\alpha_0=25^\circ$. The absolute magnitudes of BHBs have been derived from g$-$r colors using Eq. 7 of @De11. A narrow structure is visible spanning at least $40^\circ$. The measurement of these distances along the structure is given in Table \[tab:cetus\_dist\]. We can further strengthen the case that most of the BHB stars belong to the Cetus stream by studying their kinematics. The right panel of Figure \[fig:bhbstwo\] shows the BS and BHB stars with well measured velocities ($\sigma_V<$ 30 kms$^{-1}$) and $-15^\circ<$ B $<30^\circ$, $80^\circ <\Lambda<120^\circ$). The velocity of Cetus stars corrected for Galactic rotation, $V_{\rm GSR}$ [^1] is between $-$100 and $-$50 kms$^{-1}$ while Sgr stars have velocities between $-$200 and $-$100 kms$^{-1}$ (cf., @Ne09). There is a clear and clean kinematical separation of the BS and BHB stars belonging to Sgr and Cetus. Given the distance gradient and radial velocity of Cetus, we see that its orbital motion is counter-rotating with respect to that of Sgr.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the Sagittarius (Sgr) stream in the southern Galactic hemisphere. In the SDSS Data Release 8, at most locations along the orbit, an additional stream component can be discerned. As evidenced from the density profiles of main sequence turn-off stars and M giants, as well as the tracks of the components on the sky (see Fig. \[fig:crosssects\]), we think that the most natural interpretation is that there are two streams. Our modelling of the cross-sections of the density suggests the existence of a thicker brighter stream and a thinner fainter stream, offset by $\sim 10^\circ$. The streams differ in integrated luminosity by a factor of 5–10. There is also strong evidence that the two streams have different metallicity distribution functions.
We used red clump and subgiant stars to measure the distance gradients along the streams. This enables us to construct composite Hess diagrams to study the stellar populations in the streams. The brighter stream shows evidence for multiple turn-offs and a prominent red clump, whereas the secondary stream does not. This suggests that the brighter stream is composed of more than one stellar population, and contains a significant number of metal-rich stars, much like the Sgr remnant itself. By contrast, the fainter stream is dominated by a metal-poor population. This conclusion is also supported by our photometric metallicities computed for the region where the Sgr streams cross the ultra-deep SDSS Stripe 82 coadded data.
Our analysis of the new data allows us to untangle a complicated mix of tidal debris around the South Galactic Cap, where the Sgr streams are crossed by the Cetus Stream at an angle of $\sim 30^\circ$. The Sgr and Cetus streams have similar distances, though their stellar populations and kinematics are different. The structures are not part of the same disruption event, as the Cetus stream is counterrotating with respect to the Sgr. On the basis of their density distribution and kinematics, we have shown that most of the BSs belong to the Sgr stream, whereas most of the BHBs belong to the Cetus Stream, in this part of the sky. The BS to BHB ratio in the two streams is strikingly different, as already pointed out by @Ne09. Good spectroscopic coverage of the area is essential to disentangle the multiple overlapping streams with different chemical properties, following different distance gradients.
The work in this paper has extended the ‘Field of Streams’ [@Be06] to the south. The new imaging data show that, just as in the north, the Sgr stream is accompanied by a fainter stream. The right-hand panel in Fig \[fig:metallicities\] shows that the population mix in the fainter stream of the “bifurcation” around the North Galactic Cap does not contain as many metal-rich stars as the brighter stream. The simplest explanation is that the southern faint stream is part of the same structure as the northern faint stream.
These results raise the question: Is it possible to produce the streams with the properties described in this paper in a disruption of one galaxy or is more than one progenitor necessary?
Recently, two possible scenarios, both in context of the Sgr dSph disruption, have shown how to form two almost parallel tidal streams from the debris of one parent galaxy. Although @Fe06 did not fully match the available data, they did suggest that branches A and B (see @Be06) could be reproduced by multiple wraps of the same stream offset on the plane of the sky by small amount of differential precession. In this picture, the fainter stream in the North Galactic Cap area corresponds to the dynamically old tidal debris in the Sgr trailing arm. However, this mechanism does not produce two distinct streams in the south and now seems to be ruled out.
Alternatively, @Pe10 point out that if the Sgr progenitor had a rotating stellar disk misaligned with respect to its orbit, then stripping naturally produces bifurcated debris tracks on the sky. However, the model seems to be ruled out as it has been difficult to find strong evidence for residual rotation in the remnant of the Sgr dwarf [@Pe11]. Moreover, in the scenario of @Pe10 the two streams are not expected to differ significantly in their stellar populations content. This prediction is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the new data on the stellar populations of the streams. In some other models although, such as @LM10a the streams that form at consecutive pericentric passages could have somewhat different metallicity distributions, as metal-rich stars could have been torn predominantly later, from deeper within the gravitational potential of the satellite.
Finally, it is tempting to suggest that the two streams with different properties have actually originated from two different progenitors. The infall of satellites in groups is not particular but general, as best illustrated by the recent arrival of the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Cosmological simulations of structure formation also find plenty of evidence for group infall (e.g. @Li08). The picture painted by the data looks more complex than this and remains a challenge to understand. Although there has been substantial progress in modelling the Sgr [see e.g., @Fe06; @Pe10; @LM10a], it remains true that there is no explanation of the nature of the two Sgr streams.
Aihara, H., Allende Prieto, C., An, D., et al. 2011, , 193, 29
An, D., Johnson, J. A., Clem, J. L., et al. 2008, , 179, 326
Annis, J., Soares-Santos, M., Strauss, M. A., et al. 2011, arXiv:1111.6619
Bellazzini, M., Newberg, H. J., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F. R., & Monaco, L. 2006, , 457, L21
Belokurov, V., Zucker, D. B., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, , 642, L137
Bond, N. A., Ivezi[ć]{}, [Ž]{}., Sesar, B., et al. 2010, , 716, 1
Bovy, J., Hogg, D. W., & Rix, H.-W. 2009, , 704, 1704
Carlin, J. L., Majewski, S. R., Casetti-Dinescu, D. I., et al. 2012, , 744, 25
Chou, M.-Y., Majewski, S. R., Cunha, K., et al. 2007, , 670, 346
Chou, M.-Y., Cunha, K., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2010, , 708, 1290
Correnti, M., Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R. A., Ferraro, F. R., & Varghese, A. 2010, , 721, 329
Co[c s]{}kuno[ǧ]{}lu, B., Ak, S., Bilir, S., et al. 2011, , 412, 1237
Deason, A.J., Belokurov V., Evans N.W., 2011, , 416, 2903
Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, , 142, 72
Fellhauer, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2006, , 651, 167
Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, , 111, 1748
Girardi, L., Grebel, E. K., Odenkirchen, M., & Chiosi, C. 2004, , 422, 205
Gunn, J. E., Carr, M., Rockosi, C., et al. 1998, , 116, 3040
Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, , 131, 2332
Hess, R., “Die Verteilungsfunktion der absol. Helligkeiten etc.”. Probleme der Astronomie. Festschrift fur Hugo v. Seeliger. Springer, Berlin. p. 265.
Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. J. 1994, , 370, 194
Johnston, K. V., Spergel, D. N., & Hernquist, L. 1995, , 451, 598
Juri[ć]{}, M., Ivezi[ć]{}, [Ž]{}., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, , 673, 864
Koposov, S., & Bartunov, O. 2006, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, 351, 735
Koposov, S. E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2010, , 712, 260
Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2010a, , 714, 229
Law, D. R., & Majewski, S. R. 2010b, , 718, 1128
Li, Y.-S., & Helmi, A. 2008, , 385, 1365
Lynden-Bell, D., & Lynden-Bell, R. M. 1995, , 275, 429
Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M. F., Weinberg, M. D., & Ostheimer, J. C. 2003, , 599, 1082
Majewski, S. R., Kunkel, W. E., Law, D. R., et al. 2004, , 128, 245
Mart[í]{}nez-Delgado, D., Pe[ñ]{}arrubia, J., Juri[ć]{}, M., Alfaro, E. J., & Ivezi[ć]{}, Z. 2007, , 660, 1264
Mateo, M., Mirabal, N., Udalski, A., et al. 1996, , 458, L13
Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2007, , 464, 201
Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al. 2002, , 569, 245
Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Grebel, E. K., et al. 2003, , 596, L191
Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., & Willett, B. A. 2009, , 700, L61
Niederste-Ostholt, M., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., & Pe[ñ]{}arrubia, J. 2010, , 712, 516
Pe[ñ]{}arrubia, J., Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., et al. 2010, , 408, L26
Pe[ñ]{}arrubia, J., Zucker, D. B., Irwin, M. J., et al. 2011, , 727, L2
Prior, S. L., Da Costa, G. S., & Keller, S. C. 2009, , 704, 1327
Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
Totten, E. J., & Irwin, M. J. 1998, , 294, 1
Watkins, L. L., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., et al. 2009, , 398, 1757
Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Kent, S., et al. 2000, , 540, 825
Yanny, B., Newberg, H. J., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2009, , 700, 1282
York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, J. E., Jr., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579
[^1]: This assumes a Galactic rotation velocity of 236 kms$^{-1}$ [@Bo09], while the Sun’s peculiar velocity is taken from @Co11
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[Does galaxy evolution proceed through the green valley via multiple pathways or as a single population? Motivated by recent results highlighting radically different evolutionary pathways between early- and late-type galaxies, we present results from a simple Bayesian approach to this problem wherein we model the star formation history (SFH) of a galaxy with two parameters, $[t, \tau]$ and compare the predicted and observed optical and near-ultraviolet colours. We use a novel method to investigate the morphological differences between the most probable SFHs for both disc-like and smooth-like populations of galaxies, by using a sample of $126,316$ galaxies $(0.01 < z < 0.25)$ with probabilistic estimates of morphology from Galaxy Zoo. We find a clear difference between the quenching timescales preferred by smooth- and disc-like galaxies, with three possible routes through the green valley dominated by smooth- (rapid timescales, attributed to major mergers), intermediate- (intermediate timescales, attributed to minor mergers and galaxy interactions) and disc-like (slow timescales, attributed to secular evolution) galaxies. We hypothesise that morphological changes occur in systems which have undergone quenching with an exponential timescale $\tau < 1.5~\rm{Gyr}$, in order for the evolution of galaxies in the green valley to match the ratio of smooth to disc galaxies observed in the red sequence. These rapid timescales are instrumental in the formation of the red sequence at earlier times; however we find that galaxies currently passing through the green valley typically do so at intermediate timescales.]{}'
author:
- |
R. J. Smethurst,$^{1}$ C. J. Lintott,$^{1}$ B. D. Simmons,$^{1}$ K. Schawinski,$^{2}$ P. J. Marshall,$^{3,1}$ S. Bamford,$^{4}$ L. Fortson,$^{5}$ S. Kaviraj,$^{6}$ K. L. Masters,$^{7}$ T. Melvin,$^{7}$ R. C. Nichol,$^{7}$ R. A. Skibba,$^{8}$ K. W. Willett$^{5}$\
$^1$ Oxford Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK\
$^2$ Institute for Astronomy, Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli Strasse 27, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland\
$^3$ Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, 452 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 95616, USA\
$^4$ School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK\
$^5$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota, 116 Church St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA\
$^6$ Centre for Astrophysics Research, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK\
$^7$ Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Dennis Sciama Building, Barnaby Road, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK\
$^8$ Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA\
\
Accepted 2015 January 22. Received 2015 January 14; in original form 2014 September 17
title: 'Galaxy Zoo: Evidence for Diverse Star Formation Histories through the Green Valley'
---
Introduction
============
Previous large scale surveys of galaxies have revealed a bimodality in the colour-magnitude diagram (CMD) with two distinct populations; one at relatively low mass, with blue optical colours and another at relatively high mass, with red optical colours [@Baldry04; @Baldry06; @Willmer06; @BLB08; @Brammer09]. These populations were dubbed the ‘blue cloud’ and ‘red sequence’ respectively [[@Chester64; @BLE92; @Driver06; @Faber07]]{}. The Galaxy Zoo project [@Lintott11], which produced morphological classifications for a million galaxies, helped to confirm that this bimodality is not entirely morphology driven [[@Strat01; @Salim07; @Sch07; @CHV08; @Bamford09; @Skibba09], detecting larger fractions of spiral galaxies in the red sequence [@Masters10] and elliptical galaxies in the blue cloud [@Sch09] than had previously been detected. ]{}
The sparsely populated colour space between these two populations, the so-called ‘green valley’, provides clues to the nature and duration of galaxies’ transitions from blue to red. This transition must occur on rapid timescales, otherwise there would be an accumulation of galaxies residing in the green valley, rather than an accumulation in the red sequence as is observed [@Arnouts07; @Martin07]. Green valley galaxies have therefore long been thought of as the ‘crossroads’ of galaxy evolution, a transition population between the two main galactic stages of the star forming blue cloud and the ‘dead’ red sequence [@Bell04; @Wyder07; @Schim07; @Martin07; @Faber07; @Mendez11; @Gonc12; @Sch2014; @Pan14].
The intermediate colours of these green valley galaxies have been interpreted as evidence for recent quenching (suppression) of star formation [@Salim07]. Star forming galaxies are observed to lie on a well defined mass-SFR relation, however quenching a galaxy causes it to depart from this relation (@Noeske07 [@Peng]; see Figure \[sfr\_mass\_sub\])
By studying the galaxies which have just left this mass-SFR relation, we can probe the quenching mechanisms by which this occurs. There have been many previous theories for the initial triggers of these quenching mechanisms, including negative feedback from AGN [[@diMatteo05; @Martin07; @Nandra07; @Sch07], mergers [@Darg10a; @Cheung12; @Barro13], supernovae winds [@MFB12], cluster interactions [@Coil08; @Mendez11; @Fang13] and secular evolution [@Masters10; @Masters11; @Mendez11].]{} By investigating the *amount* of quenching that has occurred in the blue cloud, green valley and red sequence; and by comparing the amount across these three populations, we can apply some constraints to these theories.
We have been motivated by a recent result suggesting two contrasting evolutionary pathways through the green valley by different morphological types (@Sch2014, hereafter S14), specifically that late-type galaxies quench very slowly and form a nearly static disc population in the green valley, whereas early-type galaxies quench very rapidly, transitioning through the green valley and onto the red sequence in $\sim 1$ Gyr [@Wong12]. That study used a toy model to examine quenching across the green valley. Here we implement a novel method utilising Bayesian statistics (for a comprehensive overview of Bayesian statistics see either @MacKay or @Sivia) in order to find the most likely model description of the star formation histories of galaxies in the three populations. This method also enables a direct comparison with our current understanding of galaxy evolution from stellar population synthesis (SPS, see section \[models\]) models.
[0.9]{}[r @cccc]{}
--------
[ -]{}
[ -]{}
--------
& All & Red Sequence & Green Valley & Blue Cloud\
Smooth-like ($p_s > 0.5$) &
---------
42453
(33.6%)
---------
&
---------
17424
(61.9%)
---------
&
---------
10687
(44.6%)
---------
&
---------
14342
(19.3%)
---------
\
Disc-like ($p_d > 0.5$) &
---------
83863
(80.7%)
---------
&
---------
10722
(38.1%)
---------
&
---------
13257
(55.4%)
---------
&
---------
59884
(47.4%)
---------
\
Early-type ($p_s \geq 0.8$) &
--------
10517
(8.3%)
--------
&
---------
5337
(18.9%)
---------
&
---------
2496
(10.4%)
---------
&
--------
2684
(3.6%)
--------
\
Late-type ($p_s \geq 0.8$) &
---------
51470
(40.9%)
---------
&
---------
4493
(15.9%)
---------
&
---------
6817
(28.5%)
---------
&
---------
40430
(54.4%)
---------
\
**Total** &
------------
**126316**
(100.0%)
------------
&
---------
28146
(22.3%)
---------
&
---------
23944
(18.9%)
---------
&
---------
74226
(58.7%)
---------
\
\[subs\]
Through this approach, we aim to determine the following:
1. What previous star formation history (SFH) causes a galaxy to reside in the green valley at the current epoch?
2. Is the green valley a transitional or static population?
3. If the green valley is a transitional population, how many routes through it are there?
4. Are there morphology-dependent differences between these routes through the green valley?
This paper proceeds as follows. Section \[data\] contains a description of the sample data, which is used in the Bayesian analysis of an exponentially declining star formation history model, all described in Section \[models\]. Section \[results\] contains the results produced by this analysis, with Section \[diss\] providing a detailed discussion of the results obtained. We also summarise our findings in Section \[conc\]. The zero points of all *ugriz* magnitudes are in the AB system and where necessary we adopt the WMAP Seven-Year Cosmological parameters [@WMAP] with $(\Omega_m, \Omega_{\lambda}, h) = (0.26, 0.73, 0.71)$.
Data
====
Multi-wavelength data {#multi}
---------------------
The galaxy sample is compiled from publicly available optical data from the Sloan Digitial Sky Survey (SDSS; @York00) Data Release 8 [@Aihara11]. Near-ultraviolet (NUV) photometry was obtained from the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX; @Martin05) and was matched with a search radius of $1''$ in right ascension and declination.
[Observed optical and ultraviolet fluxes are corrected for galactic extinction [@Oh11] by applying the @Cardelli89 law, giving an typical correction of $u-r \sim 0.05$. We also adopt k-corrections to $z=0.0$ and obtain absolute magnitudes from the NYU-VAGC [@Blanton05; @Pad08; @BR07], giving a typical $u-r$ correction of $\sim 0.15$ mag. The change in the $u-r$ colour due to both corrections therefore ranges from $\Delta u-r \sim 0.2$ at low redshift, increasing up to $\Delta u-r \sim 1.0$ at $z \sim 0.25$, which is consistent with the expected k-corrections shown in Figure 15 of @BR07. These corrections were calculated by @Bamford09 for the entire Galaxy Zoo sample. These corrections are a crucial aspect of this work since a $\Delta u-r \sim 1.0$ can cause a galaxy to cross the definition between blue cloud, green valley and red sequence.]{}
We obtained star formation rates and stellar masses from the MPA-JHU catalog (@Kauff03 [@Brinch04]; average values, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AVG</span>, corrected for aperture and extinction), which are in turn calculated from the SDSS spectra and photometry.
We further select a sub-sample with detailed morphological classifications, as described below, [to give a volume limited sample in the redshift range $0.01 < z < 0.25$]{}.
Galaxy Zoo 2 Morphological classifications {#class}
------------------------------------------
In this investigation we use visual classifications of galaxy morphologies from the Galaxy Zoo 2[^1] citizen science project [@GZ2], which obtains multiple independent classifications for each galaxy image; the full question tree for each image is shown in Figure 1 of @GZ2.
The Galaxy Zoo 2 (GZ2) project consists of $304, 022$ images from the SDSS DR8 (a subset of those classified in Galaxy Zoo 1; GZ1) all classified by *at least* 17 independent users, with the mean number of classifications standing at $\sim42$. The GZ2 sample is more robust than the GZ1 sample and provides more detailed morphological classifications, including features such as bars, the number of spiral arms and the ellipticity of smooth galaxies. It is for these reasons we use the GZ2 sample, as opposed to the GZ1, allowing for further investigation of specific galaxy classes in the future (see Section \[future\]). The only selection that was made on the sample was to remove objects considered to be stars, artefacts or merging pairs by the users (i.e. with $p_{star/artefact} ~\geq~ 0.8$ or $p_{merger} ~\geq 0.420$; see @GZ2 Table 3 and discussion for details of this fractional limit). Further to this, we required NUV photometry from the GALEX survey, within which $\sim42\%$ of the GZ2 sample were observed, giving a total sample size of $126, 316$ galaxies. [The completeness of this subsample of GZ2 matched to GALEX is shown in Figure \[complete\] with the $u$-band absolute magnitude against redshift for this sample compared with the SDSS data set. Typical Milky Way $L_*$ galaxies with $M_u \sim -20.5$ are still included in the GZ2 subsample out to the highest redshift of $z \sim 0.25$; however dwarf and lower mass galaxies are only detected at the lowest redshifts.]{}
The first task of GZ2 asks users to choose whether a galaxy is mostly smooth, is featured and/or has a disc or is a star/artefact. Unlike other tasks further down in the decision tree, every user who classifies a galaxy image will complete this task (others, such as whether the galaxy has a bar, is dependent on a user having first classified it as a featured galaxy). Therefore we have the most statistically robust classifications at this level.
The classifications from users produces a vote fraction for each galaxy (the debiased fractions calculated by @GZ2 were used in this investigation); for example if 80 of 100 people thought a galaxy was disc shaped, whereas 20 out of 100 people thought the same galaxy was smooth in shape (i.e. elliptical), that galaxy would have vote fractions $p_{s} = 0.2$ and $p_{d} = 0.8$. In this example this galaxy would be included in the *‘clean’* disc sample ($p_d \geq 0.8$) according to [@GZ2] and would be considered a late-type galaxy. [All previous Galaxy Zoo projects have incorporated extensive analysis of volunteer classifications to measure classification accuracy and bias, and compute user weightings (for a detailed description of debiasing and consistency-based user weightings, see either Section 3 of @Lintott09 or Section 3 of @GZ2). ]{}
[The classifications are highly accurate and provide a continuous scale of morphological features, as shown in Figure \[mosaic\], rather than a simple binary classification separating elliptical and disc galaxies. These classifications allow each galaxy to be considered as a probabilistic object with both bulge and disc components.]{} For the first time, we incorporate this advantage of the GZ classifications into a large statistical analysis of how elliptical and disc galaxies differ in their SFHs.
Defining the Green Valley {#defGV}
-------------------------
To define which of the sample of $126, 316$ galaxies were in the green valley, [we looked to previous definitions in the literature defining the separation between the red sequence and blue cloud to ensure comparisons can be made with other works. @Baldry04 used a large sample of local galaxies from the SDSS to trace this bimodality by fitting double Gaussians to the colour magnitude diagram without cuts in morphology.]{} Their relation is defined in their Equation 11 as: $$\label{eqgv}
C'_{ur}(M_{r}) = 2.06 - 0.244 \tanh \left( \frac{M_r + 20.07}{1.09}\right)$$ and is shown in Figure \[CMGV\] by the dashed line in comparison to both the GZ2 subsample (left) and the SDSS data from [@Baldry04]. [This ensures that the definition of the green valley used is derived from a complete sample, rather than from our sample that is dominated by blue galaxies due to the necessity for NUV photometry.]{} Any galaxy within $\pm 1\sigma$ of this relationship, shown by the solid lines in Figure \[CMGV\], is therefore considered a green valley galaxy. The decomposition of the sample into red sequence, green valley and blue cloud galaxies is shown in Table \[subs\] along with further subsections by galaxy type. This table also lists the definitions we adopt henceforth for early-type ($p_s~ \geq~0.8$), late-type ($p_d~ \geq~0.8$), smooth-like ($p_s~ >~0.5$) and disc-like ($p_d~ >~0.5$) galaxies.
Models
======
In the following section, the quenched SFH models are described in Section \[qmod\] and the probabilistic fitting method to the data is described in Section \[stats\].
Quenching Models {#qmod}
----------------
The quenched star formation history (SFH) of a galaxy can be simply modelled as an exponentially declining star formation rate (SFR) across cosmic time ($0 \leq t ~\rm{[Gyr]} \leq 13.8$) as: $$\label{sfh}
SFR =
\begin{cases}
i_{sfr}(t_q) & \text{if } t < t_q \\
i_{sfr}(t_q) \times exp{\left( \frac{-(t-t_{q})}{\tau}\right)} & \text{if } t > t_q
\end{cases}$$ where $t_{q}$ is the onset time of quenching, $\tau$ is the timescale over which the quenching occurs and $i_{sfr}$ is an initial constant star formation rate dependent on $t_q$. A smaller $\tau$ value corresponds to a rapid quench, whereas a larger $\tau$ value corresponds to a slower quench.
We assume that all galaxies formed at a time $t=0~\rm{Gyr}$ with an initial burst of star formation. The mass of this initial burst is controlled by the value of the $i_{sfr}$ which is set as the average specific SFR (sSFR) at the time of quenching $t_q$. [@Peng defined a relation (their equation 1) between the average sSFR and redshift (cosmic time, $t$) by fitting to measurements of the mean sSFR of blue star forming galaxies from SDSS, zCOSMOS and literature values at increasing redshifts [@Elbaz07; @Daddi07]:]{} $$sSFR(m,t) = 2.5 \left( \frac{m}{10^{10} M_{\odot}} \right)^{-0.1} \left(\frac{t}{3.5 {\refchange ~\rm{Gyr}}}\right)^{-2.2} \rm{Gyr}^{-1}.$$ Beyond $z \sim 2$ the characteristic SFR flattens and is roughly constant back to $z\sim6$. The cause for this change is not well understood but can be seen across similar observational data [@Peng; @Gonzalez; @Beth]. Motivated by these observations, the relation defined in @Peng is taken up to a cosmic time of $t=3~\rm{Gyr}~(z \sim 2.3)$ and prior to this a constant average SFR is assumed (see Figure \[sfr\_mass\_col\]). At the point of quenching, $t_{q}$, the models are defined to have a SFR which lies on this relationship for the sSFR, for a galaxy with mass, $m = 10^{10.27} M_{\odot}$ (the mean mass of the GZ2 sample; see Section \[results\] and Figure \[sfr\_mass\_col\]).
Under these assumptions the average SFR of our models will result in a lower value than the relation defined in @Peng at all cosmic times; each galaxy only resides on the ‘main sequence’ at the point of quenching. However galaxies cannot remain on the ‘main sequence’ from early to late times throughout their entire lifetimes given the unphysical stellar masses and SFRs this would result in at the current epoch in the local Universe [@Beth; @Heinis14]. If we were to include prescriptions for no quenching, starbursts, mergers, AGN etc. into our models we would improve on our reproduction of the average SFR across cosmic time; however we chose to initially focus on the simplest model possible.
Once this evolutionary SFR is obtained, it is convolved with the @BC03 population synthesis models to generate a model SED at each time step. The observed features of galaxy spectra can be modelled using simple stellar population techniques which sum the contributions of individual, coeval, equal-metallicity stars. The accuracy of these predictions depends on the completeness of the input stellar physics. Comprehensive knowledge is therefore required of (i) stellar evolutionary tracks and (ii) the initial mass function (IMF) to synthesise a stellar population accurately.
These stellar population synthesis (SPS) models are an extremely well explored (and often debated) area of astrophysics [@Maraston05; @Eminian08; @CGW09; @Falk09; @Chen10; @Kriek10; @MRC11; @Mel12]. In this investigation we chose to utilise the @BC03 *GALEXEV* SPS models, to allow a direct comparison with S14, along with a Chabrier [@Chab03] IMF, across a large wavelength range ($0.0091 < ~\lambda~\rm{[\mu m]}~ < 160 $) with solar metallically (m62 in the @BC03 models; hereafter BC03).
Fluxes from stars younger than $3~$Myr in the SPS model are suppressed to mimic the large optical depth of protostars embedded in dusty formation cloud (as in S14), then filter transmission curves are applied to the fluxes to obtain AB magnitudes and therefore colours. [For a particular galaxy at an observed redshift, $z$, we define the observed time, $t^{obs}$ for that galaxy using the standard cosmological conversion between redshift and time. We utilise the SFH models at this observed time for each individual galaxy to compare the predicted model and observed colours directly.]{}
Figure \[pred\] shows these predicted optical and NUV colours at a time of $t^{obs} = 12.8 ~\rm{Gyr}$ (the average observed time of the Galaxy Zoo 2 sample, $z \sim 0.076$) provided by the exponential SFH model. These predicted colours will be referred to as $d_{c,p}(t_{q}, \tau, t^{obs})$, where c={opt,NUV} and p = predicted. The SFR at a time of $t^{obs}=12.8~\rm{Gyr}$ is also shown in Figure \[pred\] to compare how this correlates with the predicted colours. The $u-r$ predicted colour shows an immediate correlation with the SFR, however the $NUV-u$ colour is more sensitive to the value of $\tau$ and so is ideal for tracing any recent star formation in a population . At small $\tau$ (rapid quenching timescales) the $NUV-u$ colour is insensitive to $t_{q}$, whereas at large $\tau$ (slow quenching timescales) the colour is very sensitive to $t_{q}$. Together the two colours are ideal for tracing the effects of $t_{q}$ and $\tau$ in a population.
[We stress here that this model is not a fully hydrodynamical simulation, it is a simple model built in order to test the understanding of the evolution of galaxy populations. These models are therefore not expected to accurately determine the SFH of every galaxy in the GZ2 sample, in particular galaxies which have not undergone any quenching. In this case the models described above can only attribute a constant star formation rate to these unquenched galaxies. In reality, there are many possible forms of SFH that a galaxy can take, a few of which have been investigated in previous literature; starbursts [@Canalizo01], a power law [@Glazebrook03], single stellar populations [@Trager00; @Sanchez06; @Vazdekis10] and metallicity enrichment [@deLucia14]. Incorporating these different SFHs along with prescriptions for mergers and a reinvigoration of star formation post quench into our models is a possible future extension to this work once the results of this initial study are well enough understood to permit additional complexity to be added.]{}
Probabilistic Fitting {#stats}
---------------------
In order to achieve robust conclusions we conduct a Bayesian analysis [@Sivia; @MacKay] of our SFH models in comparison to the observed GZ2 sample data. This approach requires consideration of all possible combinations of $\theta \equiv (t_{q}, \tau)$. Assuming that all galaxies formed at $t=0~\rm{Gyr}$ with an initial burst of star formation, we can assume that the ‘age’ of each galaxy in the GZ2 sample is equivalent to an observed time, $t^{obs}_{k}$ (see Section \[class\]). We then use this ‘age’ to calculate the predicted model colours at this cosmic time for a given combination of $\theta$: $d_{c,p}(\theta_k, t^{obs}_{k})$ for both optical and NUV $(c={opt,NUV})$ colours. We can now directly compare our model colours with the observed GZ2 galaxy colours, so that for a single galaxy $k$ with optical ($u-r$) colour, $d_{opt, k}$ and NUV ($NUV-u$) colour, $d_{NUV,k}$, the [likelihood $P(d_{k}|\theta_k, t^{obs}_{k})$ is]{}:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{like}
P(d_{k}|\theta_k, t^{obs}_{k}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_{opt, k}^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_{NUV, k}^2}} \\ \exp{\left[ - \frac{(d_{opt, k} - d_{opt, p}(\theta_k, t_{k}^{obs}))^2}{\sigma_{opt, k}^2} \right]} \\ \exp{\left[ - \frac{(d_{NUV, k} - d_{NUV, p}(\theta_k, t_{k}^{obs}))^2}{\sigma_{NUV, k}^2} \right]}.\end{gathered}$$
We have assumed that $P(d_{opt}|\theta_k, t^{obs}_{k})$ and $P(d_{NUV}|\theta_k, t^{obs}_{k})$ are independent of each other and that the errors on the observed colours are also independent. To obtain the probability of each combination of $\theta$ values the GZ2 data: $P(\theta_k|d_k, t^{obs})$, i.e. how likely is a single SFH model given the observed colours of a single GZ2 galaxy, [we utilise Bayes’ theorem]{}: [$$\label{big}
P(\theta_k|d_k, t^{obs}) = \frac{P(d_k|\theta_k, t^{obs})P(\theta_k)}{\int P(d_k |\theta_k, t^{obs})P(\theta_k) d\theta_k}.$$]{} [We assume a flat prior on the model parameters so that: $$\label{prior}
P(\theta_k) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } 0 \leq t_q ~\rm{[Gyr]}~ \leq 13.8 ~ \text{ and } ~ 0 \leq \tau ~\rm{[Gyr]}~ \leq 4\\
0 & \text{otherwise.} \\
\end{cases}$$]{}
As the denominator of Equation \[big\] is a normalisation factor, comparison between likelihoods for two different SFH models (i.e., two different combinations of $\theta_k = [t_q, \tau]$) is equivalent to a comparison of the numerators. Calculation of $P(\theta_k|d_k, t^{obs})$ for any $\theta$ is possible given galaxy data from the GZ2 sample. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC; @MacKay [@Dan; @GW10]) provides a robust comparison of the likelihoods between $\theta$ values; here we choose *emcee*,[^2] a Python implementation of an affine invariant ensemble sampler by [@Dan].
This method allows for a more efficient exploration of the parameter space by avoiding those areas with low likelihood. A large number of ‘walkers’ are started at an initial position where the likelihood is calculated; from there they individually ‘jump’ to a new area of parameter space. If the likelihood in this new area is greater (less) than the original position then the ‘walkers’ accept (reject) this change in position. Any new position then influences the direction of the ‘jumps’ of other walkers. [This is repeated for the defined number of steps after an initial ‘burn-in’ phase. *emcee* returns the positions of these ‘walkers’, which are analogous to the regions of high probability in the model parameter space.]{} The model outlined above has been coded using the *Python* programming language into a package named which has been made freely available to download[^3]. [An example output from this Python package for a single galaxy from the GZ2 sample in the red sequence is shown in Figure \[one\_example\]. The contours show the positions of the ‘walkers’ in the Markov Chain which are analogous to the areas of high probability.]{}
We wish to consider the model parameters for the populations of galaxies across the colour magnitude diagram for both smooth and disc galaxies, therefore we run the package on each galaxy in the GZ2 sample. This was extremely time consuming; for each combination of $\theta$ values which *emcee* proposes, a new SFH must be built, prior to convolving it with the BC03 SPS models at the observed age and then predicted colours calculated from the resultant SED. For a single galaxy this takes up to 2 hours on a typical desktop machine for long Markov Chains. A look-up table was therefore generated at $50 ~t^{obs}$, for $100 ~t_{quench}$ and $100 ~\tau$ values; this was then interpolated over for a given observed galaxy’s age and proposed $\theta$ values at each step in the Markov Chain. This ensures that a single galaxy takes approximately 2 minutes to run on a typical desktop machine. This interpolation was found to incorporate an error of $\pm 0.04$ into the median $\theta$ values found [(the 50th percentile position of the walkers]{}; see Appendix section \[app\_lookup\] for further information).
Using this lookup table, each of the $126,316$ total galaxies in the GZ2 sample was run through on multiple cores of a computer cluster to obtain the Markov Chain positions (analogous to $P(\theta_k|d_k)$) for each galaxy, $k$ (see Figure \[one\_example\]). In each case the Markov Chain consisted of $100$ ‘walkers’ which took $400$ steps in the ‘burn-in’ phase and $400$ steps thereafter, at which point the MCMC acceptance fraction was checked to be within the range $0.25 < f_{acc} < 0.5$ (which was true in all cases). [Due to the Bayesian nature of this method, a statistical test on the results is not possible; the output is probabilistic in nature across the entirety of the parameter space.]{}
[These individual galaxy positions are then combined to visualise the areas of high probability in the model parameter space across a given population (e.g. the green valley).]{} We do this by first discarding positions with a corresponding probability of $P(\theta_k|d_k) < 0.2$ in order to exclude galaxies which are not well fit by the quenching model; for example blue cloud galaxies which are still star forming will be poorly fit by a quenching model (see Section \[qmod\]). [Using this constraint, $2.4\%$, $7.0\%$ and $5.4\%$ of green, red and blue galaxies respectively had *all* of their walker positions discarded. These are not significant enough fractions to affect the results (see Appendix section \[discard\] for more information.)]{} The Markov Chain positions are then binned and weighted by their [corresponding logarithmic posterior probability $\log [P(\theta_k|d_k)]$, provided by the *emcee* package, to further emphasise the features and differences between each population in the visualisation]{}. The GZ2 data also provides uniquely powerful continuous measurements of a galaxy’s morphology, therefore we utilise the user vote fractions to obtain separate model parameter distributions for both smooth and disc galaxies. This is obtained by also weighting by the morphology vote fraction when the binned positions are summed. [We stress that this portion of the methodology is a non-Bayesian visualisation of the combined individual galaxy results for each population.]{}
For example, the galaxy shown in Figure \[one\_example\] would contribute almost evenly to both the smooth and disc parameters due to the GZ2 vote fractions. Since galaxies with similar vote fractions contain both a bulge and disc component, this method is effective in incorporating intermediate galaxies which are thought to be crucial to the morphological changes between early- and late-type galaxies. It was the consideration of these intermediate galaxies which was excluded from the investigation by S14.
Results
=======
Initial Results
---------------
{width="49.75000%"} {width="49.75000%"}
Figure \[sfr\_mass\_sub\] shows the SFR versus the stellar mass for the observed GZ2 sample which has been split into blue cloud, green valley and red sequence populations as well as into the ‘clean’ disc and smooth galaxy samples (with GZ2 vote fractions of $p_d \geq 0.8$ and $p_s \geq 0.8$ respectively). The green valley galaxies are indeed a population which have either left, or begun to leave, the star forming sequence or have some residual star formation still occurring.
The left panel in Figure \[sfr\_mass\_col\] shows a handful of quenching models and how they reproduce the observed relationship between the SFR and the mass of a galaxy, including how at the time of quenching they reside on the star forming sequence shown by the solid black line for a galaxy of mass, $M = 10^{10.27} M_{\odot}$.
The right panel shows how these SFRs translate into the optical-NUV colour-colour plane to reproduce observed colours of green valley and red sequence galaxies. Some of the SFHs produce colours redder than the apparent peak of the red sequence in the GZ2 subsample; however this is not the *true* peak of the red sequence due to the necessity for NUV colours from GALEX (see Section \[class\]).
The majority of the red galaxies in the sample therefore lie towards the *blue end* of the red sequence and have a small amount of residual star formation in order to be detected in the NUV [resulting in a specific subset of the red sequence studied in this investigation. Only $47\%$ of the red sequence galaxies present in the entire Galaxy Zoo 2 sample are matched with GALEX to produce our final sample of $126, 316$ galaxies, as opposed to $72\%$ of the blue cloud and $53\%$ of the green valley galaxies.]{} This limitation should be taken into account when considering the results in the following sections.
[The SFH models were implemented with the package to produce Figures \[red\_s\], \[green\_v\] & \[blue\_c\] for the red sequence, green valley and blue cloud populations of smooth and disc galaxies respectively.]{}
The percentages shown in Figures \[red\_s\], \[green\_v\] & \[blue\_c\] are calculated as the fractions of the combined posterior probability distribution located in each region of parameter space for a given population.
Since the sample contains such a large number of galaxies, we interpret these fractions as broadly equivalent to the percentage of galaxies in a given population undergoing quenching within the stated timescale range. Although this is not quantitatively exact, it is nevertheless a useful framework for interpreting the results of combining the individual posterior probability distributions of each galaxy.
[Also shown in Figure 11 are the median walker positions (the 50th percentile of the Bayesian probability distribution) of each individual galaxy, split into red, green and blue populations also with a hard cut in the vote fraction of $p_d > 0.5$ and $p_s > 0.5$ to show the disc and smooth populations respectively. These positions were calculated without discarding any walker positions due to low probability and without weighting by vote fractions; therefore this may be more intuitive to understand than Figures \[red\_s\], \[green\_v\] & \[blue\_c\].]{}
[Although the quenching timescales are continuous in nature, in this Section we refer to rapid, intermediate and slow quenching timescales which correspond to ranges of [$\tau ~\rm{[Gyr]} < 1.0$, $1.0 < \tau ~\rm{[Gyr]} < 2.0$ and $\tau ~\rm{[Gyr]} > 2.0$]{} respectively for ease of discussion.]{}
The Red Sample {#rs}
--------------
The left panel of Figure \[red\_s\] reveals that [smooth galaxies with red optical colours]{} [show a preference $(49.5\%$; see Figure \[red\_s\])]{} for rapid quenching timescales across all cosmic time resulting in a very low current SFR. [For these smooth red galaxies we see, at early times only, a preference for slow and intermediate timescales in the left panel of Figure \[red\_s\]. Perhaps this is the influence of intermediate galaxies (with $p_s \sim p_d \sim 0.5$), hence why similar high probability areas exist for both the smooth-like and disc-like galaxies in the left and right panels of Figure \[red\_s\]]{}. This is especially apparent considering there are far more of these intermediate galaxies than those that are definitively early- or late-types (see Table \[subs\]). These galaxies are those whose morphology cannot be easily distinguished either because they are at a large distance or because they are an S0 galaxy whose morphology can be interpreted by different users in different ways. @GZ2 find that S0 galaxies expertly classified by @NA10 are more commonly classified as ellipticals by GZ2 users, but have a significant tail to high disc vote fractions, giving a possible explanation as to the origin of this area of probability.
[The right panel of Figure \[red\_s\] reveals that red disc galaxies show similar preferences for rapid $(31.3\%)$ and slow $(44.1\%)$ quenching timescales. The preference for *very* slow ($\tau > 3.0 ~\rm{Gyr}$) quenching timescales (which are not seen in either the green valley or blue cloud, see Figures \[green\_v\] and \[blue\_c\])]{} suggests that these galaxies have only just reached the red sequence after a very slow evolution across the colour-magnitude diagram. Considering their limited number and our requirement for NUV emission, it is likely that these galaxies are currently on the edge of the red sequence having recently (and finally) moved out of the green valley. Table \[subs\] shows that $3.9\%$ of our sample are red sequence clean disc galaxies, i.e. red late-type spirals. This is, within uncertainties, in agreement with the findings of @Masters10, who find $\sim6\%$ of late-type spirals are red when defined by a cut in the $g-r$ optical colour (rather than with $u-r$ as implemented in this investigation) and are at the ‘blue end of the red sequence’.
[Despite the dominance of slow quenching timescales, the red disc galaxies also show some preference for rapid quenching timescales ($31.3\%$), similar to the red smooth galaxies but with a lower probability. Perhaps these rapid quenching timescales can also be attributed to a morphological change, suggesting that the quenching has occurred more rapidly than the morphological change to a bulge dominated system.]{}
Comparing the resultant SFRs for both the smooth- and disc-like galaxies in Figure \[red\_s\] by noticing [where the areas of high probability lie with respect to the bottom panel of Figure \[pred\] (which shows the predicted SFR at an observation time of $t\sim12.8~\rm{Gyr}$, the average ‘observed’ time of the GZ2 population)]{} reveals that red disc galaxies with a preference for slow quenching still have some residual star formation occurring, SFR$~\sim0.105 M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$, whereas the smooth galaxies with a dominant preference for rapid quenching have a resultant SFR$~\sim0.0075 M_{\odot}yr^{-1}$. This is approximately 14 times less than the residual SFR still occurring in the red sequence disc galaxies. Within error, this is in agreement with the findings of @Toj13 who, by using the VErsatile SPectral Analyses spectral fitting code [(VESPA; @Tojero07)]{}, found that red late-type spirals show 17 times more recent star formation than red elliptical galaxies.
These results for the red galaxies investigated here with NUV emission, have many implications for green valley galaxies, as all of these systems must have passed through the green valley on their way to the red sequence.
Green Valley Galaxies {#gv}
---------------------
{width="49.75000%"} {width="49.75000%"}
In Figure \[green\_v\] we can make similar comparisons for the green valley galaxies to those discussed previously for the subset of red galaxies studied. [For the red galaxies, an argument can be made for two possible tracks across the green valley, shown by the bimodal nature of both distributions in $\tau$ with a common area in the intermediate timescales region where the rapid and slow timescales peaked distributions intersect. However in the green valley this intermediate quenching timescale region becomes more significant [(in agreement with the conclusions of @Gonc12)]{}, particularly for the smooth-like galaxies (see the left panel of Figure \[green\_v\]). ]{}
The smooth galaxy parameters favour these intermediate quenching timescales ($40.6\%$) with some preference for slow quenching at early times ($z > 1$). The preference for rapid quenching of smooth galaxies has dropped by over a half compared to the red galaxies, [however this will be influenced by the observability of galaxies undergoing such a rapid quench which will spend significantly less time in the transitional population of the green valley]{}. [Those galaxies with such a rapid decline in star formation will pass so quickly through the green valley they will be detected at a lower number than those galaxies which have stalled in the green valley with intermediate quenching timescales;]{} accounting for the observed number of intermediate galaxies which are present in the green valley [and the dominance of rapid timescales detected for red galaxies for both morphologies.]{}
[The disc galaxies of the green valley now overwhelmingly prefer slow quenching timescales ($47.4\%$) with a similar amount of intermediate quenching compared to the smooth galaxy parameters ($37.6\%$; see Figure \[green\_v\]).]{} There is still some preference for galaxies with a star formation history which results in a high current SFR, suggesting there are also some late-type galaxies that have just progressed from the blue cloud into the green valley.
[If we compare Figure \[green\_v\] to Figure \[red\_s\] [we can see quenching has occurred at later (more recent) cosmic times]{} in the green valley [at least for red galaxies]{} for both morphological types.]{} Therefore both morphologies are tracing the evolution of the red sequence, confirming that the green valley is indeed a transitional population between blue cloud and red sequence regardless of morphology. Currently as we observe the green valley, its main constituents are very slowly evolving disc-like galaxies along with intermediate- and smooth-like galaxies which pass across it with intermediate timescales within $\sim 1.0-1.5~\rm{Gyr}$.
Given enough time ($t\sim4 - 5~\rm{Gyr}$), the disc galaxies will eventually fully pass through the green valley and make it out to the red sequence (the right panel of Figure \[sfr\_mass\_col\] shows galaxies with $\tau > 1.0~\rm{Gyr}$ do not approach the red sequence within $3~\rm{Gyr}$ post quench). This is most likely the origin of the ‘red spirals’.
{width="49.75000%"} {width="49.75000%"}
[If we consider [then that the green valley is a transitional population]{}, then we can expect that the ratio of smooth:disc galaxies that is currently observed in the green valley will evolve into the ratio observed for [the red galaxies with NUV emission investigated]{}. Table \[subs\] shows the ratio of smooth : disc galaxies in the observed red sequence of the GZ2 sample is $62:38$ whereas in the green valley it is $45:55$. [Making the very simple assumptions that this ratio does not change with redshift and that quenching is the only mechanism which causes a morphological transformation, we can infer that $31.2\%$ of the disc-dominated galaxies currently residing in the green valley would have to undergo a morphological change to a bulge-dominated galaxy.]{} We find that the fraction of the probability for green valley disc galaxies occupying the parameter space $\tau < 1.5 ~\rm{Gyr}$ is $29.4\%$, and therefore suggest that quenching mechanisms with these timescales are capable of destroying the disc-dominated nature of galaxies. [This is most likely an overestimate of the mechanisms with timescales that can cause a morphological change because of the observability of those galaxies which undergo such a rapid quench; @Martin07 showed that after considering the time spent in the green valley, the fraction of galaxies undergoing a rapid quench quadruples.]{}]{}
All of this evidence suggests that there are not just two routes for galaxies through the green valley [as concluded by S14]{}, but a continuum of quenching timescales which we can divide into three general regimes: [rapid ($\tau < 1.0 ~\rm{Gyr}$), intermediate ($1.0 < \tau < 2.0~\rm{Gyr}$) and slow ($\tau > 2.0~\rm{Gyr}$). The intermediate quenching timescales reside in the space between the extremes sampled by the UV/optical diagrams of S14; the inclusion of the intermediate galaxies in this investigation (unlike in S14) and the more precise Bayesian analysis, quantifies this range of $\tau$ and specifically ties the intermediate timescales to all variations of galaxy morphology.]{}
Blue Cloud Galaxies {#bc}
-------------------
\[bestfit\] {width="95.00000%"}
Since the blue cloud is considered to be primarily made of star forming galaxies we expect to have some difficulty in determining the most likely quenching model to describe them, as confirmed by Figure \[blue\_c\]. The attempt to characterise a star forming galaxy with a quenched SFH model leads to attribute the extremely blue colours of the majority of these galaxies to fast quenching at recent times (i.e. very little change in the SFR; see the right panel of Figure \[blue\_c\] in comparison with the bottom panel of Figure \[pred\]).
[This is particularly apparent for the blue disc population. Perhaps even galaxies which are currently quenching slowly across the blue cloud cannot be well fit by the quenching models implemented, as they still have high SFRs despite some quenching (although a galaxy has undergone quenching, star formation can still occur in a galaxy, just at a slower rate than at earlier times, described by $\tau$).]{}
There is a very small preference among blue bulge dominated galaxies for slow quenching which began prior to $z \sim 0.5 $. These populations have been blue for a considerable period of time, slowly using up their gas for star formation by the Kennicutt$-$Schmidt law [@Schmidt59; @Kennicutt97]. However the major preference is for rapid quenching at recent times in the blue cloud; this therefore provides some support to the theories for blue ellipticals as either merger-driven [($\sim76\%$; like those identified as recently quenched ellipticals with properties consistent with a merger origin by @McIntosh14) or gas inflow-driven reinvigorated star formation that is now slowly decreasing ($\sim24\%$; such as the population of blue spheroidal galaxies studied by @Kaviraj13).]{} However, we remind the reader that the quenching models used in this work do not provide an adequate fit to the blue cloud population.
The blue cloud is therefore primarily composed of both star forming galaxies with any morphology and smooth galaxies which [are undergoing a rapid quench, presumably after a previous event triggered star formation and turned them blue]{}.
Discussion {#diss}
==========
We have implemented a Bayesian statistical analysis of the star formation histories (SFHs) of a large sample of galaxies morphologically classified by Galaxy Zoo. We have found differences between the SFHs of smooth- and disc-like galaxies across the colour-magnitude diagram in the red sequence, green valley and blue cloud. In this section we will speculate on the question: what are the possible mechanisms driving these differences?
Rapid Quenching Mechanisms {#rapid}
--------------------------
[Rapid quenching is much more prevalent in smooth galaxies than disc galaxies, and the [red galaxies with NUV emission in this study]{} are also much more likely to be characterised by a rapid quenching model than green valley galaxies (ignoring blue cloud galaxies due to their apparent poor fit by the quenching models, see Figure \[blue\_c\]). In the green valley there is also a distinct lack of preference for rapid quenching timescales with $\tau < 0.5~\rm{Gyr}$; [however we must bear in mind the observability of a rapid quenching history declines with decreasing $\tau$. Rapid mechanisms may be more common in the green valley than seen in Figure \[green\_v\], however this observability should not depend on morphology so we can still conclude that rapid quenching mechanisms are detected more for smooth rather than disc galaxies.]{}]{} This suggests that this rapid quenching mechanism causes a change in morphology from a disc- to a smooth-like galaxy as it quickly traverses the colour-magnitude diagram to the red sequence, [supported by the number of disc galaxies that would need to undergo a morphological change in order for the disc : smooth ratio of galaxies in the green valley to match that of the red galaxies (see Section \[gv\])]{}. [From this indirect evidence we suggest that]{} this rapid quenching mechanism is due to major mergers.
Inspection of the galaxies contributing to this area of probability reveals that this does not arise due to *currently* merging pairs missed by GZ users which were therefore not excluded from the sample (see Section \[class\]), but by typical smooth galaxies with red optical and NUV colours that the model attributes to rapid quenching at early times. [Although a prescription for modelling a merger in the SFH is not included in this work we can still detect the after effects (see Section \[future\] for future work planned with ).]{}
One simulation of interest by @Springel05 showed that feedback from black hole activity is a necessary component of destructive major mergers to produce such rapid quenching timescales. Powerful quasar outflows remove much of the gas from the inner regions of the galaxy, terminating star formation on extremely short timescales. @Bell06, using data from the COMBO-17 redshift survey ($0.4 < z < 0.8$), estimate a merger timescale from being classified as a close galaxy pair to recognisably disturbed as $\sim 0.4~\rm{Gyr}$. @Springel05 consequently find using hydrodynamical simulations that after $\sim1~\rm{Gyr}$ the merger remnant has reddened to $u-r \sim 2.0$. This is in agreement with our simple quenching models which show (Figure \[sfr\_mass\_col\]) that within $\sim1~\rm{Gyr}$ the models with a SFH with $\tau < 0.4~\rm{Gyr}$ have reached the red sequence with $u-r ~\ga 2.2$. [This could explain the preference for red disc galaxies with rapid quenching timescales ($31.3\%$), as they may have undergone a major merger recently but are still undergoing a morphological change from disc, to disturbed, to an eventual smooth galaxy (see also @vdW09).]{}
[We reiterate that this rapid quenching mechanism occurs much more rarely in green valley galaxies of both morphologies than [for the subset of red sequence galaxies studied]{}, however does not fully characterise all the galaxies in either the red sequence or green valley.]{} Dry major mergers therefore do not fully account for the formation of any galaxy type at any redshift, supporting the observational conclusions made by @Bell07 [@Bundy07; @Kav14a] and simulations by @Genel08.
Intermediate Quenching Mechanisms {#int}
---------------------------------
[Intermediate quenching timescales are found to be equally prevalent across populations for both smooth and disc galaxies across cosmic time, [particularly in the green valley. Intermediate timescales are the prevalent mechanism for quenching smooth green valley galaxies, unlike the rapid quenching prevalent for red galaxies.]{}]{} We suggest that this intermediate quenching route must therefore be possible with routes that both preserve and transform morphology. It is this result of [another route through the green valley that is in contradiction]{} with the findings of S14.
If we once again consider the simulations of @Springel05, this time without any feedback from black holes, they suggest that if even a small fraction of gas is not consumed in the starburst following a merger (either because the mass ratio is not large enough or from the lack of strong black hole activity) the remnant can sustain star formation for periods of several Gyrs. The remnants from these simulations take $\sim5.5~\rm{Gyr}$ to reach red optical colours of $u-r \sim 2.1$. We can see from Figure \[sfr\_mass\_col\] that the models with intermediate quenching timescales of $1.0 \la ~\tau~\rm{[Gyr]} ~\la 2.0$ take approximately $2.5-5.5~\rm{Gyr}$ to reach these red colours.
We speculate that the intermediate quenching timescales are caused by gas rich major mergers, major mergers without black hole feedback and from minor mergers, the latter of which is the dominant mechanism. This is supported by the findings of @Lotz08 who find that the detectability timescales for equal mass gas rich mergers with large initial separations range from $\sim 1.1-1.9~\rm{Gyr}$, and of @Lotz11, who find in further simulations that as the baryonic gas fraction in a merger with mass ratios of 1:1-1:4 increases, so does the timescale of the merger from $\sim0.2~\rm{Gyr}$ (with little gas, as above for major mergers causing rapid quenching timescales) up to $\sim1.5~\rm{Gyr}$ (with large gas fractions). [Here we are assuming that the morphologically detectable timescale of a merger is roughly the same order as the quenching timescale. However, we must consider the existence of a substantial population of blue ellipticals [@Sch09], which are thought to be post-merger systems with no detectable morphological signatures of a merger but with the merger-induced starburst still detectable in the photometry. This photometry is an indicator for the SFH and therefore should present with longer timescales for the photometric effects of a merger than found in the simulations by @Lotz08 and @Lotz11. Observing this link between the timescale for the morphological observability of a merger and the timescales for the star formation induced by a merger is problematic, as evidenced by the lack of literature on the subject.]{}
@Lotz08 also show that the remnants of these simulated equal mass gas rich disc mergers (wet disc mergers) are observable for $\ga1~\rm{Gyr}$ post merger and [state that they appear “disc-like and dusty" in the simulations, which is consistent with an “early-type spiral morphology"]{}. Such galaxies are often observed to have spiral features with a dominant bulge, suggesting that such galaxies may divide the votes of the GZ2 users, producing vote fractions of $p_s \sim p_d \sim 0.5$. We believe this is why the intermediate quenching timescales are equally dominant for both smooth and disc galaxies across each population in Figures \[red\_s\] and \[green\_v\].
Other simulations (e.g. such as @Rob06 and @Barnes02) support the conclusion that both gas rich major mergers and minor mergers can produce disc-like remnants. Observationally, @Darg10a showed an increase in the spiral to elliptical ratio for merging galaxies ($0.005 < z < 0.1$) by a factor of two compared to the general population. They attribute this to the much longer timescales during which mergers of spirals are observable compared to mergers with elliptical galaxies, [confirming our hypothesis that the quenching timescales $\tau < 1.5 ~\rm{Gyr}$ preferred by disc galaxies may be undergoing mergers which will eventually lead to a morphological change]{}. Similarly, @Casteels13 observe that galaxies ($0.01 < z < 0.09$) which are interacting often retain their spiral structures and that a spiral galaxy which has been classified as having ‘loose winding arms’ by the GZ2 users are often entering the early stages of mergers and interactions.
[$40.6\%$ of the probability for smooth galaxies in the green valley arises due to intermediate quenching timescales (see Figure \[green\_v\]); this is in agreement with work done by @Kav14a [@Kav14b] who by studying SDSS photometry ($z<0.07$) state that approximately half of the star formation in galaxies is driven by minor mergers at $0.5 < z < 0.7$ therefore exhausting available gas for star formation and consequently causing a gradual decline in the star formation rate]{}. This supports earlier work by [@Kav11] who, using multi wavelength photometry of galaxies in COSMOS [@Scoville07], found that $70\%$ of early-type galaxies appear morphologically disturbed, suggesting either a minor or major merger in their history. [This is in agreement with the total percentage of probability with $\tau < 2.0 ~\rm[Gyr]$; $73.9\%$ and $59.3\%$, for the smooth red and green galaxies in Figures \[red\_s\] and \[green\_v\] respectively.]{} [Note that the star formation model used here is a basic one and has no prescription for reignition of star formation post-quench which can also cause morphological disturbance of a galaxy, like those detected by [@Kav11].]{}
[@Darg10a show in their Figure 6 that that beyond a merger ratio of $1:10$ (up to $\sim 1:100$), green is the dominant average galaxy colour of the visually identified merging pair in GZ. These mergers are also dominated by spiral-spiral mergers as opposed to elliptical-elliptical and elliptical-spiral. This supports our hypothesis that these intermediate timescales dominating in the green valley are caused in part by minor mergers. This is contradictory to the findings of @Mendez11 who find the merger fraction in the green valley is much lower than in the blue cloud, however they use an analytical light decomposition indicator ($Gini/M_{20}$; see @Lotz08) to identify their mergers, which tend to detect major mergers more easily than minor mergers. We have discussed the lower likelihood of a green valley galaxy to undergo a rapid quench, which we have attributed to major mergers (see Section \[rapid\]), despite the caveat of the observability and believe that this may have been the phenomenon that @Mendez11 detected.]{}
The resultant intermediate quenching timescales occur due to one interaction mechanism, unlike the rapid quenching, which occurs due to a major merger combined with AGN feedback, and decreases the SFR over a short period of time. Therefore any external event which can cause either a burst of star formation (depleting the gas available) or directly strip a galaxy of its gas, [for example galaxy harassment, interactions, ram pressure stripping, strangulation and interactions internal to clusters, would cause quenching on an intermediate timescale. Such mechanisms would be the dominant cause of quenching in dense environments;]{} considering that the majority of galaxies reside in groups or clusters (@Coil08 find that green valley galaxies are just as clustered as red sequence galaxies), it is not surprising that the majority of our galaxies are considered intermediate in morphology (see Table \[subs\]) [and therefore are undergoing or have undergone such an interaction.]{}
Slow Quenching Timescales {#slow}
-------------------------
Although intermediate and rapid quenching timescales are the dominant mechanisms across the colour-magnitude diagram, together they cannot completely account for the quenching of disc galaxies. S14 concluded that slow quenching timescales were the most dominant mechanism for disc galaxies. [However we show that: (i) intermediate quenching timescales are equally important in the green valley and (ii) rapid quenching timescales are equally important for [red galaxies with NUV emission]{}.]{} There is also a significantly lower preference for smooth galaxies to undergo such slow quenching timescales; suggesting that the evolution (or indeed creation) of typical smooth galaxies is dominated by processes external to the galaxy. [This is excepting galaxies in the blue cloud where a small amount of slow evolution of blue ellipticals is occurring, presumably after a reinvigoration of star formation which is slowly depleting the gas available according to the Kennicutt$-$Schmidt law.]{}
@Bamford09 using GZ1 vote fractions of galaxies in the SDSS, found a significant fraction of high stellar mass red spiral galaxies in the field. As these galaxies are isolated from the effects of interactions from other galaxies, the slow quenching mechanisms present in their preferred star formation histories are most likely due to secular processes (i.e. mechanisms internal to the galaxy, in the absence of sudden accretion or merger events; @KK04 [@Sheth12]). Bar formation in a disc galaxy is such a mechanism, whereby gas is funnelled to the centre of the galaxy by the bar over long timescales where it is used for star formation [[@Masters12; @Saint12; @Cheung13]]{}, consequently forming a ‘pseudo-bulge’ [@Kormendy10; @Simmons13].
If we believe that these slow quenching timescales are due to secular evolution processes, this is to be expected since these processes do not change the disc dominated nature of a galaxy.
Future Work {#future}
-----------
Due to the flexibility of our model we believe that the module will have a significant number of future applications, including the investigation of various different SFHs (e.g. constant SFR and starbursts). Considering the number of magnitude bands available across the SDSS, further analysis will also be possible with a larger set of optical and NUV colours, providing further constraints [and to ensure a more complete sample, containing a larger fraction of typical red sequence galaxies, if the need for NUV photometry was replaced with another band]{}. It would also be of interest to consider galaxies at higher redshift [(e.g. out to $z \sim 1$ with Hubble Space Telescope photometry and the GZ:Hubble project, see @Melvin14 for first results) and consider different redshift bins in order to study the build up of the red sequence with cosmic time. ]{}
With further use of the robust, detailed GZ2 classifications, we believe that will be able to distinguish any statistical difference in the star formation histories of barred vs. non-barred galaxies. This will require a simple swap of $\{p_s, p_d\}$ with $\{p_{bar}, p_{no bar}\}$ from the available GZ2 vote fractions. We believe that this will aid in the discussion of whether bars act to quench star formation (by funnelling gas into the galaxy centre) or promote star formation (by causing an increase in gas density as it travels through the disc) both sides of which have been fiercely argued [@Masters11; @Masters12; @Sheth05; @Ellison11].
Further application of the code could be to investigate the SFH parameters of:
1. Currently merging/interacting pairs in comparison to those galaxies classified as merger remnants, from their degree of morphological disturbance,
2. Slow rotators and fast rotators which are thought to result from dry major mergers on the red sequence [@Em11] and gas rich, wet major mergers [@Em07] respectively,
3. Field and cluster galaxies using the projected neighbour density, $\Sigma$, from @Baldry06.
Conclusion {#conc}
==========
We have used morphological classifications from the Galaxy Zoo 2 project to determine the morphology-dependent star formation histories of galaxies via a Bayesian analysis of an exponentially declining star formation quenching model. We determined the most likely parameters for the quenching onset time, $t_q$ and quenching timescale $\tau$ in this model for galaxies across the blue cloud, green valley and red sequence to trace galactic evolution across the colour-magnitude diagram. We find that the green valley is indeed a transitional population for all morphological types (in agreement with @Sch2014), however this transition proceeds slowly for the majority of disc-like galaxies and occurs rapidly for the majority of smooth-like galaxies in the red sequence. However, in addition to @Sch2014, [our Bayesian approach has revealed a more nuanced result, specifically that the prevailing mechanism across all morphologies and populations is quenching with intermediate timescales]{}. Our main findings are as follows:
1. [The subset of red sequence galaxies with NUV emission studied in this investigation]{} are found to have similar preferences for quenching timescales compared to the green valley galaxies, but occurs at earlier quenching times regardless of morphology (see Figures \[red\_s\] and \[green\_v\]). Therefore the quenching mechanisms currently occurring in the green valley were also active in creating [the ‘blue end of of the red sequence’]{} at earlier times; confirming that the green valley is indeed a transitional population, regardless of morphology.
2. [We confirm that the typical [red galaxy with NUV emission studied in this investigation]{}, is elliptical in morphology and conclude that it has undergone a rapid to intermediate quench at some point in cosmic time, resulting in a very low current SFR (see Section \[rs\].]{}
3. [The green valley as it is currently observed is dominated by very slowly evolving disc-like galaxies along with intermediate- and smooth-like galaxies which pass across it with intermediate timescales within $\sim 1.0-1.5~\rm{Gyr}$ (see Section \[gv\]).]{}
4. [There are many different timescales responsible for quenching, causing a galaxy to progress through the green valley, which are dependant on galaxy type, with the smooth- and disc-like galaxies each having different dominant star formation histories across the colour-magnitude diagram. These timescales can be roughly split into three main regimes; rapid ($\tau < 1.0~$Gyr), intermediate ($1.0 < \tau~$\[Gyr\] $< 2.0$) and slow ($\tau > 2.0~$ Gyr) quenching. ]{}
5. [Blue cloud galaxies are not well fit by a quenching model of star formation due to the continuous high star formation rates occurring (see Figure \[blue\_c\]).]{}
6. [Rapid quenching timescales are detected with a lower probability for green valley galaxies [than the subset of red sequence galaxies studied]{}.]{} We speculate that this quenching mechanism is caused by major mergers with black hole feedback, which are able to expel the remaining gas not initially exhausted in the merger-induced starburst and which can cause a change in morphology from disc- to bulge-dominated. The colour-change timescales from previous simulations of such events agree with our derived timescales [(see Section \[rapid\]). These rapid timescales are instrumental in forming red galaxies, however galaxies at the current epoch passing through the green valley do so at more intermediate timescales (see Figure \[green\_v\]).]{}
7. Intermediate quenching timescales ($1.0 < ~\tau~\rm{[Gyr]}~ < 2.0 $) are found with constant probability across red and green galaxies for both smooth- and disc-like morphologies, the timescales for which agree with observed and simulated minor merger timescales (see Section \[int\]). We hypothesise such timescales can be caused by a number of external processes, including gas rich major mergers, mergers without black hole feedback, galaxy harassment, interactions and ram pressure stripping. The timescales and observed morphologies from previous studies agree with our findings, including that this is the dominant mechanisms for intermediate galaxies such as early-type spiral galaxies with spiral features but a dominant bulge, which split the GZ2 vote fractions (see Section \[int\]).
8. Slow quenching timescales are the most dominant mechanism in the disc galaxy populations across the colour-magnitude diagram. Disc galaxies are often found in the field, therefore we hypothesise that such slow quenching timescales are caused by secular evolution and processes internal to the galaxy (see Section \[bc\]). [We also detect a small amount of slow quenching timescales for blue elliptical galaxies which we [attribute to a reinvigoration of star formation, the peak of which has passed and has started to decline by slowly depleting the gas available (see Section \[bc\]).]{}]{}
9. Due to the flexibility of this model we believe that the module compiled for this investigation will have a significant number of future applications, including the different star formation histories of barred vs non-barred galaxies, merging vs merger remnants, fast vs slow rotating elliptical galaxies and cluster vs field galaxies (see Section \[future\]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for helpful and insightful comments which improved both the presentation and the discussion of the results presented in this paper.
The authors would like to thank D. Forman-Mackey for extremely useful Bayesian statistics discussions, J. Binney for an interesting discussion on the nature of quenching and feedback in disc galaxies and M. Urry for the assistance in seeing the big picture.
RS acknowledges funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council Grant Code ST/K502236/1. BDS gratefully acknowledges support from the Oxford Martin School, Worcester College and Balliol College, Oxford. KS gratefully acknowledges support from Swiss National Science Foundation Grant PP00P2\_138979/1. KLM acknowledges funding from The Leverhulme Trust as a 2010 Early Career Fellow. TM acknowledges funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council Grant Code ST/J500665/1. KWW and LF acknowledge funding from a Grant-in-Aid from the University of Minnesota.
The development of Galaxy Zoo was supported in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Galaxy Zoo was supported by The Leverhulme Trust.
Based on observations made with the NASA Galaxy Evolution Explorer. GALEX is operated for NASA by the California Institute of Technology under NASA contract NAS5-98034
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.
This publication made extensive use of the Tool for Operations on Catalogues And Tables (TOPCAT; @Taylor05) which can be found at <http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/topcat/>. Ages were calculated from the observed redshifts using the *cosmolopy* package provided in the Python module *astroPy*[^4]; @Rob13). This research has also made use of NASA’s ADS service and Cornell’s ArXiv.
Aihara, H. et al., 2011, ApJSS, 193, 29 Arnouts, S. et al., 2007, A&A, 476, 137 Baldry, I. K. et al., 2004, ApJ, 600, 681 Baldry, I. K. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 469 Ball, N. M., Loveday, J. & Brunner, R. J., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 907 Bamford, S. P. et al., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1324 Barnes, J. E. & Hernquist, L., 1996, ApJ, 471, 115 Barro, G. et al., 2013, ApJ, 765, 104 Barnes, J. E., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 481 Bell, E. F. et al., 2004, ApJ, 608, 752 Bell, E. F. et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 270 Bell, E. F. et al., 2007, ApJ, 663, 834 Béthermin, M. et al., 2012, ApJ, 757, L23 Blanton, M. R. et al., 2005, AJ, 129, 2562 Blanton, M. R. & Roweis, S., 2007, AJ, 133, 734 Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R. & Ellis, R. S., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601 Brammer, G. B. et al., 2009, ApJ, 706, 173 Brinchmann, J. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151 Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 Bundy, K. et al., 2006, ApJ, 651, 120 Bundy, K. et al., 2007, ApJL, 655, L5 Bundy, K. et al., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1369 Bundy, K. et al., 2010, ApJ, 719, 1969 Bundy, K. et al., *in preparation* Canalizo, G. & Stockon, A., 2001, ApJ, 555, 719 Cardelli, J. A. et al., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245 Casteels, K. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1051 Chabrier, G., 2003, PASP, 115, 763 Chen, X. Y. et al., 2010, A&A, 515, 101 Chester, C. & Roberts, M. S., 1964, AJ, 69, 635 Cheung, E. et al., 2012, ApJ, 760, 131 Cheung, E. et al., 2013, ApJ, 779, 162 Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E. & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486 Coil, A. L. et al., 2008, ApJ, 672, 153 Constantin, A., Hoyle, F., Vogeley, M. S., 2008, ApJ, 673, 715 Croom, S. et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 872 Daddi, E. et al., 2007, ApJ, 670, 156 Darg, D. et al., 2010a, MNRAS, 401, 1552 de Lucia, G. & Blaizot, J., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2 Di Matteo, T., Springel, V. & Hernquist, L., 2005, Nature, 433, 604 de Lucia, G., 2014, (arXiv:1407:7867) Driver, S. P. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 414 Elbaz, D. et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33 Ellison, S. L. et al., 2001, MNRAS, 416, 2182 Emsellem, E. et al., 2007, IAU Symposium 235 Emsellem, E, et al., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888 Eminian, C. et al., 2008, MNRAS, 384, 930 Faber, S. M. et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 265 Falomo, R. et al., 2008, ApJ, 673, 694 Falkenberg, M. A. et al., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1954 Fang, J. J. et al., 2013, ApJ, 776, 63 Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., Goodman, J., 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Genel, S. et al., 2008, ApJ, 688, 789 Glazebrook, K. et al., 2003, ApJ, 587, 55 Goodman, J. & Weare, J., 2010, CAMCS, 5, 65 Gonçalves, T. S. et al., 2012, ApJ, 759, 67 González, V. et al., 2010, ApJ, 713, 115 Heinis, S. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1268 Hopkins, A. M., 2004, ApJ, 615, 209 Im, M. et al., 2002, ApJ, 571, 136 Jarosik, N. et al., 2011, ApJSS, 192, 18 Kauffman, G. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 33 Kaviraj, S. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2148 Kaviraj, S. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 428, 925 Kaviraj, S., 2014a, MNRAS, 440, 2944 Kaviraj, S., 2014b, MNRAS, 437, L41 Kennicutt, R. C., 1997, ApJ, 498, 491 Kewley, L. J. & Ellison, S. L., 2008, ApJ, 681, 1183 Kormendy, J. & Kennicutt, R. J., 2004, ARA&A, 42, 603 Kormendy, J. et al., 2010, ApJ, 723, 54 Kriek, M. et al., 2010, ApJL, 722, L64 Lintott, C. J. et al., 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179 Lintott, C. J. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 166 Lotz, J. et al., 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1137 Lotz, J. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 742, 103 MacKay, D. J. C., 2003, *Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms*, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-64298-9 Marasco, A., Fraternali, F. & Binney, J. J., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1107 Maraston, C., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 Marigo, P. & Girardi, L. 2007, A&A, 469, 239 Martin, D. C. et al., 2005, ApJ, 619, L1 Martin, D. C. et al., 2007, ApJS, 173, 342 Masters, K. L. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 405, 783 Masters, K. L. et al., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2026 Masters, K. L. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2180 McIntosh, D, H. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 533 Melbourne, J. et al., 2012, ApJ, 748, 47 Melvin, T. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2882 Mendez, A. J. et al., 2011, ApJ, 736, 110 Miller, N. A., Rose, J. A. & Cecil, G. 2011, ApJL, 727, L15 Nair, P. B. & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJSS, 186, 427 Nandra, K. et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, L11 Noeske, K. G. et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, L43 Oh, K. et al., 2011, ApJS, 195, 13 Padmanabhan, N. et al., 2008, ApJ, 674, 1217 Peng, Y. et al., 2010, ApJ, 721, 193 Pan, Z. et al., 2014, ApJL, 792, L4 Robertson, B. et al., 2006, ApJ, 645, 986 Robitaille, T. P. et al., 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Salim, S. et al., 2007, ApJSS, 173, 267 Sánchez-Blázquez, P. et al., 2006, A&A, 457, 809 Saintonge, A. et al., 2012, ApJ, 758, 73 Schawinski, et al., 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1415 Schawinski, K. et al., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 818 Schawinski, K. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 889 Schiminovich, D. et al., 2007, ApJS, 173, 315 Schmidt, M., 1959, ApJ, 129, 243 Scoville, N. et al., 2007, ApJSS, 172, 1 Sheth, K. et al., 2005, ApJ, 632, 217 Sheth, K. et al., 2012, ApJ, 758, 136 Simmons, B. D. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2199 Sivia, D. S., 1996, *Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial*, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-851889-7 Skibba, R. A. et al., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 966 Springel, V., Di Matteo, T. & Hernquist, L., 2005, ApJ, 620, L79 Soklakov, A. N., 2002, (arXiv:math-ph/0009007) Strateva, I. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 1861 Taylor, M. B., 2005, ASP Conference Series, 347 Thomas, D. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1775 Tojero, R. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1252 Tojeiro, R. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 359 Trager, S. C. et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 165 van der Wel, A. et al., 2009, ApJ, 706, L120 Vazdekis, A. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1639 Willett, K. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2835 Willmer, C. N. A. et al., 2006, ApJ, 647, 853 Wong, I. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1684 Wyder, T. K. et al., 2007, ApJS, 173, 293 York, D. G. et al., 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
Testing starpy {#app_test}
==============
In order to test that can find the correct quenching model for a given observed colour, [25 synthesised galaxies were created with known SFHs (i.e. known values of $\theta$) from which optical and NUV colours were generated. These were input into to ensure that the known values of $\theta$ were reproduced, within error, for each of the 25 synthesised galaxies. Figure \[test\_mosaic\] shows the results for each of these 25 synthesised galaxies]{}, with the known values of $\theta$ shown by the red lines. In some cases this red line does not coincide with the peak of the distribution shown in the histograms for one parameter, however in all cases the intersection of the red lines is within the sample contours.
[We find peaks in the histograms across all areas of the parameter space in both dimensions of $[t, \tau]$, this ensures that the results presented in Figures \[red\_s\], \[green\_v\] & \[blue\_c\] arise due to a superposition of extended probability distributions, as opposed to a bimodal distribution of probability distributions across all galaxies.]{}
Using look up tables {#app_lookup}
====================
\[median\_lu\]
[Considering the size of the sample in this investigation of $126,316$ galaxies total, a three dimensional look up table (in observed time, quenching time and quenching rate) was generated using the star formation history function in to speed up the run time. Figure \[lookup\] shows an example of how using the look up table in place of the full function does not affect the results to a significant level. Table \[median\_lu\] quotes the median walker positions [(the 50th percentile of the Bayesian probability distribution) ]{}along with their $\pm 1\sigma$ ranges for both methods in comparison to the true values specified to test . The uncertainties incorporated into the quoted values by using the look up table are therefore minimal with a maximum $\Delta = 0.043$.]{}
Discarding Poorly Fit Galaxies {#discard}
==============================
\[discardnum\]
We discard walker positions returned by with a corresponding probability of $P(\theta_k|d_k) < 0.2$ in order to exclude galaxies which are not well fit by the quenching model; for example blue cloud galaxies which are still star forming will be poorly fit by a quenching model (see Section \[qmod\]). This raises the issue of whether we exclude a significant fraction of our galaxy sample and whether those galaxies reside in a specific location of the colour-magnitude. The fraction of galaxies which had all or more than half of their walker positions discarded due to low probability are shown in Table \[discardnum\].
This is not a significant fraction of either population, therefore this shows that the module is effective in fitting the majority of galaxies and that this method of discarding walker positions ensures that poorly fit galaxies are removed from the analysis of the results. Figure \[discarded\] shows that these galaxies with discarded walker positions are also scattered across the optical-NUV colour-colour diagram and therefore is also effective in fitting galaxies across this entire plane.
{width="90.00000%"}
Observability of quenching galaxies {#observe}
===================================
The numbers of galaxies found undergoing a rapid quench will be underestimated compared to the true value due to their observability, i.e. their time spent in the green valley is extremely short, so detecting a galaxy there is difficult. We considered this time spent in the green valley across our model parameter space of star formation histories and the results are shown below in Figure \[obsplot\].
[^1]: <http://zoo2.galaxyzoo.org/>
[^2]: [dan.iel.fm/emcee/](dan.iel.fm/emcee/)
[^3]: [github.com/zooniverse/starpy](github.com/zooniverse/starpy)
[^4]: <http://www.astropy.org/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=-15mm
**A Remark on One-Dimensional Many-Body**
**Problems with Point Interactions**
[Sergio Albeverio]{}[^1], [Ludwik D[a]{}browski]{}[^2] and [Shao-Ming Fei]{}[^3]
Institut für Angewandte Mathematik, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn\
and\
Fakultät für Mathematik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum
1 true cm
Abstract
The integrability of one dimensional quantum mechanical many-body problems with general contact interactions is extensively studied. It is shown that besides the pure (repulsive or attractive) $\delta$-function interaction there is another singular point interactions which gives rise to a new one-parameter family of integrable quantum mechanical many-body systems. The bound states and scattering matrices are calculated for both bosonic and fermionic statistics.
Quantum mechanical solvable models describing a particle moving in a local singular potential concentrated at one or a discrete number of points have been extensively discussed in the literature, see e.g. [@agh-kh; @gaudin; @AKbook] and references therein. One dimensional problems with contact interactions at, say, the origin ($x=0$) can be characterized by separated or nonseparated boundary conditions imposed on the (scalar) wave function $\varphi$ at $x=0$. The classification of one dimensional point interactions in terms of singular perturbations is given in [@kurasov]. In the present paper we are interested in many-body problems with pairwise interactions given by such singular potentials. The first model of this type with the pairwise interactions determined by $\delta$-functions was suggested and investigated in [@mcguire]. Intensive studies of this model applied to statistical mechanics (particles having boson or fermion statistics) are given in [@y; @y1] (these also leads to the well known Yang-Baxter equations).
Nonseparated boundary conditions correspond to the cases where the perturbed operator is equal to the orthogonal sum of two self-adjoint operators in $ L_{2}
(-\infty,0] $ and $L_{2} [0,\infty)$. The family of point interactions for the one dimensional Schrödinger operator $ - \frac{d^2}{dx^2}$ can be described by unitary $ 2 \times 2 $ matrices via von Neumann formulas for self-adjoint extensions of symmetric operators, since the second derivative operator restricted to the domain $ C_{0}^\infty ({\bf R}
\setminus \{ 0 \} ) $ has deficiency indices $ (2,2)$. The boundary conditions describing the self-adjoint extensions have the following form $$\label{bound}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\varphi\\
\varphi '\end{array} \right)_{0^+}
= e^{i\theta} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
c & d \end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\varphi\\
\varphi '\end{array} \right)_{0^-},$$ where \[abcd\] ad-bc = 1, , a,b,c,d . $\varphi(x)$ is the scalar wave function of two spinless particles with relative coordinate $x$. (\[bound\]) also describes two particles with spin $s$ but without any spin coupling between the particles when they meet (i.e. for $x=0$), in this case $\varphi$ represents any one of the components of the wave function. The values $\theta = b=0$, $a=d=1$ in (\[bound\]) correspond to the case of a positive (resp. negative) $\delta$-function potential for $c>0$ (resp. $c<0$). For general $a,b,c$ and $d$, the properties of the corresponding Hamiltonian systems have been studied in detail, see e.g. [@kurasov; @ch; @abd].
The separated boundary conditions are described by \[bounds\] \^(0\_+) = h\^+ (0\_+) , \^(0\_-) = h\^- (0\_-), where $h^{\pm} \in \Rb \cup \{ \infty\}$. $ h^+ = \infty$ or $ h^- = \infty$ correspond to Dirichlet boundary conditions and $ h^+ = 0$ or $ h^- = 0$ correspond to Neumann boundary conditions. In this case it is impossible to express the perturbed operator as the orthogonal sum of two self-adjoint operators in $ L_{2}
(-\infty,0] $ and $L_{2} [0,\infty)$.
In the following we study the integrability of one dimensional systems of $N$-identical particles with general contact interactions described by the boundary conditions (\[bound\]) or (\[bounds\]) that are imposed on the relative coordinates of the particles. We first consider the case of two particles ($N=2$) with coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$ and momenta $k_1$, $k_2$ respectively. Each particle has $n$-‘spin’ states designated by $s_1$ and $s_2$, $1\leq s_i\leq n$. For $x_1\neq x_2$, these two particles are free. The wave functions $\varphi$ are symmetric (resp. antisymmetric) with respect to the interchange $(x_1,s_1)\leftrightarrow(x_2,s_2)$ for bosons (resp. fermions). In the region $x_1<x_2$, from the Bethe ansatz the wave function is of the form, \[w1\] =\_[12]{}e\^[i(k\_1x\_1+k\_2x\_2)]{}+\_[21]{}e\^[i(k\_2x\_1+k\_1x\_2)]{}, where $\alpha_{12}$ and $\alpha_{21}$ are $n^2\times 1$ column matrices. In the region $x_1>x_2$, \[w2\] =(P\^[12]{}\_[12]{})e\^[i(k\_1x\_2+k\_2x\_1)]{} +(P\^[12]{}\_[21]{})e\^[i(k\_2x\_2+k\_1x\_1)]{}, where according to the symmetry or antisymmetry conditions, $P^{12}=p^{12}$ for bosons and $P^{12}=-p^{12}$ for fermions, $p^{12}$ being the operator on the $n^2\times 1$ column that interchanges $s_1\leftrightarrow s_2$.
Let $k_{12} = (k_1 -k_2)/2$. In the center of mass coordinate $X=(x_1+x_2)/2$ and the relative coordinate $x=x_2-x_1$, we get, by substituting (\[w1\]) and (\[w2\]) into the boundary conditions at $x=0$, \[a1\] {
[l]{} \_[12]{}+\_[21]{} =e\^[i]{}aP\^[12]{}(\_[12]{}+\_[21]{})+ ie\^[i]{}bk\_[12]{}P\^[12]{}(\_[12]{}-\_[21]{}),\
ik\_[12]{}(\_[21]{}-\_[12]{}) = e\^[i]{}cP\^[12]{}(\_[12]{}+\_[21]{})+ie\^[i]{}dk\_[12]{}P\^[12]{} (\_[12]{}-\_[21]{})
. for boundary condition (\[bound\]), and \[a2\] {
[l]{} ik\_[12]{}(\_[21]{}-\_[12]{}) = h\_+ (\_[12]{}+\_[21]{}) ,\
ik\_[12]{}P\^[12]{}(\_[12]{}-\_[21]{}) = h\_- P\^[12]{}(\_[12]{}+\_[21]{})
. for boundary condition (\[bounds\]) respectively.
Eliminating the term $P^{12}\alpha_{12}$ from (\[a1\]) we obtain the relation \[2112\] \_[21]{} = Y\_[21]{}\^[12]{} \_[12]{} , where \[a21a12\] Y\_[21]{}\^[12]{} =.
We remark that the system (\[a2\]) is contradictory unless \[hh\] h\_+ = - h\_-h { }. In this case it also leads to equation (\[2112\]) with \[a21a12s\] Y\_[21]{}\^[12]{} = .
For $N\geq 3$ and $x_1<x_2<...<x_N$, the wave function is given by \[psi\] =\_[12...N]{}e\^[i(k\_1x\_1+k\_2x\_2+...+k\_Nx\_N)]{} +\_[21...N]{}e\^[i(k\_2x\_1+k\_1x\_2+...+k\_Nx\_N)]{}+(N!-2) other terms. The columns $\alpha$ have $n^N\times 1$ dimensions. The wave functions in the other regions are determined from (\[psi\]) by the requirement of symmetry (for bosons) or antisymmetry (for fermions). Along any plane $x_i=x_{i+1}$, $i\in 1,2,...,N-1$, from similar considerations as above we have \[a1n\] \_[l\_1l\_2...l\_il\_[i+1]{}...l\_N]{}=Y\_[l\_[i+1]{}l\_i]{}\^[ii+1]{} \_[l\_1l\_2...l\_[i+1]{}l\_i...l\_N]{}, where \[y\] Y\_[l\_[i+1]{}l\_i]{}\^[ii+1]{}= for nonseparated boundary condition and \[ys\] Y\_[l\_[i+1]{}l\_i]{}\^[ii+1]{}= for separated boundary condition. Here $k_{l_il_{i+1}}=(k_{l_i}-k_{l_{i+1}})/2$ play the role of spectral parameters. $P^{ii+1}=p^{ii+1}$ for bosons and $P^{ii+1}=-p^{ii+1}$ for fermions, with $p^{ii+1}$ the operator on the $n^N\times 1$ column that interchanges $s_i\leftrightarrow s_{i+1}$.
For consistency $Y$ must satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation with spectral parameter [@y; @ma], i.e., $$Y^{m,m+1}_{ij}Y^{m+1,m+2}_{kj}Y^{m,m+1}_{ki}
=Y^{m+1,m+2}_{ki}Y^{m,m+1}_{kj}Y^{m+1,m+2}_{ij},$$ or \[ybe1\] Y\^[mr]{}\_[ij]{}Y\^[rs]{}\_[kj]{}Y\^[mr]{}\_[ki]{} =Y\^[rs]{}\_[ki]{}Y\^[mr]{}\_[kj]{}Y\^[rs]{}\_[ij]{} if $m,r,s$ are all unequal, and \[ybe2\] Y\^[mr]{}\_[ij]{}Y\^[mr]{}\_[ji]{}=1, Y\^[mr]{}\_[ij]{}Y\^[sq]{}\_[kl]{}=Y\^[sq]{}\_[kl]{}Y\^[mr]{}\_[ij]{} if $m,r,s,q$ are all unequal.
The operators $Y$ given by (\[y\]) satisfy the relation (\[ybe2\]) for all $\theta ,a,b,c,d$. However the relations (\[ybe1\]) are satisfied only when $\theta =0$, $a=d$ and $b=0$, that is, according to the constraint (\[abcd\]), $\theta =0$, $a=d=\pm 1$, $b=0$, $c$ arbitrary. The case $a=d=1$, $\theta =b=0$ corresponds to the usual $\delta$-function interactions, which has been investigated in [@y; @y1]. The case $a=d=-1$, $\theta =b=0$, which we shall refer to as ‘anti-$\delta$’ interaction, is related to another singular interactions between any pair of particles (for $a=d=-1$ and $\theta =b=c=0$ see [@kurasov; @ch]). Associated with the separated boundary condition, the operators $Y$ given by (\[ys\]) satisfy both the relations (\[ybe2\]) and (\[ybe1\]) for arbitrary $h$.
We have thus found that with respect to $N$-particle (either boson or fermion) problems, altogether there are three integrable one parameter families with contact interactions of type $\delta$, anti-$\delta$ and separated one, described respectively by one of the following conditions on the wave function along the plane $x_i=x_j$ for any pair of particles with coordinates $x_i$ and $x_j$, \[b0\] (0\_+)=+(0\_-), \^(0\_+)=c(0\_-)+\^(0\_-) , c ; \[b\] (0\_+)=-(0\_-), \^(0\_+)=c(0\_-)-\^(0\_-) , c ; \[bs\] \^(0\_+)= h (0\_+), \^(0\_-)= -h (0\_-) , h{ } . The wave functions are given by (\[psi\]) with the $\alpha$’s determined by (\[a1n\]) and initial conditions. The operators $Y$ in (\[a1n\]) are given respectively by \[y0\] Y\_[l\_[i+1]{}l\_i]{}\^[ii+1]{}= ; \[y1\] Y\_[l\_[i+1]{}l\_i]{}\^[ii+1]{}=- ; and \[y1s\] Y\_[l\_[i+1]{}l\_i]{}\^[ii+1]{} = .
Nevertheless, from (\[y0\]) and (\[y1\]) we see that if we simultaneously change $c \to -c$ and $P^{ii+1} \to -P^{ii+1}$, these two formulas are interchanged. There is a sort of duality between bosons (resp. fermions) with $\delta$-interaction of strength $c$ and fermions (resp. bosons) with anti-$\delta$ interaction of strength $-c$. It can be checked that under the “kink type” gauge transformation ${\cal U} = \prod_{i>j}{\rm ~sgn} (x_i-x_j)$, the N-boson (resp. fermion) $\delta$-type contact interaction goes over to the N-fermion (resp. boson) anti-$\delta$ interaction. Therefore these two situations are in fact unitarily equivalent under a gauge transformation ${\cal U}$ that is non-smooth and does not factorize through one particle Hilbert spaces.
The integrable system related to the case (\[y1s\]) is not unitarily equivalent to either the $\delta$ or anti-$\delta$ cases. In fact their spectra are different (see the bound states below). In the following we study further the one dimensional integrable $N$-particle systems associated with (\[y1s\]).
When $h<0$, there exist bound states. For $N=2$, the space part of the orthogonal basis (labeled by $\pm$) in the doubly degenerate bound state subspace has the form, in the relative coordinate $x=x_2-x_1$, \[bpsi2s\] \_[2,]{}= ( (x)(-x) )e\^[hx]{}. The eigenvalue corresponding to the bound states (\[bpsi2s\]) is $-h^2$. By generalization we get the $2^{N(N-1)/2}$ bound states for $N$-particle system \[bpsins\] \_[N,]{}= \_ \_[k>l]{} ((x\_k-x\_l) +\_[kl]{}(x\_l-x\_k)) e\^[h\_[i>j]{} x\_i-x\_j]{}, where $\alpha_{\underline{\epsilon}}$ is the spin wave function and $\underline{\epsilon} \equiv \{ \epsilon_{kl}~:~k>l \}$; $\epsilon_{kl}=\pm$, labels the $2^{N(N-1)/2}$-fold degeneracy.
It can be checked that $\psi_{N,\underline{\epsilon}}$ satisfies the boundary condition (\[bs\]) at $x_i=x_j$ for any $i\neq j\in 1,...,N$. The spin wave function $\alpha$ here satisfies $P^{ij}\alpha=\epsilon_{ij}\alpha$ for any $i\neq j$, that is, $p^{ij}\alpha=\epsilon_{ij}\alpha$ for bosons and $p^{ij}\alpha=-\epsilon_{ij}\alpha$ for fermions. $\psi_{N,\underline{\epsilon}}$ is of the form (\[psi\]) in each region. For instance comparing $\psi_{N,\underline{\epsilon}}$ with (\[psi\]) in the region $x_1<x_2...<x_N$, we get \[ks\] k\_1=ih(N-1), k\_2=k\_1-2ih, k\_3=k\_2-2ih,...,k\_N=-k\_1. The energy of the bound state $\psi_{N,\underline{\epsilon}}$ is \[es\] E=-N(N\^2-1) .
The scattering matrix can readily be discussed. For real $k_1<k_2<...k_N$, in each coordinate region such as $x_1<x_2<...x_N$, the following term in (\[psi\]) is an outgoing wave \[out\] \_[out]{}=\_[12...N]{}e\^[k\_1x\_1+...+k\_Nx\_N]{}. An incoming wave with the same exponential as (\[out\]) is given by \[in\] \_[in]{}=\[P\^[1N]{}P\^[2(N-1)]{}...\]\_[N(N-1)...1]{}e\^[k\_Nx\_N+...+k\_1x\_1]{} in the region $x_N<x_{N-1}<...<x_1$. The scattering matrix is defined by $\psi_{out}=S\psi_{in}$. From (\[a1n\]) we have $$\ba{l}
\alpha_{12...N}=[Y_{21}^{12}Y_{31}^{23}...Y_{N1}^{(N-1)N}]\alpha_{2...N1}
=...\\[4mm]
=[Y_{21}^{12}Y_{31}^{23}...Y_{N1}^{(N-1)N}]
[Y_{32}^{12}Y_{42}^{23}...Y_{N2}^{(N-2)(N-1)}]
...[Y_{N(N-1)}^{12}]\alpha_{N(N-1)...1}
\equiv S^\prime \alpha_{N(N-1)...1},
\ea$$ where $Y_{l_{i+1}l_i}^{ii+1}$ is given by (\[y1s\]). Therefore $$S=S^\prime P^{N1}P^{(N-1)2}...P^{1N}
=S^\prime [P^{12}][P^{23}P^{12}][P^{34}P^{23}P^{12}]...
[P^{(N-1)N}...P^{12}].$$ Defining \[xij\] X\_[ij]{}=Y\^[ij]{}\_[ij]{}P\^[ij]{} we obtain \[s\] S=\[X\_[21]{}X\_[31]{}...X\_[N1]{}\]\[X\_[32]{}X\_[42]{}...X\_[N2]{}\]...\[X\_[N(N-1)]{}\]. The scattering matrix $S$ is unitary and symmetric due to the time reversal invariance of the interactions. $<s_1^\p s_2^\p...s_N^\p\vert S\vert s_1s_2...s_N>$ stands for the $S$ matrix element of the process from the state $(k_1s_1,k_2s_2,...,k_Ns_N)$ to the state $(k_1s_1^\p,k_2s_2^\p,...,k_Ns_N^\p)$. The momenta (\[ks\]) are imaginary for bound states. The scattering of clusters (bound states) can be discussed in a similar way as in [@y1]. For instance for the scattering of a bound state of two particles ($x_1<x_2$) on a bound state of three particles ($x_3<x_4<x_5$), the scattering matrix is $S=[X_{32}X_{42}X_{52}]
[X_{31}X_{41}X_{51}]$.
We have extensively investigated the integrability of one dimensional quantum mechanical many-body problems with general contact interactions. Besides the repulsive or attractive $\delta$ and anti-$\delta$ function interactions, there is another integrable one parameter families associated with separated boundary conditions. From our calculations it is clear that these are all the integrable systems for one dimensional quantum identical many-particle models (of fermionic or bosonic statistics) with contact interactions. Here the possible contact coupling of the spins of two particles are not taken into account. A further study along this direction would possibly give rise to more interesting integrable quantum many-body systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We would like to thank P. Kulish, P. Kurasov and V. Rittenberg for helpful comments.
[20]{} S. Albeverio, F. Gesztesy, R. Høegh-Krohn and H. Holden, [*Solvable Models in Quantum Mechanics*]{}, New York: Springer, 1988.
M. Gaudin, [*La fonction d’onde de Bethe*]{}, Masson, 1983.
S. Albeverio and R. Kurasov, [*Singular perturbations of differential operators and solvable Schrödinger type operators*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press., to appear in 1999.
P. Kurasov, [*Distribution theory for discontinuous test functions and differential operators with generalized coefficients*]{}, J. Math. Analy. Appl. [**201**]{}(1996)297-323.
J.B. McGuire, Study of exactly soluble one–dimensional N–body problems, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{}, [**5**]{} (1964), 622–636.\
J.B. McGuire, Interacting fermions in one dimension.I. Repulsive potential, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{}, [**6**]{} (1965), 432–439.\
J.B. McGuire, Interacting fermions in one dimension.II. Attractive potential, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{}, [**7**]{} (1966), 123–132.\
J.B. McGuire and C.A. Hurst, The scattering of three impenetrable particles in one dimension, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{}, [**13**]{} (1972), 1595–1607.\
J.B. McGuire and C.A.Hurst, Three interacting particles in one dimension: an algebraic approach, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{}, [**29**]{} (1988), 155–168.
C.N. Yang, [*Some exact results for the many-body problem in one dimension with repulsive delta-function interaction*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}(1967)1312-1315.\
C.N. Yang, [*$S$ matrix for the one-dimensional $N$-body problem with repulsive $\delta $-function interaction*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**168**]{}(1968)1920-1923.
C.H. Gu and C.N. Yang, [*A one-dimensional $N$ Fermion problem with factorized $S$ matrix*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**122**]{} (1989)105-116.
P. Chernoff and R. Hughes, [*A new class of point interactions in one dimension*]{}, J. Func. Anal. [**111**]{}(1993)97-117.
S. Albeverio, Z. Brzeźniak and L Dabrowski, [*Time-dependent propagator with point interaction*]{}, J. Phys. A[**27**]{}(1994)4933-4943.
Z.Q. Ma, [*Yang-Baxter Equation and Quantum Enveloping Algebras*]{}, World Scientific, 1993.\
V. Chari and A. Pressley, [*A Guide to Quantum Groups*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1994.\
C. Kassel, [*Quantum Groups*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New-York, 1995.\
S. Majid, [*Foundations of Quantum Group Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1995.\
K. Schmüdgen, [*Quantum Groups and Their Representations*]{}, Springer, 1997.
[^1]: SFB 256; SFB 237; BiBoS; CERFIM (Locarno); Acc.Arch., USI (Mendrisio)
[^2]: SISSA, I-34014 Trieste, Italy
[^3]: Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In modeling nonlinear dynamics, neural networks are of interest for prediction and uncertainty quantification. The “learnability" of chaotic dynamics by neural networks, however, remains poorly understood. In this work, we show that a parsimonious network trained on few data points suffices for accurate prediction of local divergence rates on the whole attractor. To understand neural learnability, we decompose the mappings in the neural network into a series of geometric stretching and compressing operations that indicate topological mixing and, therefore, chaos. This reveals that neural networks and chaotic dynamical systems are structurally similar, which yields excellent reproduction of local divergence rates. To build parsimonious networks, we employ an approach that matches the spectral features of the dynamics of deep learning those of polynomial regression.'
author:
- Ziwei Li
- Sai Ravela
bibliography:
- 'secondary\_general\_project.bib'
title: On Neural Learnability of Chaotic Dynamics
---
*Introduction* – Chaotic systems are ubiquitous . For these systems, there usually exists a set of continuous nonlinear governing equations, but finding the exact solutions is often impossible, in part due to a common chaos characteristic wherein two close by trajectories diverge exponentially. In practice, modelers use discretization to solve the nonlinear equations, and often from multiple initial conditions to quantify errors. Doing so, however, raises difficult challenges in the form of non-linearity, high-dimensionality and non-Gaussian uncertainty. As a result, the search for simple-yet-effective models for chaotic dynamics remains a crucial pursuit in the physical sciences.
Recently, there has been a surge of interest in using neural networks (NNs) to emulate chaotic dynamics , showing neural networks as promising models. We follow this line of investigation, first showing that neural models with only a few neurons, and trained using a small number of data points, reconstruct the entire attractor object of the classic Lorenz-63 (L63) system . NNs can “extrapolate" from partial knowledge of the attractor, rendering a uniform distribution of the training data unnecessary. The neural models are also, it appears, as chaotic as the L63 system they train from.
This success is much like other effort seeking to emulate chaotic dynamics. By way of explanation, one typically resorts to the universal approximation theorem (UAP). However, UAP is an existence statement. It neither explains the emergence of chaos nor the efficacy with which the attractor is reconstructed. Inspired by the validity of a geometric interpretation of the L63 system , we show that a geometric perspective helps to explain the neural efficacy. Neural mappings alternately rotate, stretch, and compress, which are the defining characteristics of chaotic dynamics . Whilst the question of optimizing neural computation for prediction remains open, our work suggests that possession of geometrical properties required by chaos theory enables neural networks to efficiently match the structure of the L63’s attractor object and its predictability. To the best of our knowledge, this explanation for neural learnability of chaos is new . A key step in this process is to show that NNs are compact and do not over-fit in relation to the attractor object. We achieve this by noting that L63 is a polynomial, allowing us impose bounds the size of the neural network .
*Methods* – The L63 model was originally used to describe 2-D Rayleigh-Bénard convection, in which the parameters of the streamfunction and temperature fields are written in a set of ordinary differential equations : $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{X} &= \sigma(Y - X);\\
\dot{Y} &= \rho X - Y - XZ;\\
\dot{Z} &= -\beta Z + XY,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:L63}$$ where $X$ and $Y$ are the strengths of the streamfunction and temperature modes, and $Z$ represents the deviation of the vertical temperature profile from linearity. Consistent with Lorenz’s original paper, we set $\sigma = 10$, $\beta = 8/3$, and $\rho = 28$. The solutions of L63 are known to be dissipative (volume in phase space contracts rapidly), and chaotic (sensitive to initial perturbations).
We define L63 as a discrete mapping from the current state of the system $\mathbf{x}_n = (X, Y, Z)^{\mathrm{T}}$ to the state of the next timestep $\mathbf{x}_{n + 1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{\Phi}_{\mathrm{L63}}(\mathbf{x}_n) = \mathbf{x}_{n + 1}.
\label{eq:mapping_discrete}
\end{aligned}$$ We choose this discrete form both for L63 and NN maps because it provides a straightforward connection between the geometric L63 mapping and dynamics in the neural network. Since the exact form of Eq. for L63 is unknown, the discrete map is obtained by numerically integrating Eq. and sampling at increment $\mathrm{d}t$.
The discrete map implemented by a single-hidden-layer feedforward NN is $$\mathbf{\Phi}_{\mathrm{NN}}(\mathbf{x}_n) = \mathbf{W_2}g(\mathbf{W_1}\mathbf{x}_n + \mathbf{b_1}) + \mathbf{b_2},
\label{eq:NN}$$ in which the $3\times1$ input vector, $\mathbf{x}_{n}$, is first left-multiplied by an $L\times3$ weight matrix $\mathbf{W_1}$, and added to an $L\times1$ bias term $\mathbf{b_1}$, where $L$ is the number of neurons. The resulting vector is then element-wise “compressed" by a sigmoid function $g$, which takes the form of $\tanh$ in our setup. Left-multiplication by a $3\times L$ matrix $\mathbf{W_2}$ followed by addition of another bias term $\mathbf{b_2}$ finishes a mapping iteration of the NN.
We use Matlab function *ode45* to numerically solve for the discrete mappings of L63 as training data. To obtain data on the attractor, we randomly initialize 1000 trajectories from region $[-20, 20]\times[-20, 20]\times[0, 50]$ with uniform distribution. Each trajectory is integrated for 2500 timesteps with $\mathrm{d}t = 0.01$. We abandon the first 2000 timesteps to remove the transient parts, which are much shorter than 2000 steps. Then, the remaining 500 timesteps of the 1000 trajectories are aggregated as pairs $(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x'})$ that satisfy $\mathbf{x'} = \mathbf{\Phi}_{L63}(\mathbf{x})$, forming the training data pool.
The prior locations of the training data pairs ($\mathbf{x}$) can be seen as a representation of the L63 attractor ($\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{L63}}$), and each consecutive location pair provide information about the discrete L63 flow. We then randomly sample a specific number of training pairs from the data pool to train NNs. Each NN is trained for $10^3$ epochs with Bayesian regularization , where an epoch means a full sweep through the sampled training data.
We use the finite-time Lyapunov exponent (FTLE) to compare the local divergence rates of NN and L63 and quantify their similarity on the basis of predictability. The FTLE is computed from forward-propagating two nearby trajectories that originate from the vicinity of the $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{L63}}$ attractor. Formally, it is defined as $$\lambda_{\mathrm{max}} := \frac{1}{N_t}\ln\frac{\left|\max\limits_{\delta\mathbf{x}_0}\delta\mathbf{x}_{N_t}\right|}{|\delta\mathbf{x}_0|} = \frac{1}{N_t}\ln{\sqrt{\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}}},
\label{eq:FTLE_definition}$$ where $\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}$ denotes the maximum FTLE, $\delta\mathbf{x}_0$ is the initial perturbation between two trajectories, and $\delta\mathbf{x}_{N_t}$ denotes their difference after $N_t$ steps. The FTLE relates to the original Lyapunov exponent when $N_t\rightarrow\infty$ and $\delta\mathbf{x}_0\rightarrow0$ . To obtain $\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}$, we select the direction of $\delta\mathbf{x}_0$ such that $|\delta\mathbf{x}_{N_t}|$ is maximized, and in practice, we calculate $\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}$ using the largest eigenvalue ($\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}$) of $\mathbf{J}^\mathrm{T}\mathbf{J}$, where $\mathbf{J}$ is the Jacobian matrix evaluated using perturbations around $\mathbf{x}_0$.
*Results* – We first show that NN can learn the chaotic dynamics of L63 efficiently with a small number of data and neurons. The quadratic prediction error is reported in Ref., and will not be the main focus of this paper. We instead compare the short-term and long-term behaviors of the two systems. Specifically, we show that the dynamics represented by NN possess similar predictability to L63 as quantified by FTLE, and NNs are able to extrapolate regions that are unknown in the training data.
![Two trajectories produced by L63 (blue) and the 4-neuron NN trained on 40 data points sampled from the whole attractor (red). They are both 2000 timesteps long, and start from the same location on the Lorenz attractor. []{data-label="fig:NN_predictions_small_num"}](figures/NN_predictions_3D_small_num.png){width="0.7\linewidth"}
We analyze a 4-neuron network trained on 40 data points randomly sampled from the training data pool (table shows the learnt parameters of this network). Fig. depicts two trajectories that follow the L63 flow and the flow of the trained NN, respectively. They interlace with each other, creating the well-known Lorenz attractor. Trajectories starting from other locations on the attractor roughly trace out the same structure (not shown). The close-resemblance between the two attractors indicates that the dynamics of this parsimonious NN is similar to that of L63, i.e., NNs are able to learn chaotic dynamics efficiently.
![One-to-one scatter plot of FTLE with NN and L63. The NN used in this plot has 4 neurons and is trained on only 40 data points. The panels correspond to four integration steps, $N_t$, with time increment $\mathrm{d}t = 0.01$. []{data-label="fig:FTLE"}](figures/FTLE_Nts.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
To calculate FTLE, we generate points following the NN flow using the same generation process as in *Methods*. The generated points in the phase space represents the NN attractor ($\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{NN}}$). We then randomly initialize 2000 trajectories on $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{L63}}$. Every trajectory from $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{L63}}$ is paired with another trajectory that starts from the closest point on $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{NN}}$, and in each pair of trajectories, the former follows the L63 flow while the latter follows the NN flow.
![The root-mean-squre error in FTLE of neural networks for each neuron and number-of-data configuration. The FTLE is calculated with $N_t = 50$ and averaged over 2000 trajectories randomly initialized on the attractor. The red dot represents the example configuration in Fig. and . The red surface is located at $z=0.05$. []{data-label="fig:FTLE_errors"}](figures/FTLE_errors_3D_small_num_data.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The FTLE of the trajectory pairs are compared under different timesteps: $N_t = 5, 50, 100, 500$ (Fig. ). When $N_t = 5, 50$, NN accurately reproduces local divergence rates over the whole attractor, indicating that the short-term predictability of the two systems agree with each other. As $N_t$ increases, the correspondence diverges ($N_t$ = 100), and converges again ($N_t$ = 500) to the classical largest Lyapunov exponent of L63, which is roughly 0.91 as in Ref. . The convergence of FTLE under large timesteps implies that the long-term behavior of the two systems is also similar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Values
----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{W_1}$ $ \begin{array}{rrrr} 0.0034 &0.0030 &-0.0050 \\
0.0115 &0.0072 &-0.0015 \\
-0.0067 &-0.0009 &-0.0064 \\
-0.0075 &-0.0005 &0.0001 \end{array}$
$\mathbf{b_1}^{\mathrm{T}}$ $ \begin{array}{rrrr} -0.1131 &-0.6111 &-0.0266 &-0.1395 \end{array}$
$\mathbf{W_2}$ $ \begin{array}{rrrr} 6.0807 &5.2861 &-7.9178 &-107.1371 \\
370.0114 &-26.1875 &-270.5582&366.2765 \\
-169.8626 &95.5298 &-40.6654 &62.2099 \end{array}$
$\mathbf{b_2}^{\mathrm{T}}$ $ \begin{array}{rrrr} -11.5557 &71.0935 &40.1989 \end{array}$
$\mathrm{diag}(\mathbf{S})$ $ \begin{array}{rrrr} 4.3852 &1.2087 &0.7184 &0.0000 \end{array}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Parameters of the 4-neuron NN flow[]{data-label="tab:parameters1"}
The agreement in FTLE generally improves under increasing numbers of neurons and data points (Fig. ). This trend is expected if we invoke the bias and variance trade-off : increased complexity in learning models such as neural networks generally translates into better prediction accuracy (lower bias), provided that regularization techniques prevent the learning algorithm from entering the high-variance regime.
![Similar to Fig. , but the red trajectory is produced by a 5-neuron NN trained on 100 data points sampled from $X>-5$ part of the attractor. The region to the right of the grey partition is the training data range, and the region to the left is unknown to the NN. []{data-label="fig:NN_predictions"}](figures/NN_predictions_3D_half_domain.png){width="0.7\linewidth"}
NN can extrapolate from an incomplete training dataset. Fig. shows a comparison of two trajectories predicted by NN and L63 that originate from the same location (red dot). The NN in this case has 5 neurons, and is trained on 100 data points sampled from the $X>-5$ part of $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{L63}}$, which amounts to knowing 73% of the attractor structure. The two trajectories are close in the first 100 timesteps, and then bifurcate onto the two branches of the attractor. Despite starting from an unknown region, the NN still predicts a well-behaved attractor that closely resembles the original attractor in the extrapolated region of $X\le-5$. The one-to-one correspondence of FTLEs between L63 and the NN trained on the incomplete dataset is similar to Fig. (not shown).
*Geometric perspective of the NN flow* – We showed from the previous section that the neural learnability on the L63 dynamics is very good. However, the theoretical approach to understand this learnability is unknown. Although the UAP states that mapping $\mathbf{\Phi}_{\mathrm{L63}}$ can be approximated by NN arbitrarily well, it does not explain the NN’s ability to reconstruct the strange attractor efficiently, nor its skill of extrapolation. Inspired by the exact mathematical correspondence between the geometric Lorenz flow and L63 , we give our geometric understanding of the NN flow.
The dynamics of NN (Eq. ) can be seen as a mapping in a multi-dimensional Riemann space (this interpretation is also used in classification problems ). In the discrete map of the simple 4-neuron network discussed above, the input vector $\mathbf{x}$ in the 3-D phase space is mapped into a 4-D *neuron space*, and then mapped back to the phase space. We write an $N_t$-step trajectory ($N_t \geq 2$) as $\mathcal{L}_0^{N_t} = \{\mathbf{x}_0, \mathbf{x}_1, ..., \mathbf{x}_{N_t}\}$. In each mapping from step $n\rightarrow n+1, n\in\{0, 1, ..., N_t - 1\}$, there exists a 4-D intermediate vector $\mathbf{y}$ in the neuron space: $$\mathbf{y}_{n + 1} = g(\mathbf{W_1}\mathbf{x}_n + \mathbf{b_1}),~~~ (n = 0, 1, ..., N_t - 1).
\label{eq:geometric1}$$ We refer to $\mathbf{y}$ as *neuron vector*. The recurrence relation of the neuron vector is then: $$\mathbf{y}_{n + 1} = g(\mathbf{W^*}\mathbf{y}_n + \mathbf{b^*}), ~~~ (n = 1, 2, ..., N_t - 1).
\label{eq:geometric2}$$ where $\mathbf{W^*} = \mathbf{W_1}\mathbf{W_2}$ is a 4-by-4 matrix, and $\mathbf{b^*} = \mathbf{W_1}\mathbf{b_2} + \mathbf{b_1}$ is a 4-by-1 vector. $\mathbf{W^*}$ can be decomposed as $\mathbf{W^*} = \mathbf{U}\mathbf{S}\mathbf{V}^{\mathrm{T}}$ using singular-value decomposition. $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ are 4-D both orthonormal matrices, and $\mathbf{S}$ is a diagonal matrix of rank 3. We then rewrite Eq.() more explicitly as $$\mathbf{y}_{n + 1} = g(\mathbf{U}\mathbf{S}\mathbf{V}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathbf{y}_n + \mathbf{b^*}),
\label{eq:geometric3}$$ which we call the *neuron map*. Equation () encodes the entire dynamics learnt by NN, because it is different from Eq.() by a homomorphism, i.e., Eq.(). Therefore, understanding the neuron map is equivalent to understanding the dynamics of NN.
The neuron map comprises 4 sub-steps: rotation, stretch, rotation, and compression. *Rotations* in this paper takes the generalized sense of orthogonal transformation, and they are carried out by matrices $\mathbf{V}^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\mathbf{U}$ in the neuron map. Since the sigmoid function only has a compressing effect due to its gradient being smaller than or equal to 1, diagonal matrix $\mathbf{S}$ must have at least one diagonal element larger than 1 in order to satisfy the requirement of stretching in chaotic dynamics. For the 4-neuron NN at question, $\mathbf{S}$ imposes expanding effect in two dimensions since two of its diagonal elements are greater than 1 (see table ).
Through the error growth between each timestep, the effects of compression and expansion exerted by NN are seen more clearly. For a small perturbation ($\delta\mathbf{y}$) between two initial points near $\mathbf{y}$, its value at the next timestep is $$\begin{split}
\delta \mathbf{y}' = g'\left(\mathbf{W}^*\mathbf{y} + \mathbf{b}^*\right)\odot\mathbf{W}^*\delta\mathbf{y}
\label{eq:perturbation2}
\end{split}$$ where we neglected second- and higher-order terms, and $\odot$ denotes the element-wise product. We let $G_{jj} = g'\left(\sum_{i = 1}^L{W}^*_{ji}y_i + b^*_j\right)$, then $g'\left(\mathbf{W}^*\mathbf{y}_{n} + \mathbf{b}^*\right)\odot\mathbf{W}^*\delta\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{G}\mathbf{W}^*\delta\mathbf{y}$, where $\mathbf{G} = \mathrm{diag}\{G_{11}, G_{22}, ...\}$. The squared error is then $$\begin{split}
|\delta \mathbf{y}'|^2 = (\mathbf{W}^*\delta\mathbf{y})^\mathrm{T}\mathbf{G}^2\mathbf{W}^*\delta\mathbf{y}.
\label{eq:perturbation4}
\end{split}$$ From Eq. (), it’s clear that singular values of $\mathbf{W}^*$ that are larger than 1 will expand the perturbation, and $\mathbf{G}$ compresses the perturbation since $g'(x) \in (0, 1],\; \forall x\in\mathbb{R}$. With information of $\mathbf{y}$, $\mathbf{G}$ controls the degree of compression in each direction in the neuron space. $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ in the decomposition of $\mathbf{W}^*$ controls the orientations of compression and expansion, so that they take place in different directions.
The stretch and compression sub-steps in neuron maps are frequently thought of as the standard way to create topological mixing, an indicator of chaos. The ability to be trained to obtain these geometric operations makes NN very good to approximate discrete chaotic mapping. As another perhaps more concrete example, a 2-neuron NN map can be trained to faithfully recreate the Hénon map (not shown), which is a 2-D chaotic map defined such that trajectories are stretched in one direction and compressed in the other .
Generalization to multi-layer networks is straightforward in the above framework. Since “the dynamics of the neural vector" will be ambiguous as there are multiple layers of neurons, we apply the same argument to perturbations in the phase space. For a perturbation of $\delta\mathbf{x}$ around $\mathbf{x}$, its squared length at the next timestep is $$\begin{split}
|\delta \mathbf{x}'|^2 =
|\mathbf{W}_{N+1}\mathbf{G}_N\mathbf{W}_N...\mathbf{G}_1\mathbf{W}_1\delta\mathbf{x}|^2,
\label{eq:perturbation5}
\end{split}$$ where $\mathbf{G}_i = \mathrm{diag}\{g'(\mathbf{W}_i\mathbf{y}_{i-1} + \mathbf{b}_i)\}$, and $\mathbf{y}_{i-1}$ is the neuron vector of the $i$th layer for $i>1$ ($\mathbf{y}_0 = \mathbf{x}$). The weight and gradient matrices then consecutively parameterize multiple stretching and compressing operations in a single NN map.
*Lower-bounding the number of neurons* – Since the Euler-forward scheme of Eq. is a 3-D ($n=3$) polynomial with a degree of at most $d=2$, we use previous theoretical results on learning polynomials with NNs to establish lower bounds on the necessary number of neurons. In effect, we assume that the dynamics are polynomial but the learning system doesn’t know the exact governing equations. The number of neurons ($L$) for learning a polynomial with root-mean-square error target $\epsilon$ is bounded by $L = \Omega(n^{6d}/\epsilon^3)$. This is a rather coarse estimate as more than $5\times10^5$ nodes are needed when $\epsilon \sim 1$. In stark contrast, exactly two neurons in a single hidden-layer of a PolyNet reproduce the sparse L63 polynomial to numerical precision . Matching equilibrium norms of neural and polynomial regression asymptotically, a full polynomial $(n,d)$ needs $L={n+d\choose d}-(n+1)$ hidden nodes for an exact match. If a polynomial were instead represented by a network with direct input-output connections for the linear part, added with a single $\tanh{}$-activated hidden-layer for the residual nonlinear part, then matching the equilibrium norm yields a bound: $L \propto \frac{n}{2n+1}\left[{n+d\choose d}-(n+1)\right]$ of hidden-layer units . Eliminating constants using random bounded-input, bounded-weight networks reveals that an $n=3,d=2$ polynomial matches networks of 3 to 8 nodes with $95\%$ confidence. Note that the standard network with just a single hidden $\tanh{}$-layer with no input-output bypass is sub-optimal, asymptotically yielding the bound : $L \propto \frac{n}{2n+1}\left[{n+d\choose d}-1\right]$ of hidden-layer units.
A Taylor-expansion of the sigmoid function to the third order: $\tanh(x) = x - x^3/3 + O(x^5)$ allows Eq. to be modeled as a polynomial of degree 3 (NN polynomial). We further require all coefficients of the NN polynomial to be equal to those in Eq. . Then for an NN with $L$ hidden nodes, biases, and $n$-dimensional input/output, a total of $2nL+n+L$ parameters should satisfy $3C_{(n+3)}^3$ constraining equations. The parameters should be over-determined for a good fit, hence at least $L = \ceil{(3C_{(n+3)}^3-n)/(2n+1)} = 9$ hidden nodes are needed. To obtain an error estimate, we assume that the prediction errors between NN and its truncated polynomial dominates over the errors between NN and L63, therefore the truncation errors of NN polynomial provides an upper bound on the prediction error of NN. We can estimate the truncation error by substituting table into the NN polynomial to obtain $\mathbf{\Phi}_{\mathrm{NN-poly}}$, and calculate the expected error over data sampled from the $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{NN}}$ attractor: $\epsilon^2 = \langle(\mathbf{\Phi}_{\mathrm{NN-poly}}-\mathbf{\Phi}_{\mathrm{NN}})^2\rangle_{\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{NN}}}$. 5000 random samples on $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{NN}}$ gives a normalized error of $\epsilon \sim 0.12$.
*Discussion* – Our work suggests that NN may be a good candidate to learn from data and represent a broad range of chaotic dynamics with a good skill of generalization. With the flow-like dynamics and gradient-descent algorithm, it may serve as a non-parametric model for chaotic systems without explicit expressions. Conversely, neural networks can be seen as a much more generalized class of chaotic systems. Apart from compression and expansion operations that are necessary for chaos, the higher-dimensional rotations are also vital in creating the flow-like dynamics. We may further posit that the neural networks may be a unifying formulation for modeling chaotic dynamics because it reproduces the Hénon map and the discrete Lorenz map under the same mathematical framework.
On the other hand, the compression operation represented by the sigmoid function makes NN preferable to model simple dissipative systems; its ability to model conservative dynamics and systems of much higher dimensions is yet to be tested. More work is also needed, possibly with the aid of Riemann geometry, to fundamentally understand the geometric operations in the high-dimensional neuron space.
*Acknowledgments* – Ziwei Li was advised by Sai Ravela. Support from ONR grant N00014-19-1-2273, the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative, the John S. and Maryann Montrym Fund, and the MIT Lincoln Laboratory is gratefully acknowledged.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Strong anomalous diffusion phenomena are often observed in complex physical and biological systems, which are characterized by the nonlinear spectrum of exponents $q\nu(q)$ by measuring the absolute $q$-th moment $\langle |x|^q\rangle$. This paper investigates the strong anomalous diffusion behavior of a two-state process with Lévy walk and Brownian motion, which usually serves as an intermittent search process. The sojourn times in Lévy walk and Brownian phases are taken as power law distributions with exponents $\alpha_+$ and $\alpha_-$, respectively. Detailed scaling analyses are performed for the coexistence of three kinds of scalings in this system. Different from the pure Lévy walk, the phenomenon of strong anomalous diffusion can be observed for this two-state process even when the distribution exponent of Lévy walk phase satisfies $\alpha_+<1$, provided that $\alpha_-<\alpha_+$. When $\alpha_+<2$, the probability density function (PDF) in the central part becomes a combination of stretched Lévy distribution and Gaussian distribution due to the long sojourn time in Brownian phase, while the PDF in the tail part (in the ballistic scaling) is still dominated by the infinite density of Lévy walk.'
author:
- Xudong Wang
- Yao Chen
- Weihua Deng
bibliography:
- 'ReferenceW.bib'
title: 'Strong anomalous diffusion in two-state process with Lévy walk and Brownian motion'
---
Introduction
============
In the recent decades, it is widely recognized that anomalous diffusion is a very general phenomenon in the natural world, which is characterized by the nonlinear evolution of mean squared displacement with respect to time, i.e., $\langle x^2(t)\rangle \propto t^\beta$ with $\beta\neq1$ [@HausKehr:1987; @Bouchaud:1992; @MetzlerKlafter:2000]. The common examples are $\beta<1$ for subdiffusive continuous-time random walk (CTRW) with divergent first moment of waiting time [@BurovJeonMetzlerBarkai:2011; @HeBurovMetzlerBarkai:2008] and $\beta>1$ for Lévy flight with divergent second moment of jump length [@ShlesingerZaslavskyFrisch:1995; @VahabiSchulzShokriMetzler:2013]. The common feature of the two typical anomalous diffusive processes is their single mode of the motions. However, a particle moving in a complex or even seemingly simple structures might present simultaneous modes [@Pikovsky:1991; @CastiglioneMazzinoGinanneschiVulpiani:1999], such as the tracing particle under the effect of a flow acting in the phase space of chaotic Hamiltonian systems [@GeiselZacherlRadons:1987; @KlafterZumofen:1994]. Such a system is not easy to be analyzed since it exhibits at least two modes of the motion. The common tool to analyze it is the spectrum of exponents $q\nu(q)$ [@CastiglioneMazzinoGinanneschiVulpiani:1999] by measuring the absolute $q$-th moment ($q>0$) of the displacement of the particles $$\label{Def-SAD}
\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle \propto t^{q\nu(q)}.$$ For the motions with single mode, $\nu(q)$ is a constant being independent of $q$, such as $\nu(q)\equiv1/2$ for Brownian motion. Otherwise, one can find a nonlinear function $\nu(q)$ of $q$ for the motions with multiple modes; this phenomenon is named as strong anomalous diffusion [@CastiglioneMazzinoGinanneschiVulpiani:1999].
There have been vast systems exhibiting strong anomalous diffusion, such as the nonlinear dynamical systems [@CastiglioneMazzinoGinanneschiVulpiani:1999; @ArtusoCristadoro:2003; @ArmsteadHuntOtt:2003; @SandersLarralde:2006; @CourbageEdelmanFathiZaslavsky:2008], the annealed or quenched Lévy walk [@AndersenCastiglioneMazzinoVulpiani:2000; @GodrecheLuck:2001; @SchmiedebergZaburdaevStark:2009; @BurioniCaniparoliVezzani:2010; @BernaboBurioniLepriVezzani:2014], sand pile models [@CarrerasLynchNewmanZaslavsky:1999; @NewmanSanchezCarrerasFerenbaugh:2002; @YadavRamaswamyDhar:2012], the active transport of polymeric particles in living cells [@GalWeihs:2010], and the spreading of cold atoms in optical lattices [@KesslerBarkai:2010; @KesslerBarkai:2012; @DechantLutz:2012]. The mechanisms of the strong anomalous diffusion for Lévy walk are studied in detail in Refs. [@RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2014; @RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2014-2; @RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2016], where the probability density function (PDF) consists of two kinds of distributions—Lévy distribution in the central part and infinite density in the tail part. The infinite density is non-normalizable, the concept of which was thoroughly investigated as mathematical issues [@Aaronson:1997; @ThalerZweimuller:2006], and has been successfully applied to physics; for Lévy walk, it aims at characterizing the ballistic scaling $(x\sim t)$, which is complementary to the Lévy scaling in the central part of Lévy walk. In contrast, the propagators of subdiffusive CTRW and Lévy flight only have a single mode, being the stretched Gaussian asymptotics and Lévy distribution [@MetzlerKlafter:2000], respectively. Compared with Lévy flight with divergent mean squared displacement, the infinite density characterizes the strong correlation between long jump and long rest in Lévy walk, resuting in a finite mean squared displacement. In addition, the infinite density can be used to study the rare fluctuations of occupation time statistics in ergodic CTRW [@SchulzBarkai:2015] and renewal theory [@WangSchulzDengBarkai:2018]. It is also discussed together with infinite-ergodic theory, for example, the Brownian motion in a logarithmic potential [@AghionKesslerBarkai:2019] and the Langevin system with multiplicative noise [@LeibovichBarkai:2019; @WangDengChen:2019].
In this paper, we are considering a two-state process alternating between Lévy walk and Brownian motion, which serves as an intermittent search process [@BenichouCoppeyMoreauSuetVoituriez:2005; @BenichouLoverdoMoreauVoituriez:2011; @LomholtKorenMetzlerKlafter:2008]. The searcher displays a slow active motion in the Brownian phase, during which the hidden target can be detected. While in Lévy walk phase, the searcher aims to relocate into some unvisited region to reduce oversampling. This kind of intermittent search process has wide applications in physical or biological problems [@Bell:1991; @SongMoonJeonPark:2018; @CoppeyBenichouVoituriezMoreau:2004]. The theoretical analyses of the anomalous and nonergodic behavior of this intermittent search process have been investigated in Ref. [@WangChenDeng:2019-2]. Here, we turn our attention to the strong anomalous diffusion behavior of such a two-state process process. Since the case of pure Lévy walk has been fully studied in Refs. [@RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2014; @RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2014-2; @RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2016], the main objective of this paper is to try to discover new phenomena after introducing the Brownian phase in Lévy walk and to uncover the intrinsic mechanism by clear theoretical analysis. Intuitively, one can expect that at least three modes coexist in this two-state process. It is true, and furthermore, the newly appeared mode in Brownian phase could bring in many interesting phenomena. The pure Lévy walk shows the strong anomalous diffusion phenomenon only in the case of power law exponent $\alpha>1$. Now, the two-state process could exhibit the strong anomalous diffusion even for $\alpha<1$ if the sojourn time in Brownian phase is longer than the one of Lévy walk phase. Although the particle in Brownian phase could move an arbitrary long distance, the infinite density which characterizes the ballistic scale of Lévy walk phase with a finite velocity still plays a leading role compared with the Gaussian distribution resulting from Brownian phase. In particular, another observation different from the pure Lévy walk is an accumulation effect found at the end of infinite density $(x=\pm v_0t)$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[two\], we first introduce the two-state process with different power law exponents ($\alpha_+$ and $\alpha_-$) of sojourn time in Lévy walk and Brownian phases, respectively. Then we derive the corresponding propagator $p_\pm(x,t)$ in two phases in Sec. \[three\]. The detailed scaling analyses for the cases of $0<\alpha_-<\alpha_+<1$ and $0<\alpha_-<1<\alpha_+$ are presented in Secs. \[four\] and \[five\], respectively. Then in Sec. \[six\], we show how these different scaling regimes are complementary and their consistency in the intermediate region. The ensemble-averaged absolute fractional-order moments of the displacement are given in Sec. \[seven\]. A summary of the key results is provided in Sec. \[eight\]. In the appendices, some mathematical details are collected.
Model {#two}
=====
We consider the process with its motion alternating between two different states—standard Lévy walk and Brownian motion. For standard Lévy walk, the particle moves with constant velocity $v_0$ and then changes its direction at a random time. The running times of each unidirectional flights are independent and drawn from the same distribution. While for Brownian motion, the particle undergoes normal diffusion with diffusivity $D$. Now, we assume that the sojourn time distributions of the two-state process switching between Lévy walk and Brownian phase are $\psi_+(t)$ and $\psi_-(t)$, respectively. The subscripts ‘$+$’ and ‘$-$’ are introduced to represent the Lévy walk and Brownian phase, respectively.
This process can be explicitly described by means of the velocity process $v(t)$ which also consists of two states: $v_+(t)$ for Lévy walk and $v_-(t)$ for Brownian motion. The PDF of $v_+(t)$ is $\delta(|v|-v_0)/2$, while $v_-(t)=\sqrt{2D}\xi(t)$ with $\xi(t)$ being a Gaussian white noise satisfying $\langle\xi(t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle\xi(t_1)\xi(t_2)\rangle=\delta(t_1-t_2)$.
Let the sojourn time distributions in two states be a power law form with exponents $\alpha_\pm$, i.e., $$\psi_\pm(t)\simeq \frac{a_\pm}{|\Gamma(-\alpha_\pm)|t^{1+\alpha_\pm}}$$ for large $t$, where $a_\pm$ are scale factors and $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the Gamma function. The exponents $\alpha_\pm\in(0,2)$ in two states can be the same or different. As usual, we define the Laplace transform $\psi_\pm(s):=\int_0^\infty dt e^{-st}\psi_\pm(t)$ and obtain the asymptotic behavior of $\psi(s)$ for small $s$ as [@MiyaguchiAkimotoYamamoto:2016] $$\begin{split}
&\psi_\pm(s)\simeq 1-a_\pm s^{\alpha_\pm}, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \alpha_\pm\in(0,1), \\
&\psi_\pm(s)\simeq 1-\mu_\pm s + a_\pm s^{\alpha_\pm}, ~~~~~ \alpha_\pm\in(1,2).
\end{split}$$ For the case of $\alpha_\pm\in(1,2)$, the mean sojourn time, denoted as $\mu_\pm$ for two states, is finite. In particular, the term $s^{\alpha_\pm}$ for $\alpha_\pm\in(1,2)$ is saved to characterize the rare fluctuations of Lévy walk, i.e., the information in its tail part. The survival probability of finding the sojourn time in state ‘$\pm$’ exceeding $t$ is defined as $\Psi_\pm(t)=\int_t^\infty dt' \psi_\pm(t')$ with its Laplace transform $$\Psi_\pm(s)=\frac{1-\psi_\pm(s)}{s}.$$ It is well-known that the dynamical behaviors of standard Lévy walk vary significantly for different regimes of power law exponents, which naturally motivates us to study the properties of this two-state process with different values of $\alpha_\pm\in(0,2)$.
Propagator of two-state process {#three}
===============================
The propagator $p(x,t)$ represents the PDF of finding the particle at position $x$ at time $t$, supposing that the particles are initialized at the origin. For this two-state process, we use $p_\pm(x,t)$ to denote the joint PDF of finding the particle at position $x$ and state ‘$\pm$’ at time $t$. They are associated with the propagator as $p(x,t)=p_+(x, t)+p_-(x,t)$. Besides, the notation $G_\pm(x,t)$ denotes the conditional PDF of making a displacement $x$ for a complete step in state ‘$\pm$’ within sojourn time $t$, defined as [@WangChenDeng:2019-2] $$\label{Gpm}
\begin{split}
G_+(x,t)&=\delta(|x|-v_0t)/2, \\
G_-(x,t)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi Dt}}\exp\left\{-\frac{x^2}{4Dt}\right\},
\end{split}$$ respectively. Based on these notations and the method of master equations for CTRWs, the integral equations for $p_\pm(x,t)$ can be built as [@WangChenDeng:2019-2] $$\label{transport1}
\begin{split}
\gamma_\pm(x,t)
&= \int_0^tdt'\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx'\psi_\mp(t')G_\mp(x',t')\gamma_\mp(x-x',t-t') \\
&~~~+ p^0_\mp\psi_\mp(t)G_\mp(x,t)
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{transport2}
\begin{split}
p_\pm(x,t)
&=\int_0^t dt'\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx' \Psi_\pm(t')G_\pm(x',t')\gamma_\pm(x-x',t-t') \\
&~~~+p^0_\pm \Psi_\pm(t)G_\pm(x,t),
\end{split}$$ where the flux of particles $\gamma_\pm(x,t)$ defines how many particles leave the position $x$ and change from state ‘$\mp$’ to state ‘$\pm$’ per unit time, and we have taken the initial condition as $p_\pm(x,t=0)=p^0_\pm\delta(x)$ with the constant $p^0_\pm$ being the initial fraction of two states. By using the techniques of Laplace and Fourier transform $$p_\pm(k,s)=\int_0^\infty dt\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx e^{-st}e^{ikx}p_\pm(x,t)$$ and performing the transforms on Eqs. and , there are $$\label{transport3}
\begin{split}
\gamma_{\pm}(k,s)&=p_\mp^0\phi_\mp(k,s)+\phi_\mp(k,s)\gamma_{\mp}(k,s),\\
p_{\pm}(k,s)&=p_\pm^0\Phi_{\pm}(k,s)+\Phi_{\pm}(k,s)\gamma_{\pm}(k,s),
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
\phi_+(k,s)&=[\psi_+(s+iv_0k)+\psi_+(s-iv_0k)]/2, \\[2pt]
\phi_-(k,s)&=\psi_-(s+Dk^2), \\[2pt]
\Phi_+(k,s)&=[\Psi_+(s+iv_0k)+\Psi_+(s-iv_0k)]/2, \\[2pt]
\Phi_-(k,s)&=\Psi_-(s+Dk^2).
\end{split}$$ Solving Eq. yields $$\label{pks+-}
\begin{split}
p_{\pm}(k,s) \simeq \frac{\Phi_\pm(k,s)}{1-\phi_+(k,s)\phi_-(k,s)}.
\end{split}$$ Based on Eq. , the explicit expression of propagator $p(k,s)=p_+(k,s)+p_-(k,s)$ can be obtained. It can be found that the main ingredients of $p(k,s)$ in Eq. are the sojourn time distributions $\psi_\pm(t)$. So the further analyses on $p(k,s)$ will be developed for the specific $\psi_\pm(t)$ with fixed $\alpha_\pm$.
Since $\alpha_\pm$ are both in the range $(0,2)$, it can be divided into almost six situations for different values of $\alpha_\pm$: $0<\alpha_-<\alpha_+<1$, $0<\alpha_+<\alpha_-<1$, $0<\alpha_-=\alpha_+<1$, $0<\alpha_+<1<\alpha_-<2$, $0<\alpha_-<1<\alpha_+<2$, and $1<\alpha_\pm<2$. The anomalous and nonergodic behaviors for these six situations have been demonstrated in Ref. [@WangChenDeng:2019-2]. The main result therein is that the state with smaller power exponent will dominate the whole process in a power law rate as $t\rightarrow\infty$. In contrast to that, the aim of this paper is to investigate the complementary PDFs and the strong anomalous diffusion behavior of this two-state process. Comparing with the thoroughly investigated strong anomalous diffusion behavior of standard Lévy walk, a larger exponent $\alpha_-$ in our two-state process makes no difference on the diffusion behavior. Therefore, we only focus on the cases of $0<\alpha_-<\min(\alpha_+,1)$ in this paper, while another four cases will present the same results as pure Lévy walk.
Scaling analyses for $0<\alpha_-<\alpha_+<1$ {#four}
============================================
In this case, it holds that $\psi_\pm(s)\simeq1-a_\pm s^{\alpha_\pm}$. Substituting it into Eq. , we obtain the asymptotic form as $(s,k\rightarrow0)$:
$$\label{C1-pks}
p(k,s)\simeq\frac{a_-(s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_--1}+\frac{a_+}{2}[(s+ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}+(s-ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}]}{a_-(s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_-}+\frac{a_+}{2}[(s+ikv_0)^{\alpha_+}+(s-ikv_0)^{\alpha_+}]}.$$
The normalization of the propagator $p(x,t)$ can be verified by taking $k=0$ in Eq. , which yields $p(0,s)\simeq 1/s$. The direct inverse Fourier-Laplace transform of Eq. is infeasible, which implies extra efforts are needed to deal with Eq. . Actually, the information contained in the asymptotic form of $p(k,s)$ could be extracted through some appropriate scaling analyses. By carefully looking at the denominator in Eq. , three kinds of scaling ($s\sim k$, $s\sim |k|^2$, and $s\sim |k|^{\alpha_+/\alpha_-}$) can be observed. We will first consider the scaling $s\sim k$, since it characterizes the ballistic scaling of Lévy walk due to its unidirectional flight at each sojourn in this phase.
The outmost distance that particles can arrive at is $\pm v_0t$ in Lévy walk phase, linear with time, which truncates the PDF $p(x,t)$ at $\pm v_0t$. Although the particle in Brownian phase might go farther than the distance $\pm v_0t$, the corresponding distribution decays exponentially when $x\gg \sqrt{t}$ as the propagator $G_-(x,t)$ shows in Eq. . So we omit the contributions of Brownian phase in the scaling $s\sim k$. The explicit tail information is described by the ballistic scaling $s\sim k$ in Eq. , corresponding to $x\sim t$ in space-time domain. In contrast to $s\sim k$, another two kinds of scalings aim at characterizing the central part of the graph of the PDF $p(x,t)$.
Infinite density of rare fluctuations
-------------------------------------
To consider the scaling $s\sim k$, we let $s,k\rightarrow0$ and $s/k$ be fixed. Then Eq. can be rewritten as $$\label{C1-pks2}
\begin{split}
&p(k,s)\simeq \frac{1}{s} \\
&~~\times\frac{1+\frac{a_+}{2a_-}s^{\alpha_+-\alpha_-}
[(1+\frac{ikv_0}{s})^{\alpha_+-1}+(1-\frac{ikv_0}{s})^{\alpha_+-1}]}
{1+\frac{a_+}{2a_-}s^{\alpha_+-\alpha_-}[(1+\frac{ikv_0}{s})^{\alpha_+}+(1-\frac{ikv_0}{s})^{\alpha_+}]}
\end{split}$$ after neglecting the higher order term $k^2$. The two terms in Eq. containing $s^{\alpha_+-\alpha_-}$ tend to zero since $\alpha_+>\alpha_-$. Thus, we further have the asymptotic form as $$\label{C1-pks3}
\begin{split}
p(k,s)&\simeq \frac{1}{s} +\frac{a_+}{2a_-}s^{\alpha_+-\alpha_--1} \\
&~~~\times\left[\left(1+\frac{ikv_0}{s}\right)^{\alpha_+-1}+\left(1-\frac{ikv_0}{s}\right)^{\alpha_+-1}\right. \\
&~~~~~~~~ \left. -\left(1+\frac{ikv_0}{s}\right)^{\alpha_+}-\left(1-\frac{ikv_0}{s}\right)^{\alpha_+}\right] \\
&= \frac{1}{s}+\frac{a_+}{2a_-} [R_\alpha(k,s)+R_\alpha(-k,s)],
\end{split}$$ where for convenience we use the notation: $$\label{C1-Rks}
\begin{split}
&R_\alpha(k,s) \\
&:= s^{\alpha_+-\alpha_--1}\left[\left(1+\frac{ikv_0}{s}\right)^{\alpha_+-1}-\left(1+\frac{ikv_0}{s}\right)^{\alpha_+}\right] \\
&~= \frac{-ikv_0}{s^{\alpha_-+1}}(s+ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}.
\end{split}$$ The leading term in Eq. is $1/s$, the inverse Fourier-Laplace transform of which is $\delta(x)$. It contributes to a normalized PDF in this scaling while the latter two terms provide the information on the tail of the PDF $p(x,t)$. We consider the ballistic scaling $s\sim k$ here, which compresses all the information in the central part into the origin and thus yields the normalized term $\delta(x)$. Since we are focusing on the information in the tail $|x|>0$, we omit the term $\delta(x)$ and pay attention to the inverse of $R_\alpha(\pm k,s)$ in Eq. . With some technical calculations in Appendix \[App1\], the inversion of $R_\alpha(\pm k,s)$ is obtained and there is $$\label{pxt-tail1}
\begin{split}
p(x,t) \simeq \frac{a_+}{2a_-v_0}\frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)} \mathcal{I}\left(\frac{|x|}{v_0t}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{Iz}
\mathcal{I}(z) = \textbf{1}_{(0<z\leq1)} z^{-\alpha_+-1}(1-z)^{\alpha_--1}\left[\alpha_++(\alpha_--\alpha_+)z \right].$$
There is a truncation at $z=1$ in the expression of $\mathcal{I}(z)$, which implies $|x|\leq v_0t$, consistent to the previous analysis that the particle will not go beyond the distance $\pm v_0t$. On the other hand, regarding $z=x/v_0t$ as a new variable, the integral of the auxiliary function $\mathcal{I}(z)$ diverges due to its singularity at the origin $z=0$, which gives it a name—infinite density. Therefore, the infinite density $\mathcal{I}(z)$ is not a real physical PDF. Despite of this, it reveals the long time asymptotic behavior of the propagator $p(x,t)$ through the relationship in Eq. . When calculating moments, we multiply $|x|^q$ on both sides of Eq. and integrate with respect to $x$. Then we obtain $$\label{relation-ID}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty |x|^qp(x,t)dx \propto t^{\alpha_--\alpha_++q}\int_0^{1}z^q \mathcal{I}(z)dz.$$ For $q<\alpha_+$, the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. diverges. However, the infinite density $\mathcal{I}(z)$ is valid for high order moments with $q>\alpha_+$, which cures the singularity at $z=0$. Therefore, the main functions of the infinite density $\mathcal{I}(z)$ is to characterize the tail information of PDF $p(x,t)$ and to calculate the high order moments.
We also observe another interesting phenomenon—an accumulation at $z=1$ due to $\alpha_-<1$ in Eq. . This accumulation even exists for $D=0$ (i.e., the Lévy walk interrupted by rest [@SolomonWeeksSwinney:1993; @KlafterZumofen:1994; @SongMoonJeonPark:2018]). Therefore, this accumulation is not contributed by the particles in Brownian phase, which vanishes when $\alpha_-=1$. While for $\alpha_-<1$ and big $t$, it can be balanced by the prefactor $t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}$ in Eq. . Actually, this phenomenon implies that the PDF of pure Lévy walk is dropped down by the long sojourn time in Brownian phase except for the end point at $z=1$. The end point of the infinite density is not affected since it results from the particles running in its first step for the whole time. Once the particle renews and turns into the second step in Brownian phase with longer sojourn time, it is less likely for the particle to go back to the Lévy walk phase again.
Dual scaling regimes in the central part
----------------------------------------
After obtaining the tail information of $p(x,t)$ by introducing an infinite density $\mathcal{I}(z)$, we turn our attention to the central part of $p(x,t)$ where the scaling relation $s\ll k$ is valid. This scaling helps to simplify the Eq. into $$\label{C1-pks4}
\begin{split}
&p(k,s)\simeq \\
&~~\frac{a_- (s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_--1}+\frac{a_+}{2}[(ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}+(-ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}]}{a_- (s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_-}+\frac{a_+}{2}[(ikv_0)^{\alpha_+}+(-ikv_0)^{\alpha_+}]}.
\end{split}$$ It can be found that two different scalings coexist in Eq. , i.e., $s\sim|k|^{\alpha_+/\alpha_-}$ and $s\sim|k|^2$. This phenomenon is different from the standard Lévy walk, where only Lévy scaling is observed at the central part [@RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2014-2]. Now the Gaussian shape with scaling $s\sim|k|^2$ cannot be omitted due to the longer sojourn time in Brownian phase.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider the magnitude relation between $\alpha_+$ and $2\alpha_-$ for further analyses. If $\alpha_+<2\alpha_-$, the Lévy scaling $s\sim|k|^{\alpha_+/\alpha_-}$ dominates the PDF $p(x,t)$. In this case, after omitting $Dk^2$ and the second term in numerator of Eq. due to $|k|^{\alpha_+-1}\ll s^{\alpha_--1}$, we obtain $$\label{C1-pks5}
\begin{split}
p(k,s)&\simeq
\frac{a_- s^{\alpha_--1}}{a_- s^{\alpha_-}+ a_+\cos(\pi\alpha_+/2)v_0^{\alpha_+}|k|^{\alpha_+}} \\
&= \frac{s^{\alpha_--1}}{s^{\alpha_-}+K_\alpha|k|^{\alpha_+}},
\end{split}$$ where the generalized diffusion coefficient $K_\alpha=a_+\cos(\pi\alpha_+/2)v_0^{\alpha_+}/a_-$. When $\alpha_-=1$, the inverse of $p(k,s)$ is a normalized symmetric Lévy stable PDF, which recovers the central part of the PDF of standard Lévy walk. For $\alpha_-<1$, the PDF is like a Lévy flight coupled with an inverse subordinator. The displacement in Brownian phase can be neglected and thus it acts like a trap event with power law exponent $\alpha_-<1$. The running time in Lévy walk phase is far less than the one in Brownian phase and thus can be neglected so that the displacement in this phase acts like a jump obeying power law distribution with exponent $\alpha_+$. The corresponding Langevin system can be found in Ref. [@Fogedby:1994]. The PDF $p(x,t)$ in Eq. is a stretched Lévy distribution, the closed form of which can be expressed by Fox H-function: $$p(x,t)\simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}|x|} H^{2,1}_{2,3}
\left[\left.\frac{|x|^{\alpha_+}}{2^{\alpha_+}K_\alpha t^{\alpha_-}}\right|
\begin{array}{l}
(1,1),(1,\alpha_-) \\ (\frac{1}{2},\frac{\alpha_+}{2}),(1,1),(1,\frac{\alpha_+}{2})
\end{array}\right].$$ Based on the asymptotic form of Fox H-function [@MathaiSaxenaHaubold:2009], there is $$\label{pxt-cent1}
p(x,t)\simeq \frac{\tilde{K}_\alpha t^{\alpha_-}}{|x|^{1+\alpha_+}}$$ for large $|x|$, where the coefficient $$\tilde{K}_\alpha=\frac{\Gamma(1+\alpha_+)\sin(\pi\alpha_+/2)K_\alpha}{\Gamma(1+\alpha_-)\pi}.$$
On the contrary, if $\alpha_+>2\alpha_-$, the dominant part of $p(k,s)$ is in the scaling $s\sim |k|^2$. Similarly, the second terms in numerator and denominator of Eq. are both higher order than the corresponding first terms. We neglect them and obtain $$\label{C1-pks6}
p(k,s)\simeq \frac{1}{s+Dk^2},$$ displaying the classical behavior of Brownian motion. The inverse Fourier-Laplace transform of Eq. yields the Gaussian shape $$\label{pxt-cent2}
p(x,t)\simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi Dt}}\exp\left(-\frac{x^2}{4Dt}\right)$$ in the central part of $p(x,t)$.
Compared with the infinite density $\mathcal{I}(z)$, the different asymptotic forms of $p(x,t)$ on the central part within different scaling regimes are both normalized, since taking $k=0$ both yield $p(0,s)\simeq 1/s$ in Eqs. and . However, the high order (bigger than $\alpha_+$) moments will diverge if we use the asymptotic forms of $p(x,t)$ in the central part, since the large-$x$ behavior in Eq. is heavy-tailed with exponent $1+\alpha_+$. On the contrary, the high order moments with Gaussian PDF in Eq. exponentially decay and can be neglected compared with the infinite density $\mathcal{I}(z)$ on the tail part.
Scaling analyses for $0<\alpha_-<1<\alpha_+$ {#five}
============================================
In this case, it holds that $\psi_+(s)\simeq1-\mu_+ s +a_+ s^{\alpha_+}$ and $\psi_-(s)\simeq1-a_- s^{\alpha_-}$. Substituting them into Eq. , we obtain the asymptotic form as $(s,k\rightarrow0)$:
$$\label{C2-pks}
p(k,s)\simeq\frac{\mu_++a_-(s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_--1}-\frac{a_+}{2}[(s+ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}+(s-ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-1}]}{\mu_+s+a_-(s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_-}-\frac{a_+}{2}[(s+ikv_0)^{\alpha_+}+(s-ikv_0)^{\alpha_+}]},$$
which is also normalized. It can be found that the slight difference between Eqs. and are the terms containing $\mu_+$. Considering $\alpha_-<1$, there is $\mu_+\ll(s+Dk^2)^{\alpha_--1}$. Therefore, $\mu_+$ can be omitted in the denominator and numerator of Eq. . Then the asymptotic form in Eq. is almost the same as the one in Eq. , except for the minuses in front of the last terms in the denominator and numerator.
Although the asymptotic forms are similar in Eqs. and , the details of scaling analyses are slightly different due to $\alpha_+>1$. More precisely, let us first focus on the scaling $s\sim k$. A result similar to Eq. can be obtained as $$\label{C2-pks3}
\begin{split}
p(k,s)= \frac{1}{s}-\frac{a_+}{2a_-} [R_\alpha(k,s)+R_\alpha(-k,s)].
\end{split}$$ Since $\alpha_+>1$ now, we need to split $R_\alpha(k,s)$ into two parts to perform inverse Fourier-Laplace transforms, that is, $$R_\alpha(k,s) = \left[\frac{-ikv_0}{s^{\alpha_-}}+\frac{v_0^2k^2}{s^{\alpha_-+1}}\right](s+ikv_0)^{\alpha_+-2}.$$ With similar procedures as Appendix \[App1\], we finally get $$\label{pxt-tail2}
\begin{split}
p(x,t) \simeq \frac{a_+}{2a_-v_0}\frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)|\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)|} \mathcal{I}\left(\frac{|x|}{v_0t}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $\mathcal{I}(z)$ is defined in Eq. . To replace $\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)$ by $|\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)|$ for positivity preserving, one can get Eq. from Eq. , which is the only difference. Similarly, for the scaling analyses when $s\ll k$, Eqs. and are also valid if we replace $\cos(\pi\alpha_+/2)$ by $|\cos(\pi\alpha_+/2)|$.
complementarity among different scaling regimes {#six}
===============================================
For both cases of $0<\alpha_-<\alpha_+<1$ and $0<\alpha_-<1<\alpha_+$, the PDFs $p(x,t)$ are studied in different scaling regimes. The tail part ($x\sim t$) can be well approximated by the infinity density $\mathcal{I}(z)$ as $$\label{solu-tail}
p(x,t)\simeq t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}g_{\textrm{tail}}\left(\frac{x}{t}\right),$$ where the scaling function $$\label{comp-tail}
g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)=\frac{a_+}{2a_-v_0\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)|\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)|} \mathcal{I}\left(\frac{|z|}{v_0}\right).$$ On the other hand, the central part of $p(x,t)$ is well approximated by two densities as $$\label{solu-cen}
p(x,t)\simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
t^{-\alpha_-/\alpha_+} \,g_{\textrm{cen1}}\left(xt^{-\alpha_-/\alpha_+}\right)
&~ \alpha_+<2\alpha_-, \\[5pt]
t^{-1/2} \,g_{\textrm{cen2}}\left(xt^{-1/2}\right) &~ \alpha_+>2\alpha_-,
\end{array} \right.$$ where the scaling functions $$g_{\textrm{cen1}}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}|z|} H^{2,1}_{2,3}
\left[\left.\frac{|z|^{\alpha_+}}{2^{\alpha_+}K_\alpha }\right|
\begin{array}{l}
(1,1),(1,\alpha_-) \\ (\frac{1}{2},\frac{\alpha_+}{2}),(1,1),(1,\frac{\alpha_+}{2})
\end{array}\right]$$ and $$g_{\textrm{cen2}}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi D}}\exp\left(-\frac{z^2}{4D}\right).$$ The central part of $p(x,t)$ is with the scaling $x\sim t^\beta$, where $$\beta=\max(\alpha_-/\alpha_+,1/2)<1.$$ Therefore, the intermediate region between central part $t^\beta$ and tail part $t$ is very large as $t\rightarrow\infty$. For convenience, we simplify Eq. as $$p(x,t)\simeq t^{-\beta}\,g_{\textrm{cen}}\left(\frac{x}{t^{\beta}}\right),$$ where $g_{\textrm{cen}}=g_{\textrm{cen1}}$ when $\alpha_+<2\alpha_-$ and $g_{\textrm{cen}}=g_{\textrm{cen2}}$ when $\alpha_+>2\alpha_-$. To verify the results of PDF $p(x,t)$ in Eqs. and , we simulate the PDF with different scalings for several pairs of $\alpha_\pm$. The simulation results are presented in Fig. \[fig1\], showing the agreement with theoretical results very well.
A natural expectation on the analyses in different scales is that the different distributions should be consistent in the intermediate region. The intermediate region is described by $x\rightarrow0$ for tail part and $x\rightarrow\infty$ for central part. By taking the corresponding limits in Eqs. and , respectively, we obtain the same asymptotic form as $$\label{intermediate}
\begin{split}
p(x,t)&\simeq t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}g_{\textrm{tail}}\left(\frac{x}{t}\right) \\
&\simeq t^{-\alpha_-/\alpha_+} \,g_{\textrm{cen1}}\left(\frac{x}{t^{\alpha_-/\alpha_+}}\right) \\
&\simeq \frac{c_0t^{\alpha_-}}{|x|^{1+\alpha_+}}
\end{split}$$ for $t^\beta\ll x\ll t$, where the coefficient $$c_0=\frac{a_+\alpha_+v_0^{\alpha_+}}{2a_-\Gamma(1+\alpha_-)|\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)|}.$$ The different scaling regimes are complementary here, and they together depict the whole graph of PDF $p(x,t)$. Note that we only use the first density in the central part which is power law decay in Eq. , since another one decays exponentially and can be omitted. Apart from the consistence of two distributions in the intermediate region, the previous discussions of different dominant roles in Eq. make sense when calculating low order moments.
Ensemble averages {#seven}
=================
Now we pay attention to the absolute moments of all orders for the displacement. Since the different scaling regimes approximate the different parts of $p(x,t)$, they together yield the entire information on the long time asymptotics, and thus determine the moments of displacement. We introduce an auxiliary function $c(t)$ which satisfies $$t^\beta\ll c(t)\ll t$$ to divide the central part and tail part. Then we can split the integral into two parts, where different scaling regimes well approximate $p(x,t)$, that is, $$\label{moments}
\begin{split}
\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle &= \int_{|x|\leq c(t)}|x|^qp(x,t)dx+\int_{|x|> c(t)}|x|^qp(x,t)dx \\
&=\int_{|x|\leq c(t)}|x|^q t^{-\beta}\,g_{\textrm{cen}}\left(\frac{x}{t^{\beta}}\right)dx \\
&~~~~~+\int_{|x|> c(t)}|x|^q t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}g_{\textrm{tail}}\left(\frac{x}{t}\right)dx \\
&= t^{\beta q} \int_{|z|\leq c(t)/t^\beta}|z|^q g_{\textrm{cen}}(z)dz \\
&~~~~~+t^{\alpha_--\alpha_++q} \int_{|z|> c(t)/t}|z|^q g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)dz.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, the central and tail parts have different contributions to the absolute $q$-th moments, which are $t^{\beta q}$ and $t^{\alpha_--\alpha_++q}$, respectively, the critical value of which is $$q_c=\frac{\alpha_+-\alpha_-}{1-\beta},$$ implying the piecewise linear behavior of the spectrum of exponents $q\nu(q)$ in Eq. . When $q<q_c$, the former one plays a leading role, otherwise the latter one dominates. The two integrals in Eq. are both finite by choosing appropriate $c(t)$ for different order $q$. For example, for low order moments with $q<q_c$, choosing $c(t)=c_1t$ with $c_1\ll1$, the two integrals become $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty|z|^q g_{\textrm{cen}}(z)dz,~~\int_{|z|> c_1}|z|^q g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)dz < \infty$$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. The singular point $z=0$ of the latter integral is excluded by a small distance $c_1$. While for high order moments with $q>q_c$, we choose $c(t)=c_2t^\beta$ with $1\ll c_2$. Then the two integrals are $$\int_{|z|\leq c_2}|z|^q g_{\textrm{cen}}(z)dz,~~\int_{-\infty}^\infty|z|^q g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)dz < \infty.$$ The high order moments for the infinity density $g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)$ will not diverge. Considering $\beta=\max(\alpha_-/\alpha_+,1/2)$, the absolute $q$-th moments are given in two different cases. If $\alpha_+<2\alpha_-$, $$\label{EA_theo1}
\begin{split}
\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle \simeq
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
M^{\prec}_1 \, t^{q\alpha_-/\alpha_+}, & q<\alpha_+, \\
M^{\succ} \, t^{q+\alpha_--\alpha_+}, & q>\alpha_+.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}$$ If $\alpha_+\ge 2\alpha_-$, $$\label{EA_theo2}
\begin{split}
\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle \simeq
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
M^{\prec}_2 \, t^{q/2}, & q<2(\alpha_+-\alpha_-), \\
M^{\succ} \, t^{q+\alpha_--\alpha_+}, & q>2(\alpha_+-\alpha_-).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}$$ The results in Eqs. and imply that this system exhibits strong anomalous diffusion behavior with a bilinear spectrum of exponents, which has been verified by simulations in Fig. \[fig2\]. The diffusion coefficients $M^{\prec}_1$, $M^{\prec}_2$, and $M^{\succ}$ can be obtained from the derivations in Eq. as $$\label{M-coefficients}
\begin{split}
M^{\prec}_1&=\int_{-\infty}^\infty|z|^q g_{\textrm{cen1}}(z)dz \\
&=\frac{(K_\alpha)^{q/\alpha_+}\Gamma(1-q/\alpha_+)\Gamma(1+q/\alpha_+)}{ \cos(q\pi/2)\Gamma(1-q)\Gamma(1+q\alpha_-/\alpha_+)}, \\[4pt]
M^{\prec}_2&=\int_{-\infty}^\infty|z|^q g_{\textrm{cen2}}(z)dz \\
& =\frac{(4D)^{q/2}\Gamma(\frac{q+1}{2})}{\sqrt{\pi}}, \\[4pt]
M^{\succ}&=\int_{-\infty}^\infty|z|^q g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)dz \\
&=\frac{a_+q\Gamma(q-\alpha_+)}{2a_-\Gamma(q-\alpha_++\alpha_-+1)|\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)|}.
\end{split}$$ The coefficients $M^{\prec}_2$ and $M^{\succ}$ can be directly obtained by using the expressions of $g_{\textrm{cen2}}(z)$ and $g_{\textrm{tail}}(z)$, respectively. While it is not easy to get $M^{\prec}_1$ from the expression of $g_{\textrm{cen1}}(z)$, a Fox H-function. So we resort to the method of subordination and present the details in Appendix \[App2\].
![The spectrum of exponents $q\nu(q)$ versus $q$. The blue circle-markers and red square-markers represent the simulation results of the sampling with $10^5$ realizations for cases $\alpha_+=0.8,\alpha_-=0.6$ and $\alpha_+=1.4,\alpha_-=0.6$, respectively. The dotted lines and dot-dashed lines denote the theoretical results for $q<q_c$ and $q>q_c$ in Eqs. and , respectively.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig_nuq "fig:")\
Summary {#eight}
=======
The intermittent search strategy has been widely applied in the real world. The most powerful and representative one is an alternating process with two states: Lévy walk and Brownian motion. In this paper, we mainly investigate the anomalous diffusion with multiple modes for the two-state process. It is well-known that pure Lévy walk exhibits the strong anomalous diffusion when the power law exponent of running time is bigger than one. The intrinsic mechanism is that two kinds of distributions are complementary in the PDF of Lévy walk, i.e., the Lévy distribution in the central part and the infinite density in the tail part. Here, the two-state process becomes more complicated since three kinds of scales coexist in this system. The usual method to deal with the system with multiple modes is scaling analysis on the PDF. If $\alpha_->\alpha_+$ or $\alpha_->1$, the Lévy walk phase will dominate for long times in this system, and thus the strong anomalous diffusion phenomenon will be the same as pure Lévy walk. Therefore, we only consider the case $\alpha_-<\min(\alpha_+,1)$ in this paper.
Based on the technique of master equation, we build the integral equations for this two-state process, and thus obtain the explicit expression of PDF in Fourier-Laplace space $p(k,s)$ by solving the integral equations. Consistent to the intuitive understanding of this system, three kinds of scaling regimes can be found in the expression of $p(k,s)$, which are $s\sim k$ for ballistic scaling in Lévy walk phase, $s\sim |k|^{\alpha_+/\alpha_-}$ for Lévy scaling in Lévy walk phase, and $s\sim |k|^2$ for Gaussian scaling in Brownian phase. By applying the detailed scaling analyses within these regimes, respectively, we obtain the infinite density in the tail part, and a combination of stretched Lévy and Gaussian distributions in the central part.
The relationships between the three distributions are abundant. (i) In the central part, the leading role (with respect to moments) of stretched Lévy distribution and Gaussian distribution is determined by the magnitude size of $\alpha_+$ and $2\alpha_-$. The former distribution dominates when $\alpha_+<2\alpha_-$, otherwise the latter one dominates. (ii) Whatever the magnitude sizes of $\alpha_+$ and $2\alpha_-$ are, it is the stretched Lévy distribution rather than Gaussian distribution, which is consistent to the infinite density in the intermediate region, since the Gaussian distribution decays exponentially and can be omitted. (iii) There is a seeming accumulation effect at the end of the infinite density ($z=1$). The end of the infinite density is contributed by the particles running in its first step for the whole time. Once it renews and turns into the second step in Brownian phase, it is less likely for the particle to return the Lévy walk phase again due to the longer sojourn time in Brownian phase. Therefore, the PDF of Lévy walk is dropped down by the long sojourn time in Brownian phase except for the end point at $z=1$. (iiii) Three distributions are equipped with different weights for different value of $q$ when calculating the absolute $q$-th moments. With their cooperation, all moments of the displacement $x(t)$ is finite and the strong anomalous diffusion can be observed.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant no. 11671182, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under grants no. lzujbky-2018-ot03 and no. lzujbky-2019-it17.
Inverse Fourier-Laplace transform of $R_\alpha(k,s)$ in Eq. {#App1}
============================================================
First, the inverse Laplace transform ($s\rightarrow t$) of $R_\alpha(k,s)$ is $$\begin{split}
R_\alpha(k,t)= -ikv_0 \int_0^t \frac{e^{-ikv_0t'}t'^{-\alpha_+}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)}(t-t')^{\alpha_-}dt'.
\end{split}$$ By performing the substitutions ($t'=tx$) and ($v_0tk=\xi$), one arrives at $$\tilde{R}_\alpha(\xi,t)= \frac{-i\xi t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)}\int_0^1 e^{-i\xi x}x^{-\alpha_+}(1-x)^{\alpha_-}dx.$$ Then, taking inverse Fourier transform ($\xi\rightarrow z$) leads to $$\begin{split}
&\tilde{R}_\alpha(z,t) \\
&= -\frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)} \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\int_0^1 \delta(z-x)x^{-\alpha_+}(1-x)^{\alpha_-}dx \\
&= -\frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)} \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\Big[ \textbf{1}_{(0<z\leq1)}z^{-\alpha_+}(1-z)^{\alpha_-} \Big] \\
&= \frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+}}{\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)} \mathcal{I}(z),
\end{split}$$ where $$\mathcal{I}(z) = \textbf{1}_{(0<z\leq1)} z^{-\alpha_+-1}(1-z)^{\alpha_--1}\left[\alpha_++(\alpha_--\alpha_+)z \right].$$ Finally, considering the relationship $v_0tk=\xi$, the inverse Fourier transform ($k\rightarrow x$) of $R_\alpha(k,t)$ is $$\begin{split}
R_\alpha(x,t) &=\frac{1}{v_0t} \tilde{R}_\alpha\left(\frac{x}{v_0t},t\right) \\
&=\frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}}{v_0\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)} \mathcal{I}\left(\frac{x}{v_0t}\right).
\end{split}$$ Similarly, the inverse Fourier-Laplace transform ($k\rightarrow x,s\rightarrow t$) of $R_\alpha(-k,s)$ is $$\begin{split}
\frac{t^{\alpha_--\alpha_+-1}}{v_0\Gamma(\alpha_-+1)\Gamma(1-\alpha_+)} \mathcal{I}\left(-\frac{x}{v_0t}\right).
\end{split}$$
Derivation of the coefficient $M^{\prec}_1$ {#App2}
===========================================
It is not easy to directly obtain $M^{\prec}_1$ in Eq. from the expression of $g_{\textrm{cen1}}(z)$, since $g_{\textrm{cen1}}$ is a Fox H-function. However, we find that the PDF $p(x,t)$ in Eq. corresponds to the model—Lévy flight coupled with an inverse subordinator, the Langevin picture of which is discussed in Ref. [@Fogedby:1994]. Based on the method of subordination [@BauleFriedrich:2005; @ChenWangDeng:2018-2; @ChenWangDeng:2019-2], $p(x,t)$ can be written into an integral form as $$\label{B1}
p(x,t)=\int_0^\infty p_0(x,\tau)h(\tau,t)d\tau,$$ where $p_0(x,\tau)$ is the PDF of displacement of Lévy flight with Fourier transform ($x\rightarrow k$) being $$\label{B2}
p_0(k,\tau)=e^{-\tau K_\alpha|k|^{\alpha_+}},$$ and $h(\tau,t)$ is the PDF of the inverse $\alpha_-$-stable subordinator with Laplace transform ($t\rightarrow s$) being $$\label{B3}
h(\tau,s)=s^{\alpha_--1}e^{-\tau s^{\alpha_-}}.$$ The Eq. can be obtained by substituting the Eqs. and into Eq. . Multiplying $|x|^q$ on both sides of Eq. , we obtain $$\label{B4}
\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle=\int_0^\infty \langle |x|_0^q\rangle(\tau)h(\tau,t)d\tau,$$ where $$\label{B5}
\langle |x(\tau)|_0^q\rangle =K_1 \tau^{q/\alpha_+}$$ is the absolute $q$-th moment of Lévy flight. Here, [@SamorodnitskyTaqqu:1994; @RebenshtokDenisovHanggiBarkai:2014-2] $$\label{B6}
\begin{split}
K_1&=(K_\alpha)^{q/\alpha_+} \int_{-\infty}^\infty |x|^q l_{\alpha_+,0}(x)dx \\
&= \frac{(K_\alpha)^{q/\alpha_+}\Gamma(1-q/\alpha_+)}{\cos(q\pi/2)\Gamma(1-q)}
\end{split}$$ with $l_{\alpha_+,0}(x)$ being the symmetric $\alpha_+$-stable Lévy noise [@KlafterSokolov:2011]. Substituting Eq. into Eq. and performing Laplace transform ($t\rightarrow s$), we obtain $$\mathcal{L}\{\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle\}=K_1 \Gamma(1+q/\alpha_+)\, s^{-1-q\alpha_-/\alpha_+},$$ the inverse Laplace transform of which is $$\langle |x(t)|^q\rangle= M^{\prec}_1\,t^{q\alpha_-/\alpha_+}$$ with $$M^{\prec}_1 =\frac{K_1 \Gamma(1+q/\alpha_+)}{\Gamma(1+q\alpha_-/\alpha_+)}.$$
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A probability model exhibits instability if small changes in a data outcome result in large, and often unanticipated, changes in probability. This instability is a property of the probability model, rather than the fitted parameter vector. For correlated data structures found in several application areas, there is increasing interest in predicting/identifying such sensitivity in model probability structure. We consider the problem of quantifying instability for general probability models defined on sequences of observations, where each sequence of length $N$ has a finite number of possible values. A sequence of probability models results, indexed by $N$, that accommodates data of expanding dimension. Model instability is formally shown to occur when a certain log-probability ratio under such models grows faster than $N$. In this case, a one component change in the data sequence can shift probability by orders of magnitude. Also, as instability becomes more extreme, the resulting probability models are shown to tend to degeneracy, placing all their probability on potentially small portions of the sample space. These results on instability apply to large classes of models commonly used in random graphs, network analysis, and machine learning contexts.'
author:
- |
Andee Kaplan\
Department of Statistics, Iowa State University\
and\
Daniel Nordman\
Department of Statistics, Iowa State University\
and\
Stephen Vardeman\
Department of Statistics and Department of Industrial and\
Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Iowa State University\
title: '**On the instability and degeneracy of deep learning models**'
---
\#1
[*Keywords:*]{} Degeneracy, Instability, Classification, Deep Learning, Graphical Models
Introduction
============
We consider the behavior, and the potential impropriety, of sequences of discrete probability models built to incorporate observations of increasing sample size $N$. Interest is in identifying instability in such models, which is roughly characterized by probabilities with extreme sensitivity to small changes in data configuration. The concept of instability was introduced in the field of statistical physics (i.e., point processes) by Ruelle () and then further extended by Schweinberger () for a family of exponential models. At issue, models exhibiting instability are typically undesirable as these tend to provide poor representations of data or data-generation. As an example, such models can include near-degenerate distributions that assign essentially all probability mass to only a subset of an overall sample space. The latter issue in connection to degeneracy has been recognized as a concern in that dominant model outcomes may not resemble observed data (cf. Handcock ). As a compounding issue, model instability often has direct negative impacts for statistical inference and computations based on likelihood functions. Namely, volatilities in probability structure can potentially hamper the numerical evaluations required for maximum likelihood estimation as well as other model-based simulations via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). These reasons motivate our general study of instability for a broad class of probability models, described next.
In the model framework, let $\boldsymbol X_N = (X_1, \dots, X_N)$ denote a collection of discrete random variables with a finite sample space, $\mathcal{X}^N$, represented as some $N$-fold Cartesian product. That is, $\mathcal{X}$ with $|\mathcal{X}| < \infty$ denotes the set of potential outcomes for each single variable $X_i$, so that the product space $\mathcal{X}^N$ corresponds to values for the variables $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$. For each $N$, let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ denote a probability model on $\mathcal{X}^N$, under which $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(x_1, \dots, x_N) > 0$ is the probability of the data outcome $(x_1, \dots, x_N) \in \mathcal{X}^N$. In this, we assume that the model support of $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is the sample space $\mathcal{X}^N$. This framework produces probability models $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, indexed by a generic sequence of parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N$, to describe data $\boldsymbol X_N$ of any given sample size $N \geq 1$. For simplicity, we will refer to this distributional class as *Finite Outcome Everywhere Supported (FOES)* models in the following. The dimension and structure of such parameters are generic, without restriction, though natural cases will be seen to include those where $\boldsymbol \theta_N \in \mathbb{R}^{q(N)}$ for some arbitrary integer-valued function $q(\cdot) \geq 1$.
Section \[examples\] provides some examples of FOES models encountered in graph/network analysis and machine learning (i.e., deep learning models). These are used as references for later illustrations. Section \[instability-results\] then establishes several formal results for FOES models with regard to instability. Schweinberger () originally developed instability results specific to a certain class of discrete exponential models. For similar exponential models with random networks, Handcock () studied model degeneracy, where a probability model places near complete mass on modes and may thereby narrow the feasible model outcomes. As findings here and from Schweinberger () suggest, model instability and degeneracy may also be related by viewing degeneracy as an extreme, or limiting form, of instability. Our main results establish a broad characterization of model instability, appropriate across the whole FOES model class, that incorporates results of Schweinberger () as a special case. We prescribe a general and simple condition for identifying instability in a FOES model sequence, which quantifies whether certain maximal probabilities in a FOES model are too extreme relative to the sample size $N$. When these conditions are met, the probability structure of a FOES model is shown to exhibit extreme sensitivity, with probability assignments possessing extreme peaks and troughs across nearly identical outcomes. As the measure of model instability increases, probabilities from an unstable FOES model additionally increase in volatility and provably slide into degeneracy. Section \[implications\] then emphasizes the implications of such model instability, showing that such impropriety can be expected to numerically hinder maximum likelihood estimation and MCMC-based simulations. As one potential remedy, suggestions are given for constraining model parameterizations to avoid the most problematic regions of the parameter space. Proofs of the main results appear in Appendix \[appendix-instab\].
Examples
========
Many model families fall under the umbrella of FOES models. For illustration, this section presents three specific examples of FOES models, including models with deep architectures.
Discrete Exponential Family Models
----------------------------------
For random variables $\boldsymbol X \equiv\boldsymbol X_N= (X_1, \dots, X_N)$ with sample space $\mathcal{X}^N$, $|\mathcal{X}| < \infty$, consider an exponential family model for $\boldsymbol X$ with probability mass function given by $$\label{eq:expo}
p_{N, \boldsymbol \theta}(\boldsymbol x) = \exp\left[\boldsymbol\eta^T(\boldsymbol \theta) \boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x) - \psi(\boldsymbol \theta)\right], \qquad \boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N,$$ depending on parameter vector $\boldsymbol \theta \in \Theta_N \subset \mathbb{R}^{k}$ and natural parameter function $\boldsymbol \eta : \mathbb{R}^k \mapsto \mathbb{R}^L$ with fixed positive integers $k$ and $L$ denoting their dimensions. Above, $\boldsymbol g_N : \mathcal{X}^N \mapsto \mathbb{R}^L$ is a vector of sufficient statistics, while $$\psi(\boldsymbol \theta) = \log \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}\exp\left[\boldsymbol \eta^T(\boldsymbol \theta) \boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x) \right], \qquad \boldsymbol \theta \in \Theta_N\equiv \{\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathbb{R}^k : \psi(\boldsymbol \theta) < \infty \},$$ denotes the normalizing function with parameter space $\Theta_N$. The natural parameter function $\eta (\boldsymbol \theta)$ has a linear form (i.e., $\eta (\boldsymbol \theta)= \bm{A} \boldsymbol \theta$ for a given $L \times k$ matrix $\bm{A}$) in many common model formulations, though may also be nonlinear (e.g., curved exponential families). In the linear case, $\eta (\boldsymbol \theta) = \boldsymbol \theta$ may be generally assumed in the exponential parameterization with a minor modification to the definition of sufficient statistics $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x)$.
Such discrete exponential family models are special cases of the FOES models, as seen by defining $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)\equiv p_{N,\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)> 0$, $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N$, based on and a parameter sequence $\boldsymbol \theta_N \in \Theta_N \subset \mathbb{R}^k$. For example, if observations $\boldsymbol X = (X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ correspond to $N$ independent and identically distributed Bernoulli random variables, each indicating a binary $0$-$1$ outcome, the resulting probabilities have exponential form given by $$\label{eq:mod1}
P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \propto
\exp\left[\boldsymbol \theta_N \sum_{i=1}^N x_i\right], \qquad \boldsymbol x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N) \in\{0,1\}^N,$$ with sufficient statistic $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x)\equiv \sum_{i=1}^N x_i$ and “log odds ratio” parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N \equiv \log[ P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_i=1)/P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_i=0) ] \in \mathbb{R}$. More generally, supposing $\boldsymbol X =(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ represent $N$ independent trials, each assuming an outcome $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ among $k$ possibilities (e.g., a die roll), a multinomial distribution is given by $$\label{eq:mod11}
P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \propto \exp\left[ \boldsymbol \theta_{N}^T g_N(\boldsymbol x) \right] =
\exp\left[ \sum_{j=1}^k {\theta_{j,N}} \sum_{i=1}^N \mathbb{I}(x_i=j) \right], \qquad \boldsymbol x \in\{1,\ldots,k\}^N,$$ with sufficient statistic $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x)$ involving a count $\sum_{i=1}^N \mathbb{I}(x_i=j)$ for each outcome $j \in \{1,\ldots,k\}$, where $\mathbb{I}(\cdot)$ denotes the indicator function, and parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N=(\theta_{1,N},\ldots,\theta_{k,N})\in\mathbb{R}^k$ defining log-probability ratios $\theta_{i,N}-\theta_{j,N} =\log [P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_1=i)/P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_1=j)]$. In addition to such standard models for discrete independent data, exponential models of FOES type commonly arise with dependent spatial data (Besag ) and network/relational data (Wasserman and Faust ; Handcock ). For a random graph or network with, say, $n$ nodes, consider $N={n \choose 2}$ random edges where the $i$th edge is associated with a pair of nodes $s_i \equiv \{v_i,u_i\}$ and a binary variable $X_i\in\{0,1\}$ indicating presence/absence of an edge among the node pair $s_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N$. Here the length $N$ of the edge variable sequence $\boldsymbol X = (X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ increases as a function of node number $n$ and corresponding exponential models often incorporate graph topographical features derived from $\boldsymbol X$. As an example, consider a graph model of exponential/FOES form prescribed by $$\label{eq:mod2}
P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \propto
\exp\left[\sum_{j=1}^3 \theta_{j,N} g_{j,N}(\boldsymbol x)\right], \quad\qquad \boldsymbol x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N) \in\{0,1\}^N,$$ $$g_{1,N}(\boldsymbol x) \equiv \sum_{i=1}^N x_i, \qquad\quad g_{2,N}(\boldsymbol x) \equiv \sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq N,\atop s_i \cap s_j \neq \emptyset}\!\!\! x_i x_j, \qquad
g_{3,N}(\boldsymbol x) \equiv \sum_{1 \leq i<j<\ell \leq N, \atop s_i \cap s_j \neq \emptyset,s_i \cap s_\ell \neq \emptyset, \\ s_j \cap s_\ell \neq \emptyset } \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! x_i x_j x_\ell,$$ involving the numbers of edges, 2-stars and triangles among an outcome $\boldsymbol x$ given by $g_{1,N}(\boldsymbol x)$, $g_{2,N}(\boldsymbol x)$ and $g_{3,N}(\boldsymbol x)$, respectively, along with $k=3$ real parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N \equiv (\theta_{1,N},\theta_{2,N},\theta_{3,N})$. For this network model in particular, as well as for more general models of form , Schweinberger () considered instability in such exponential models with sequences of fixed parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_k)\in\mathbb{R}^k$, $N \geq 1$, of fixed dimension $k$.
For model sequences $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)\equiv p_{N,\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$ of the exponential type , such as those in -, note that the dimension $k$ of the parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N\in\Theta \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ necessarily remains the same for all sample sizes $N \geq 1$ as the form of the natural parameter function $\eta(\cdot)$ in and the number of sufficient statistics $\boldsymbol g_{N}(\boldsymbol x)$ do not depend on $N$. Consequently, $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ lies in a parameter space of fixed Euclidean dimension $k$. However, this aspect need not be true for other types of FOES models considered in Sections \[rbm\] - \[deep-learning\], where instead the numbers of parameters and sufficient statistics commonly increase with the sample size $N$.
Restricted Boltzmann Machines {#rbm}
-----------------------------
A restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) is an undirected graphical model specified for discrete or continuous random variables, with binary variables being most common (cf. Smolensky ). A RBM architecture has two layers, hidden ($\mathcal{H}$) and visible ($\mathcal{V}$), with conditional independence within each layer. Let $\boldsymbol X = (X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ denote the $N$ random variables for visibles with support $\mathcal{X}^N$ and $\boldsymbol H = (H_1,\ldots,H_{N_\mathcal{H}})$ denote the $N_\mathcal{H}$ random variables for hiddens with support $\mathcal{X}^{N_\mathcal{H}}$ where $\mathcal{X} = \{-1,1\}$. For parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_\mathcal{H}}$, $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}\in \mathbb{R}^N$, and $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{HV}}$ as a real matrix with dimension $N_\mathcal{H} \times N$, the RBM model for $\tilde{\boldsymbol X}=(\boldsymbol X,\boldsymbol H)$ has the joint probability mass function $$\label{eq:RBM1}
\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\tilde{\boldsymbol x}) = \exp\left[ (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}})^T \boldsymbol h + \boldsymbol (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}})^T \boldsymbol x + \boldsymbol h^T \boldsymbol\theta_N^{\mathcal{HV}} \boldsymbol x - \psi(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\right], \quad \tilde{\boldsymbol x} = (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) \in \{\pm 1\}^{N+N_\mathcal{H}}$$ with normalizing function $$\psi(\boldsymbol \theta_N) = \log \sum_{\tilde{\boldsymbol x} \in \{\pm 1\}^{N+N_H} } \exp\left[ (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}})^T \boldsymbol h + \boldsymbol (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}})^T \boldsymbol x + \boldsymbol h^T \boldsymbol\theta_N^{\mathcal{HV}} \boldsymbol x\right].$$ Let $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}, \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}, \boldsymbol\theta_N^{\mathcal{HV}} ) \in \Theta_N \equiv \mathbb{R}^{q(N)}$, with $q(N) = N + N_\mathcal{H} + N*N_\mathcal{H}$, denote the parameter vector for the RBM, as indexed by the number $N$ of visible random variables (which may differ from the actual lengths of these parameter vectors). The probability mass function for the visible variables $\boldsymbol X = (X_1, \dots, X_N)$ follows from marginalizing the joint specification to yield $$\label{eq:RBM2}
P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x) = \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol h \in \{\pm 1\}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}}} \tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h), \qquad \boldsymbol x \in \{\pm 1\}^{N}\equiv \mathcal{X}^N.$$ Here the baseline model for hidden/visible variables is a linear exponential one in sufficient statistics $(\tilde{\boldsymbol X}, \boldsymbol X^T\boldsymbol H)$ using $\tilde{\boldsymbol X}=(\boldsymbol X,\boldsymbol H)$ from , but the form differs from the previous exponential models in in that the lengths of parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ and statistics $(\tilde{\boldsymbol X}, \boldsymbol X^T\boldsymbol H)$ increase to incorporate more visible variables. That is, in contrast to , the natural parameter function involved in the RBM model , as the identity mapping of the parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N\in\mathbb{R}^{q(N)}$, naturally grows in dimension $q(N)\to \infty$ to accommodate visible variables $X_1, \dots, X_N$ of increasing sample size $N\to \infty$. Additionally, one may further arbitrarily choose the number $N_\mathcal{H}$ of hidden variables $\boldsymbol H$ in the joint RBM model to define a marginal model for the $N$ visible variables $\boldsymbol X$, and the number $N_\mathcal{H}$ of hiddens may also potentially increase with $N$. Because $|\mathcal{X}| = 2$ and $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) > 0$ for all $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N$, the RBM specification for visibles $\boldsymbol$ corresponds to a FOES model, while the joint distribution for $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$ is also a FOES model. As this example also indicates, any model formed by marginalizing a base FOES model class, such as the RBM joint specification , is again a FOES model.
Deep Learning
-------------
Consider two models with “deep architecture” that contain multiple hidden (or latent) layers in addition to a visible layer of data, namely a deep Boltzmann machine (Salakhutdinov and Hinton ) and a deep belief network Hinton, Osindero, and Teh ()[\]]{}. Let $M$ denote the number of hidden layers included in the model and let $N_{(H,1)}, \dots, N_{(H,M)}$ denote the numbers of hidden variables within each hidden layer. Then the random vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol X} = \{H^{(1)}_1, \dots, H^{(1)}_{N_{(H,1)}}, \dots, H^{(M)}_1, \dots, H^{(M)}_{N_{(H,M)}}, \boldsymbol X\}$ collects both the hidden variables $\{ H_{i}^{(j)} : i=1,\ldots, N_{(H,j)}, j=1,\ldots,M\}$ and visible variables $\boldsymbol X =(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ in a deep probabilistic model. Each variable outcome will again lie in $\mathcal{X} = \{-1,1\}$.
**Deep Boltzmann machine (DBM).** The DBM class of models maintains conditional independence within all layers in the model by stacking RBM models and only allowing conditional dependence between neighboring layers. The joint probability mass function for a DBM is $$\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} ( \tilde{\boldsymbol x} ) = \exp\left[ \sum\limits_{i = 1}^M\boldsymbol \alpha^{(i)T} \boldsymbol h^{(i)} + \boldsymbol \beta^T \boldsymbol x + \boldsymbol h^{(1)T} \Gamma^{(0)} \boldsymbol x + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M - 1} \boldsymbol h^{(i)T} \Gamma^{(i)} \boldsymbol h^{(i + 1)} - \psi(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \right],$$ for $\tilde{\boldsymbol x} = (\boldsymbol h^{(1)}, \dots, \boldsymbol h^{(M)}, \boldsymbol x) \in \mathcal{X}^{N_{(H,1)} + \cdots + N_{(H,M)} +N}$ where $$\psi(\boldsymbol \theta_N) = \log \sum\limits_{\tilde{\boldsymbol x} \in \mathcal{X}^{N_{(H,1)} + \cdots + N_{(H,M)} +N}} \exp\left[ \sum\limits_{i = 1}^M\boldsymbol \alpha^{(i)T} \boldsymbol h^{(i)} + \boldsymbol \beta^T \boldsymbol x + \boldsymbol h^{(1)T} \Gamma^{(0)} \boldsymbol x + \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M - 1} \boldsymbol h^{(i)T} \Gamma^{(i)} \boldsymbol h^{(i + 1)}\right],$$ is the normalizing function for $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\boldsymbol \alpha^{(1)}, \dots, \boldsymbol \alpha^{(M)}, \boldsymbol \beta,\Gamma^{(0)}, \dots, \Gamma^{(M - 1)}) \in \Theta_N \subset \mathbb{R}^{q(N)}$, consisting of model parameters $\boldsymbol \beta \in \mathbb{R}^N$, $\boldsymbol \alpha^{(i)} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{(H,i)}}$, $i = 1, \dots, M$, along with a matrix $\Gamma^{(0)}$ of dimension $N_{(H,1)} \times N$, and matrices $\Gamma^{(i)}$ of dimension $N_{(H,i)} \times N_{(H,i+1)}$ for $i = 1, \dots, M-1$. The combined parameter vector $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ has total length $q(N)= N_{(H,1)}+\cdots N_{(H,M)} + N + N_{(H,1)}*N+N_{H,2}*H_{(H,1)}+\cdots +N_{(H,M)}*H_{(H,M)-1}$. The probability mass function for the visible random variables $X_1, \dots, X_N$ follows from this joint specification as $$P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x) = \sum\limits_{(\boldsymbol h^{(1)}, \dots, \boldsymbol h^{(M)}) \in \mathcal{X}^{N_{(H,1)} + \cdots + N_{(H,M)}}} \tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol h^{(1)}, \dots, \boldsymbol h^{(M)}, \boldsymbol x) , \qquad \boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N.$$ Again like the RBM case, the DBM model specification is an example of a FOES model.
**Deep belief network (DBN).** A DBN resembles a DBM in that there are multiple layers of latent random variables stacked in a deep architecture with no conditional dependence between layers. The difference between the DBM and DBN models is that all but the last stacked layer in a DBN are Bayesian networks (see Pearl ), rather than RBMs. A Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that defines conditional dependence to be directed, rather than undirected (as with the RBM). Thus for visibles $X_1, \dots, X_N$ with support $\mathcal{X}^N, \mid \mathcal{X} \mid < \infty$, a DBN is also a FOES model with $q(N)$ the length of parameter vector is dependent on the dimension of the visibles because $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)>0$ for all $\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N$. Commonly, as in logistic belief nets (Neal ), a “weight” parameter is placed on each interaction between visibles, $X_1, \dots, X_N$, and the first layer of latent variables, $H^{(1)}_1, \dots, H^{(1)}_{N_{(H,1)}}$, satisfying the definition of a FOES model.
Main Results on Model Instability {#instability-results}
=================================
We now present a formal definition for instability of FOES models as well as a simple condition for identifying instability in a FOES model sequence.
A Criterion for Instability {#criterion}
---------------------------
To define a measure of instability in FOES models, it is useful to consider the behavior of data models $P_{\theta_N}$, again supported on a set $\mathcal{X}^N$ of outcomes for $\boldsymbol X\equiv \boldsymbol X_N =(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$, in connection to the sample size $N$. A relevant quantity to this end is a log-ratio of extremal probabilities (LREP), defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:elpr}
{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) = \log \left[\frac{\max\limits_{ \boldsymbol x\in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}( \boldsymbol x)}{\min\limits_{ \boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}( \boldsymbol x)}\right],\end{aligned}$$ based on maximum and minimal model probabilities. In what follows, the main idea is that instability, and other negative model features, can be associated with a FOES model formulation for $N$ random variables where the LREP is overly large relative to the sample size $N$. That is, a sequence of FOES probability models $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ results in specifying the distribution of observations $\boldsymbol X=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ for each sample size $N \geq 1$ and instability will generally occur among these models whenever the corresponding LREP grows faster than $N$. This leads to the following definition.
\[S-unstable FOES model\] A FOES model formulation for $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ is *Schweinberger-unstable* or *S-unstable* if $$\label{eq:Sun}
\lim \limits_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N} {\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \equiv \lim \limits_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{N}\log \left[\frac{\max\limits_{ \boldsymbol x\in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}( \boldsymbol x)}{\min\limits_{ \boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}( \boldsymbol x)}\right] = \infty$$ as the number of variables increases ($N \rightarrow \infty$). In other words, a model is S-unstable if ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N$ is an unbounded sequence of sample size $N$; namely, given any $C > 0$, there exists an integer $N_C > 0$ so that ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N > C$ holds for all $N \ge N_C$. A FOES model formulation may be termed S-stable if it fails to be S-unstable, i.e., if $\sup_{N \geq 1}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N$ is bounded.
This definition of S-unstable is a generalization or reinterpretation of “unstable” used in Schweinberger () by allowing possibly non-exponential family models (e.g., RBM and DBM models in Sections \[rbm\]-\[deep-learning\] as well as a potentially increasing number $q(N)$ of parameters through the parameter sequence $\boldsymbol \theta_N\in \mathbb{R}^{q(N)}$. While this definition differs in form and scope from the original, it does match that in Schweinberger () for the special case of exponential models (cf. Section \[discrete-exponential-family-models\] considered there. Section \[illustrations\] provides several examples of unstable models as well as causes for model instability, where the latter may often be traced to issues in model form (i.e., data functions) and/or parameterization. We next describe several potentially undesirable features associated with S-unstable FOES models.
In the definition of S-instability, we note that the numerical measure ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N$ of model instability is invariant to *independent replications* of data. That is, let $M \geq 1$ denote a possible number of replications and consider data $\boldsymbol Y_{N,M} \equiv (\boldsymbol X^{(1)}_N, \dots, \boldsymbol X^{(M)}_N)$ formed by $\{ \boldsymbol X^{(j)}_N\}_{j=1}^M$ as $M$ iid replications of a random vector $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$, where the latter follows a FOES model with probabilities $P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)>0$, $\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N$. This leads to a joint model, say $P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)$, $\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^{NM}$, for $\boldsymbol Y_{N,M}$ consisting of $N*M$ random variables in total. Then, the LREP for $\boldsymbol Y_{N,M}$, scaled by associated size, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{NM}{\mathrm{LREP}}_{\boldsymbol Y_{N,M}}( \boldsymbol\theta_N ) &\equiv \frac{1}{NM}\log\left[\frac{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^{NM}}P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) }{\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^{NM}}P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)} \right] \\
&= \frac{1}{NM}\log\left[\frac{\max_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^{N}}P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) }{\min_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^{N}}P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)} \right]^M \equiv \frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}_{\boldsymbol X_{N}}( \boldsymbol\theta_N ),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{\boldsymbol X_{N}}( \boldsymbol\theta_N ) \equiv {\mathrm{LREP}}( \boldsymbol\theta_N )$ denotes the log-ratio of extremal probabilities for $\boldsymbol X_N$ defined from . That is, due to iid properties, the sample-size corrected LREP for $\boldsymbol Y_{N,M}$ equals the analog, ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol\theta_N )/N$, from the underlying common data model for $\boldsymbol X_N$ alone, regardless of the level $M \geq 1$ of independent replication. Consequently, the definition of an S-unstable model is unaffected by independent replication and all instability properties may be characterized by those of one observation from the common FOES model. For computational purposes, this aspect also implies that if the original data $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ in a FOES model consist of $N$ iid random variables, then the size-scaled log-ratio may be calculated as $$\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}( \boldsymbol\theta_N ) \equiv \frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}_{\boldsymbol X_{N}}( \boldsymbol\theta_N ) = \log\left[ \frac{\max_{ x \in \mathcal{X}}P_{\boldsymbol\theta_N}(X_1=x)} {\min_{ x \in \mathcal{X}}P_{\boldsymbol\theta_N}(X_1=x)} \right]$$ based on the extremal probabilities of just one random variable $X_1$.
Characterizations and Consequences of Instability
-------------------------------------------------
As a basic characteristic, S-unstable FOES model sequences have extremely sensitive probability structures. One aspect is that small changes in data configuration can lead to very large changes in probability. Consider, for example, the quantity given by $${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \equiv \max \left\{\log \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x^*)} : \boldsymbol x \text{ }\& \text{ } \boldsymbol x^* \in \mathcal{X}^N \text{ differ in exactly one component}\right\},$$ which represents the biggest log-probability ratio for a one-component change in data outcomes in a FOES model with parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N$. We then have the following result prescribing the behavior of ${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ for S-unstable FOES models.
Let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, with support $\mathcal{X}^N$, $N\geq 1$, be a sequence of FOES models.
(i) For any integer $N \geq 1$ and any given $C>0$, if ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N > C$ in (\[eq:elpr\]), then $${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) > C,$$ or probabilities from a one-component change in some outcome have log-ratio exceeding $C$.
(ii) Suppose the FOES model sequence is S-unstable. Then, for all large $N$ and given any arbitrary $C>0$, there exist outcomes $\boldsymbol x,\boldsymbol x^*\in\mathcal{X}^N$, differing by one component, such that $$\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x^*)} > \exp[N C].$$
Theorem \[thm:instab-elpr\](i) is a non-asymptotic result, which connects to the definition of instability in a FOES model through a log-ratio of extreme model probabilities being too large relative to the associated sample size $N$. If so, Theorem \[thm:instab-elpr\](i) guarantees the FOES model must also exhibit correspondingly large changes in probability for very small differences among some data configurations, a property that intuitively captures a notion of instability. Furthermore, and perhaps more seriously under Theorem \[thm:instab-elpr\](ii), S-unstable models can never have universally bounded changes in probability among single component variations in data configurations. While not all one-component changes in data may produce massive changes in probability, unstable models must have some such data outcomes with this property. As a consequence, unstable probability structures may exhibit extreme sensitivity through large peaks and troughs over the sample space.
Additionally, S-unstable FOES model sequences are also connected to degenerate models, where *degeneracy* involves assigning essentially all probability to modes within the sample space, which could potentially represent a small subset among the totality of outcomes. For perspective, note that differing sizes of the scaled log-ratio ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N$ from induce a spectrum of levels of instability/stability and Theorem \[thm:instab-elpr\] indicates increasing sensitivity of model probabilities as increases. Furthermore, as the instability measure grows and the log-ratio ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N$ diverges, as in the definition of S-unstable models, then a FOES model sequence will become degenerate. Theorem \[thm:degenFOES\] provides a formal statement of such degeneracy due to S-instability. For a given $0 < \epsilon < 1$, define a $\epsilon$-modal set of outcomes as $$\label{eq:mode}
\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N} \equiv \left\{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N: \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) > (1-\epsilon)\max\limits_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) + \epsilon\min\limits_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) \right\}.$$ For any arbitrarily small $0 < \epsilon < 1$, an S-unstable FOES model sequence $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, $N \geq 1$, for $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1, \dots, X_N)$ satisfies $$P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}\left( \boldsymbol X_N\in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}\right) \rightarrow 1 \text{ as } N \rightarrow \infty.$$
In other words, as the sample size grows in S-unstable FOES models, all probability tends to concentrate mass on an $\epsilon$-modal set, where $\epsilon$ can be made arbitrarily small. Intuitively, the occurrence of such degeneracy can be explained by a type of “reverse” pigeonhole principle for unstable FOES models: if all outcomes should receive positive probability but the maximal probability far exceeds the minimal one in the model, then little probability remains for distribution among remaining model outcomes (i.e., if nearly all available pigeons are stuffed into one hole, the remaining pigeonholes must have few occupants). Degeneracy in unstable models can pose dangers in data modeling as well, particularly when a mode set represents a narrow collection of outcomes among those realistically possible for adequately describing data. In which case, model outcomes may fail to look like data of interest.
Connected to degeneracy, S-unstable FOES models may also exhibit additional kinds of extreme and undesirable sensitivity in probabilities if model parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ can further be “dialed” between positive and negative values. That is, some FOES models naturally involve parameter spaces covering a positive-negative spectrum of parameter possibilities, where the signs of parameters provide a standard device for increasing or decreasing probabilities of outcomes in the model formulation. In fact, for many models, the switch of a parameter sign serves to produce reciprocal probabilities, as outlined in the following model assumption about parameter sign reversal (PSR).
**Model Condition PSR** *(Reciprocal Probabilities from Parameter Sign Reversal)*: Let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, with support $\mathcal{X}^N$, $N\geq 1$, represent a sequence of FOES models. For each $N \geq 1$ and any outcome $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N$, suppose it holds that $$P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \cdot P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \;=\; \max\limits_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)\cdot \min\limits_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y),$$ where $\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)$ and $\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)$ denote the maximum and minimum probabilities under parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ and $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$, respectively.
The above model condition incorporates many standard parameterizations and follows, for instance, whenever $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)/P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) = [P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)/P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)]^{-1}$ holds for outcomes $\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol y \in\mathcal{X}^N$ in a FOES model. For instance, this latter condition is fulfilled for all linear exponential families from Section \[discrete-exponential-family-models\] (e.g., -) as well as all network models from Sections \[rbm\]-\[deep-learning\] (e.g., -). When parameters can be tuned in sign with effects prescribed in the model condition PSR, unstable FOES models will exhibit further probability sensitivities, as outlined in the following extension of Theorem \[thm:degenFOES\].
Let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, with support $\mathcal{X}^N$, $N\geq 1$, be a sequence of FOES models satisfying model condition PSR. If the models $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ are additionally S-unstable, then
(i) the models $P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ defined by $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$ are also S-unstable;
(ii) and for the complement $\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c \equiv \mathcal{X}^N \setminus \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ of any mode-set $\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ under $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ from (\[eq:mode\]), with $0<\epsilon<1$, it holds under $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$ that $$P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}( \boldsymbol X_N \in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c) \rightarrow 1\qquad \text{as } N\to \infty,$$ while, by Theorem \[thm:degenFOES\], $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}( \boldsymbol X_N \in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N} ) \rightarrow 1$ holds for $\boldsymbol X_N = (X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ under $\boldsymbol \theta_N$.
For unstable models, Corollary \[cor:sign\] shows that shifts in parameters around zero (i.e., from $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ to $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$) can induce extreme changes in probability among subsets of the sample space, as another manifestation of instability and hyper-sensitivity in probability structure. For one-parameter exponential families, involving a fixed real-valued linear parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N = \theta \in \mathbb{R}$ and sufficient statistic $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x)\in \mathbb{R}$ in , Schweinberger ( Theorem 3) proved a result similar in spirit, though based on a characterization there in terms of maximum $U_N \equiv \max_{\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N}g_N(\boldsymbol x)$ and minimal $L_N \equiv \min_{\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N}g_N(\boldsymbol x)$ values of the sufficient statistic. For this case in particular, mode sets have specific, and essentially complementary, forms over positive and negative parameters, namely, $\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N} = \{\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N: g_N(\boldsymbol x) > (1-\epsilon) U_N + \epsilon L_N \}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, -\boldsymbol \theta_N} = \{\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N: g_N(\boldsymbol x) < \epsilon U_N + (1-\epsilon) L_N \}$ for any $\boldsymbol \theta_N>0$, and Schweinberger ( Theorem 3) showed each mode set collects all mass, under positive and negative parameters, respectively, with unstable models of this exponential type. However, for all unstable FOES models, Corollary \[cor:sign\] generalizes the same principle that unstable models can push all probability to different, and in fact disjoint, parts of the sample space, depending on how parameters fall with respect to zero. This feature can numerically complicate likelihood manipulations, such as maximization or MCMC-based Bayes posterior sampling, as further discussed in Section \[implications\].
Under the model condition PSR, Corollary \[cor:sign\] can also be extended to cases where parameter components $\boldsymbol \theta_N =(\boldsymbol \theta_{1,N}, \boldsymbol \theta_{N,2})$ (say) are not all changed in sign (e.g., $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$) but, more generally, are instead altered to another parameter configuration $\boldsymbol \theta_{N}^A = ( \boldsymbol \theta_{1,N}^A, \boldsymbol \theta_{2,N}^A )$ involving a switch in sign only among some dominating model parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_{N,2}^A=- \boldsymbol \theta_{N,2}$ with remaining parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_{1,N}^A$ being arbitrarily chosen. If a change sign occurs among parameters ($\pm \boldsymbol \theta_{N,2}$) which dominate the probability structure of the model, then the results of Corollary \[cor:sign\] can still hold with $\boldsymbol \theta_{N}^A$ replacing $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$; as an example of one sufficient condition, if $\lim_{N\to \infty} \max_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N} |G_N(\boldsymbol x, -\boldsymbol \theta_{N}) - G_N(\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol \theta_{N}^A)|=0$ holds in addition to Corollary \[cor:sign\] assumptions, where $$G_N(\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol \theta) = \frac{\log P_{\boldsymbol \theta}(\boldsymbol x) - \min_{\boldsymbol y \in\mathcal{X}^N}\log P_{\boldsymbol \theta}(\boldsymbol y) }{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in\mathcal{X}^N}\log P_{\boldsymbol \theta}(\boldsymbol y) - \min_{\boldsymbol y \in\mathcal{X}^N}\log P_{\boldsymbol \theta}(\boldsymbol y) }, \quad \boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N,$$ represents a standardized form of $\boldsymbol \theta$-model probabilities, then the results of Corollary \[cor:sign\] apply to $\boldsymbol \theta_{N}^A$ in addition to $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$. As a consequence, an unstable model under $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ can then imply that many more unstable models exist over a broader spectrum of possibilities for variations $\boldsymbol \theta_{N}^A$ of $\boldsymbol \theta_N$, which involves some amount of sign change among components of $\boldsymbol \theta_N$.
Illustrations
=============
Model instability can depend intricately on how functions of parameters and data $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ are combined in the formulation of the model probabilities, though some general causes may be identified. As one issue, a broad parameter space (or wide interpretation of this space) may admit some parameters as technically valid that have an undue and often undesirable impact on the model structure for a prescribed data size $N$. In this case, both the size and dimension of model parameters can be problematic and induce instability. In combination to this last point, further causes of instability may also be traced to the magnitude of statistics in the model. Potentially massive, and thereby unstable, statistics were the primary focus of instability studies of Schweinberger () for certain discrete exponential models having parameters/statistics of fixed dimension. However, as shown in the following, bounded statistics may still lead to instability if the parameter dimension is high. We next provides some examples to illustrate S-instability in FOES models, which also suggest some potential strategies for preventing unstable models.
Equi-probability Models
-----------------------
As a baseline for comparisons, consider a simplistic model for $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ with uniform probabilities over the sample space, say $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)= |\mathcal{X}|^{-N}$, $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N$, where each random variable has $|\mathcal{X}| \geq 1$ outcomes. In contrast to instability, model probabilities here are completely insensitive to changes in data outcomes across the sample space, and the associated log-ratio of extreme probabilities is $$\frac{1}{N} {\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)=0\quad \;(\text{uniform probability model}),$$ which is as small as possible. In fact, a LREP value of zero can only occur for a FOES model having uniform probabilities, and such equi-probability models are always S-stable.
One-parameter Exponential Models {#one-param-exp}
--------------------------------
A fundamental model considered in the instability work of Schweinberger () involves a one-parameter exponential model corresponding to with a real-valued parameter, say $\boldsymbol \theta_N = \eta(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\in \mathbb{R}$, and sufficient statistic $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x)\in \mathbb{R}$. For such models, upon scaling by sample size $N$, the log-ratio of extreme probabilities in for assessing instability becomes $$\label{eq:UL}
\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N ) \equiv |\boldsymbol \theta_N| \frac{(U_N-L_N)}{N} \;\quad \text{(one-parameter exponential model)},$$ where $U_N \equiv \max_{\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N}g_N(\boldsymbol x)$ and $L_N \equiv \min_{\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N}g_N(\boldsymbol x)$ denote the maximal and minimal values of the single sufficient statistic. In this case, an S-unstable model results, by definition , whenever $\lim_{N\to \infty} |\boldsymbol \theta_N| (U_N-L_N)/N= \infty$ holds or, in other words, if the combined magnitudes of parameter $|\boldsymbol \theta_N|$ and maximal difference $U_N-L_N$ in statistic values are overwhelmingly large relative to the sample size $N$. If we further assume that $\boldsymbol \theta_N =\theta\in\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$ is a fixed (non-zero) parameter for all $N \geq 1$, as considered in Schweinberger (), then an S-unstable model results solely if the sufficient statistic admits a value $U_N-L_N$ too large relative to number $N$ of observations, i.e., if $(U_N-L_N)/N\to \infty$ as $N\to \infty$. The latter aspect reflects the definition of Schweinberger (), for this setting, that a real-valued *statistic* $g_N(\boldsymbol x)$ may be classified as *unstable* when $\lim_{N\to \infty}|(U_N-L_N)/N=\infty$ holds and as *stable* otherwise (e.g., if $\sup_{N \geq 1}(U_N-L_N)/N<\infty$).
For illustration, consider the iid Bernoulli model for $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ with log-odds ratio parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N = \log[ P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_1=1)/ P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_1=0)]\in\mathbb{R}$. Remark 1 (Section \[criterion\]) then gives the model instability measure directly as $$\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N ) = |\boldsymbol \theta_N|\quad\; \text{(iid Bernoulli model)},$$ so that an unstable (or stable) model results for a divergent (or bounded) parameter sequence $|\boldsymbol \theta_N|$. The above instability expression for the Bernoulli model follows as well from the $N$-scaled LREP value for a one-parameter exponential distribution, using that the sufficient statistic involved $g_N(\boldsymbol x)= \sum_{i=1}^N x_i$, $\boldsymbol x =(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\{0,1\}^N$, has maximum and minimum values $U_N=N$ and $L_N=0$. In this case, Schweinberger () has noted that the statistic is stable (i.e., bounded $(U_N-L_N)/N=1$) and the Bernoulli model is as well when, in particular, $\boldsymbol \theta_N=\bold \theta \in\mathbb{R}$ is fixed for $N \geq 1$.
Alternatively, considering a random graph with $N={n \choose 2}$ edges among $n$ nodes, the exponential graph model from , when based purely on the number of $g_{2,N}(\boldsymbol x)$ of 2-stars or solely the number $g_{3,N}(\boldsymbol x)$ of triangles, $\boldsymbol x\in\{0,1\}^N$, has an measure of instability from as $$\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N ) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl} |\boldsymbol \theta_N| (n-2) && \text{(2-star graph model)}\\
|\boldsymbol \theta_N|(n-2)/3 &&\text{(triangle graph model)},\end{array}\right.$$ by using the (one-parameter exponential) LREP formula with statistic maximums $U_N= N(n-2)$ for 2-stars or $U_N= N(n-2)/3$ for triangles and with minimums $L_N=0$ in both cases. Because the variable number $N\to \infty$ as the node number $n\to \infty$, both counts of 2-stars and triangles are unstable statistics in the sense of Schweinberger () (i.e., $\lim_{N\to \infty} (U_N-L_N)/N=\infty$). Furthermore, both types of graph models are always S-unstable for all possible of parameter sequences $\boldsymbol \theta_N \in\mathbb{R}$ that are bounded away from zero (i.e., $\lim_{N\to \infty}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N )/N=\infty$ then holds, including the fixed parameter case $\boldsymbol \theta_N=\theta\in\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$ from Schweinberger ()).
Fixed-dimensional Linear Exponential Models {#fixed-dim-exp}
-------------------------------------------
As a generalization of the one-parameter exponential case, we next consider linear exponential families with $k$ parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\theta_{1,N},\ldots,\theta_{k,N})^\prime$ and $k$ sufficient statistics $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x) = (g_{1,N}(\boldsymbol x),\ldots, g_{k,N}(\boldsymbol x))^\prime$. Here the dimension $k$ of model parameters/statistics is fixed, and we next prescribe a condition helpful to avoiding instability in such models. For this, define $U_{i,N}=\max_{\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N} g_{i,N}(\boldsymbol x)$ and $L_{i,N}=\min_{\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N} g_{i,N}(\boldsymbol x)$ as the maximal and minimal values of the $i$th statistic, $i=1,\ldots,k$, based on observations $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$.
Let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, $N \geq 1$, denote linear exponential models (\[eq:expo\]) with parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\theta_{1,N},\ldots,\theta_{k,N})^\prime \in \mathbb{R}^k$ and statistics $\boldsymbol g_N(\boldsymbol x) = (g_{1,N}(\boldsymbol x),\ldots, g_{k,N}(\boldsymbol x))^\prime \in \mathbb{R}^k$, for fixed $k \geq 1$. Then, the models $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ are S-stable if $$\label{eq:prop1}
\sup_{N \geq 1}\frac{1}{N} \max_{1 \leq i \leq k }|\theta_{i,N}|(U_{i,N}-L_{i,N})<\infty$$ holds, i.e., if $\max_{1 \leq i \leq k } |\theta_{i,N}|(U_{i,N}-L_{i,N})/N$ is bounded sequence of sample size $N$.
In the one-parameter exponential case $k=1$, recall the exponential model is stable/unstable depending on whether ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N = |\theta_{1,N}|(U_{1,N}-L_{1,N})/N \equiv |\boldsymbol \theta_{N}|(U_{N}-L_{N})/N$ in is convergent/divergent. Hence, for $k=1$, the condition of Proposition \[prp:prop1\] captures the same notion of S-stability based on .
Proposition \[prp:prop1\] provides a sufficient condition for the stability of linear exponential models with fixed parameter dimension $k\geq 1$, whereby an S-stable model is guaranteed if the compounded magnitude of each combination of parameter $\theta_{i,N}$ and sufficient statistic value $(U_{i,N}-L_{i,N})$ is bounded by the sample size $N$, $i=1,\ldots,k$. This supports the findings of Schweinberger (), who showed degeneracy follows in such models under one type of violation of the condition in Proposition \[prp:prop1\] (namely, involving $k>1$ non-zero parameters with $k-1$ statistics being $O(N)$ bounded while one statistic diverges in maximal size faster than the number $N$ of observations). To further illustrate the result in Proposition \[prp:prop1\], consider the multinomial distribution for $\boldsymbol X_N=(X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ having $k\geq 2$ categories $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ and $k$ parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\theta_{1,N},\ldots,\theta_{k,N})^\prime$. The variables are iid under this model so that Remark 1 (Section \[criterion\] yields the corresponding $N$-scaled log-ratio of extreme probabilities as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) &= \frac{\max_{1 \leq i \leq k} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_1=i)}{\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(X_1=i)}\\
&= \max_{1 \leq i \leq k} \theta_{i,N} - \min_{1 \leq i \leq k} \theta_{i,N} \qquad \text{(iid multinomial model)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, a multinomial model sequence is unstable (or stable) depending on whether (or not) the maximal parameter difference $\max_{1 \leq i \leq k} \theta_{i,N} - \min_{1 \leq i \leq k} \theta_{i,N}$ diverges. Furthermore, using that each of the $k$ sufficient (count) statistics from the multinomial model satisfies $(U_{i,N}-L_{i,N})/N=1$, we see that of Proposition \[prp:prop1\] becomes purely a parameter condition, $\sup_{N \geq 1}\max_{1 \leq i \leq k } |\theta_{i,N}| <\infty$, for ensuring that ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N =\max_{1 \leq i \leq k} \theta_{i,N} - \min_{1 \leq i \leq k} \theta_{i,N}$ is bounded and stability follows for the multinomial distribution. Additionally, a stable multinomial sequence (i.e., bounded ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N$) turns out to be nearly equivalent to (e.g., these are the same if the smallest parameter $\min_{1 \leq i \leq k } |\theta_{i,N}|$ remains bounded).
When the condition of Proposition \[prp:prop1\] is violated, this aspect suggests a potentially unstable model that may be investigated more closely. For example, consider the exponential graph model from involving counts of edges, 2-stars and triangles with fixed parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\theta_{1},\theta_2,\theta_3)^\prime \in \mathbb{R}^3$ for $N\geq 1$. If either the 2-star parameter $\theta_2 \neq 0$ or triangle parameter $\theta_3 \neq 0$ is non-zero, then $\max_{1 \leq i \leq 3 } |\theta_{i}|(U_{i,N}-L_{i,N})/N \propto (n-2)\to \infty$ holds in by $(U_{2,N}-L_{2,N})/N = 3 (U_{3,N}-L_{3,N})/N=(n-2)$ for 2-star and triangle statistics ($i=2,3$), so that Proposition \[prp:prop1\] hints that an unstable model may result when $|\theta_2| + |\theta_3| \neq 0$. Relatedly, a result from Schweinberger ( Result 3) states that this model is unstable for all fixed parameters excluding cases $\theta_2 =\theta_3=0$ or $\theta_2 = - \theta_3/3$. However, more is true in line with the instability suggested by Proposition \[prp:prop1\] whenever $|\theta_2| + |\theta_3| \neq 0$ (i.e., excluding $\theta_2 =\theta_3=0$).
To see this, consider an even number $n>2$ of nodes and let $\boldsymbol x_0$ denote the data outcome in $\mathcal{X}^N \equiv \{0,1\}^N$ with all $N = {n \choose 2}$ edges being zero, let $\boldsymbol x_1$ denote the outcome with all edges being 1, and let $\boldsymbol x_2$ denote the edge configuration from dividing the nodes into two equal groups, with no edges within a group and all edges between the groups (so that no triangles exist in $\boldsymbol x_2$). Then, the $N$-scaled log-ratio for the exponential graph model can, by definition, be bounded below by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}_N(\boldsymbol \theta_N) &\geq \max_{i=1,2}\frac{1}{N}
\left| \log\left[ \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_i)}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_0)}\right] \right| \\
&= (n-2) \max\left\{ \left| \theta_2 + \frac{\theta_3}{3}+\frac{\theta_1}{n-2} \right|, \frac{n}{4(n-1)} \left| \theta_2 + \frac{8\theta_1}{n-2} \right| \right\};\end{aligned}$$ a similar expression also holds for an odd node number $n>2$. Consequently, for all fixed parameters excluding $\theta_2=\theta_3=0$, $\lim_{N\to \infty}{\mathrm{LREP}}_N(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N=\infty$ then follows and the graph model with 2-stars and triangles is S-unstable, as suggested by the breach of Proposition \[prp:prop1\] for this model when $|\theta_2|+|\theta_3|\neq 0$. That is, instability holds even under $\theta_2 = - \theta_3/3$ case potentially allowed by Schweinberger’s () results.
Latent Variable Models of Increasing Parameter Dimension
--------------------------------------------------------
We next consider instability of discrete data models based on exponential formulations involving hidden, or latent, variables, such as those probabilistic graphical models described in Sections \[rbm\]-\[deep-learning\]. We will focus on restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) models (Section \[rbm\], having one layer of latent variables for simplicity, though the same instability concepts may be extended to other deep learning models (Section \[deep-learning\]. For $N$ visible variables $\boldsymbol X \equiv \boldsymbol X_N = (X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ as data, each observation $X_i\in\{\pm 1\}$ being binary, the RBM-based model for $\boldsymbol X$ is again of FOES-type, though not an exponential model. However, the distribution of visible variables is induced by an underlying joint exponential model for both visible and latent variables $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$, where $\boldsymbol H = (H_1,\ldots,H_{N_{\mathcal{H}}})$ denotes a vector of $N_{\mathcal{H}}$ hidden variables (similarly binary). The joint model is of linear exponential form involving $q(N)\equiv N + N_{\mathcal{H}} + N*N_{\mathcal{H}}$ sufficient statistics given by $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H, \boldsymbol X^T\boldsymbol H)$ and parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N = (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}},\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}, \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}} ) \in\mathbb{R}^{q(N)}$ corresponding to the $N$ visible variables $\boldsymbol X$ (i.e., $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}\in\mathbb{R}^N$), the $N_{\mathcal{H}}$ hidden variables $\boldsymbol H$ (i.e., $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}}$), and the $N *N_{\mathcal{H}}$ cross-product variables $\boldsymbol X^T\boldsymbol H$ (i.e., $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N*N_{\mathcal{H}}}$). However, unlike some previous exponential models considered in Sections \[one-param-exp\]-\[fixed-dim-exp\] (cf. Proposition \[prp:prop1\], note that the RBM formulation always associates parameters with *bounded* statistics (i.e., the components of $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H, \boldsymbol X^T\boldsymbol H)$) so that model instability cannot arise here due to the magnitude of sufficient statistics exceeding the sample size $N$. Instead, RBM instability may be linked solely to parameter configuration and the fact that the number $q(N) \geq N$ of parameters necessarily increases with the number $N$ of observations $\boldsymbol X$, in contrast to previous exponential cases of fixed parameter dimension.
To highlight the instability issues for the RBM model, consider a simple model for $N$ visibles $\boldsymbol X$ with no hidden variables ($N_{\mathcal{H}}=0$), for which model statements - coincide. An independence model then results for variables in $\boldsymbol X$, which has $q(N)=N$ parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}} = (\theta_{1,N}^{\mathcal{V}}, \ldots, \theta_{N,N}^{\mathcal{V}}) \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, and the measure of model instability becomes $$\frac{1}{N}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) = \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N|\theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}}| \quad \text{(RBM model, no hiddens)}.$$ Hence, this model sequence for $\boldsymbol X$ will be S-unstable model if the aggregation of absolute parameters grows faster than the number $N$ of parameters/visible variables. Consequently, even for a simplest RBM model involving independence, preventing instability requires careful choice of parameters, particularly with regard to how a parameter configuration differs from zero. For more general RBM models, the number $N_{\mathcal{H}}$ of hidden variables $\boldsymbol H$ can also be chosen arbitrarily (i.e., as some function $N_{\mathcal{H}}\equiv N_{N,\mathcal{H}}$ of $N$), which can substantially inflate the number $q(N)$ of model parameters and further impact model instability through accumulated parameters. To better understand the effects of instability in the RBM structure, Proposition \[prp:prop2\] next frames the general behavior of extreme probabilities in the joint RBM model for $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$ and the implied RBM data model for $\boldsymbol X$ alone. Specifically, critical measures of instability may be closely connected in both models through tight bounds on their respective LREP values . As a result, Proposition \[prp:prop2\] shows how an unstable distribution for observations $\boldsymbol X$ may be traced to sources of instability in the original joint distribution for $(\boldsymbol X,\boldsymbol H)$. This also suggests a device for avoiding instability, as provided next.
To state the result, let ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{\boldsymbol X}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \equiv {\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ denote the LREP value from the marginal distribution $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ of visibles $\boldsymbol X$ in and write the LREP for the joint distribution $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ of $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$ from as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) &=\log\left[ \frac{\max_{ (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) \in \{\pm 1\}^{N+N_{\mathcal{H}}}}
\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)}{\min_{ (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) \in \{\pm 1\}^{N+N_{\mathcal{H}}}`}
\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)} \right] \qquad \text{(joint RBM model)} \\
&= \left(\max_{ (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) \in \{\pm 1\}^{N+N_{\mathcal{H}}}} f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)-\min_{ (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) \in \{\pm 1\}^{N+N_{\mathcal{H}}}} f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)\right),\end{aligned}$$ written as a function $$\label{eq:f}
f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) \equiv \sum_{i=1}^N x_i \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}} + \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} x_i h_j \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}}$$ of outcomes $\boldsymbol x =(x_1,\ldots,x_N) \in\{\pm1\}^{N}$, $\boldsymbol h =(h_1,\ldots,h_{N_{\mathcal{H}}}) \in\{\pm1\}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}}$ and parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N \equiv (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}},\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}, \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}})$, with $\theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}}$, $\theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}}$ denoting respective parameter components, $1 \leq i \leq N$, $1 \leq j \leq N_{\mathcal{H}}$. Due to the marginalization steps in defining the distribution of $\boldsymbol X$, note that ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{\boldsymbol X}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ has no immediate analytical expression similar to that of ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$. For clarity, recall also that S-instability in each model type refers to a respective divergence (i.e., $\lim_{N\to \infty} {\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) /(N+N_{\mathcal{H}})=\infty$, $\lim_{N\to \infty} {\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) /N=\infty$) upon scaling by the corresponding number of variables in a distribution. In the following, let $|\boldsymbol y|_1 = \sum_{i=1}^d |y_i|$ denote the L1 norm of a generic vector $\boldsymbol y =(y_1,\ldots,y_d)$, $d \geq 1$.
Let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ denote a RBM-based data model for $N\geq 1$ visible variables $\boldsymbol X \equiv \boldsymbol X_N$ derived from $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ as the joint RBM distribution of $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$ involving some number $N_{\mathcal{H}} \equiv N_{N,\mathcal{H}}\geq 0$ of hidden variables $\boldsymbol H \equiv \boldsymbol H_N$ and parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N \equiv (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}},\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}, \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}) \in\mathbb{R}^{N}\times \mathbb{R}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} \times \mathbb{R}^{N*N_{\mathcal{H}}}$. Then,
(i) the instability measure ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ for the marginal model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ of $\boldsymbol X$ satisfies $$\left| {\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) - {A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\right| \leq N_{\mathcal{H}} \log 2$$ for $${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \max_{ \boldsymbol x} \max_{ \boldsymbol h } f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)-\min_{ \boldsymbol x } \max_{ \boldsymbol h }f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)$$ based on $f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ from (\[eq:f\]) with components $\boldsymbol x \in \{\pm 1\}^{N}, \boldsymbol h \in \{\pm 1\}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}}$.
(ii) The instability measure ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\equiv \left(\max_{ \boldsymbol x} \max_{ \boldsymbol h } f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)-\min_{ \boldsymbol x } \min_{ \boldsymbol h }f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)\right)$ for the joint model $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ of $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
2{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }+ 2|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_{1} \; \geq \; {\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) & \geq
2\max\big\{{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }, |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_{1}\big\} \\
&\geq 2{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\\
&\geq {A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\\
&\geq \max\big\{ {C_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }, \, {B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }- 2|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_{1} \big\}
\end{aligned}$$ for $${B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \max_{ \boldsymbol h} k_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol h)
\geq |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}} |_{1},\qquad k_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol h) \equiv \sum_{i=1}^{N }\left| \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} h_j \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}} \right|,$$ and ${C_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \min_{ \boldsymbol h} k_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol h)$ based on a function $k_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol h)$ of hidden variable outcomes $\boldsymbol h = (h_1,\ldots,h_{N_{\mathcal{H}}})$ and visible-related parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}$ and $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}$.
(iii) Assuming $\sup_{N \geq 1} N_{\mathcal{H}}/N<\infty$ additionally, then the following properties 1.-7. hold:
1. an S-unstable visible model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is equivalent to the condition $\lim_{N\to \infty} {A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }/N =\infty$; further, $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is stable when ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }/N$, $N \geq 1$, is bounded.
2. an S-unstable joint model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is equivalent to the condition $\lim_{N\to \infty} \max\{|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1, {B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\}/N =\infty$; further, $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is stable when $[|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1+ {B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }]/N$, $N \geq 1$, is bounded.
3. if the visible model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is S-unstable, then the joint model $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is also S-unstable.
4. when $\lim_{N\to \infty} (|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}|_1-2|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1)/N =\infty$, both $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ and $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ are necessarily S-unstable.
5. when $\lim_{N\to \infty}|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1/N =\infty$, the joint model $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is necessarily S-unstable.
6. when $\sup_{N \geq 1} |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1 /N<\infty$, the visible model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ being S-stable or S-unstable is equivalent to the joint model $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ being stable or unstable.
7. an S-stable visible model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ results if $$|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}|_1+ |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}} |_1 \leq CN,\quad N \geq 1,$$ for some $C>0$, while an S-stable joint model $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ results if $$|\boldsymbol \theta_N|_1 \equiv |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}|_1+|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1 +|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}} |_1 \leq C N ,\quad N \geq 1.$$
The condition $\sup_{N \geq 1} N_{\mathcal{H}}/N<\infty$ in Proposition \[prp:prop2\](iii) is often mild in practice (i.e., the number $N_{\mathcal{H}}$ of hidden variables is typically not excessively larger than the number $N$ of visible observations). This allows instability results for both marginal and joint RBM models to be more readily stated together, as the numbers $N$ and $N+N_{\mathcal{H}}$ of variables in these models become asymptotically equivalent.
In Proposition \[prp:prop2\](iii), the relationships between RBM models with regard to instability, and the effects of different parameter types, follow from the bounds on model instability measures in Proposition \[prp:prop2\](i)-(ii). Generally speaking, all instability in the marginal RBM model for the data $\boldsymbol X$ can be attributed to an excessively large model quantity ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }$, which predominantly follows when main $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}$ and interaction $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}$ parameters related to visible variables are too large in magnitude (e.g., upon accumulation in terms such as $|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}|_1$, ${B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }$ or ${C_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }$). For example, for any bounded sequence $|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|/N$ of hidden parameters, if main visible parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}$ are too extreme ($|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}|_1/N\to \infty$), this aspect will guarantee instability in the visible model (${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }/N\to \infty$). In fact, the instability measure ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \max_{ \boldsymbol x} \max_{ \boldsymbol h } f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)-\min_{ \boldsymbol x } \max_{ \boldsymbol h }f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)$ for marginal/visible model represents a clearly smaller portion of the instability measure ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\equiv \max_{ \boldsymbol x} \max_{ \boldsymbol h } f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)-\min_{ \boldsymbol x } \min_{ \boldsymbol h } f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)$ in the joint RBM model, implying that an unstable marginal model (i.e., due to $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}$, $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}$) must always translate to an unstable joint model and that further potential causes of instability exist for the joint model, often due to the size $|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1$. For example, while the joint RBM model for $(\boldsymbol X,\boldsymbol H)$ must always be unstable due to a diverging combination of visible and/or interaction parameters ($|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}|_1/N\to \infty$ or ${B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }/N\to \infty$) (Proposition \[prp:prop2\](iii.2)), instability for the joint model can also result when the main hidden parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}$ become too large relative to sample size ($|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1/N\to \infty$ in Proposition \[prp:prop2\](iii.5)). However, under Proposition \[prp:prop2\], the main hidden parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}$ do not necessarily entail a source of instability for the marginal visible model. To explain this distinction, consider a joint model where all parameters related to visibles are zero, $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}= \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}=\boldsymbol 0$, but the hidden-related parameters diverge in sum $|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1/N\to \infty$. Here, the explosive behavior among parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}$ induces instability in the joint model for $(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)$ but the marginal model for $\boldsymbol X$, however, has a perfectly stable (and in fact uniform) distribution in this case. When the hidden parameters are bounded relative to the sample size ($\sup_{N\geq 1} |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1/N<\infty$), then all instability in both the joint and marginal RBM models can be directly linked to excessively large visible $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}$ and/or interaction parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}$ so that features of stability/instability must be the same across both models (Proposition \[prp:prop2\](iii.6)). Hence, to prevent instability in the joint model, the combined magnitudes of all parameters $\theta_N$ must be controlled (cf. Proposition \[prp:prop2\](iii.7)), while a stable visible data model technically results in constraining only the sizes of visible-related parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}$, $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}$. Nevertheless, because the joint model is often employed in practice for purposes of simulation and simulation-based inference, it is still reasonable to consider parameter choices for ensuring a stable joint model (and, consequently, a stable visible model as well). Further evidence of this is seen in the following numerical example.
![The sample mean value of $\text{ELPR}(\boldsymbol \theta)/N_{\mathcal{V}}$ (left) and ${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta)$ at each grid point for each combination of magnitude of $\boldsymbol \theta$. As the magnitude of $\boldsymbol \theta$ grows, so does the value of these metrics, indicating typical instability in the model.[]{data-label="fig:rbm-plots"}](note_files/figure-latex/rbm-plots-1 "fig:") ![The sample mean value of $\text{ELPR}(\boldsymbol \theta)/N_{\mathcal{V}}$ (left) and ${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta)$ at each grid point for each combination of magnitude of $\boldsymbol \theta$. As the magnitude of $\boldsymbol \theta$ grows, so does the value of these metrics, indicating typical instability in the model.[]{data-label="fig:rbm-plots"}](note_files/figure-latex/rbm-plots-2 "fig:")
In our numerical experiment, we allow the two types of terms (main effects terms corresponding to visible and hidden parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_{main} = (\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}, \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}})$ and interaction parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{VH}}$) to have varying average magnitudes, $||\boldsymbol \theta_{main} || /(N_{\mathcal{H}}+N_{\mathcal{V}})$ and $||\boldsymbol \theta_{interaction} || /(N_{\mathcal{H}}*N_{\mathcal{V}})$ for a RBM with $N_\mathcal{V} = 9$ visibles and $N_\mathcal{H} = 5$ hiddens. These average magnitudes vary on a grid between $0.001$ and $3$ with $20$ breaks, yielding $400$ grid points. At each point in the grid, $100$ vectors ($\boldsymbol \theta_{main}$) are sampled uniformly on a sphere with radius corresponding to the first coordinate in the grid and $100$ vectors ($\boldsymbol \theta_{interaction}$) are sampled uniformly on a sphere with radius corresponding to the second coordinate in the grid via sums of squared and scaled iid Normal$(0, 1)$ variables. These vectors are then paired to create $100$ values of $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ with magnitudes at each point in the grid. The values ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N_{\mathcal{V}}$ and ${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ are then calculated for each $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ and then summarized for each point in the grid using the sample mean. The results of this numerical study are shown in Figure \[fig:rbm-plots\]. From these two plots, it is clear that for larger magnitudes of the parameter vectors, there is evidence of S-instability in that the log-ratio of extremal probabilities scaled by $N_{\mathcal{V}}$ and the the biggest log-probability ratio for a one-component change in data outcomes are both increasing away from $\boldsymbol \theta_N = \boldsymbol 0$, further supporting \[prp:prop2\](iii.2 and iii.5).
In more complicated graphical models involving further or deeper hidden layers, the same issues and causes of instability similarly exist, but are compounded by a greater number of model parameters. S-unstable joint models will similarly follow if the combined sizes of all parameters are too great relative to the total number of variables, while instability in the data model for visible variables will depend only on the main or interaction parameters directly related to visibles and how their accumulated magnitude compares to the observation sample size $N$.
Statistical Consequences of Instability {#implications}
=======================================
Due to their induced sensitivity in probability structure, S-instability in FOES models may often translate to numerical complications, and in fact obstructions, in both simulation and statistical inference based on likelihoods. We describe these aspects in Sections \[mcmc\]-\[bayes\] with regard to data simulation, maximum likelihood estimation and Bayes inference, respectively.
Implications for Simulation {#mcmc}
---------------------------
Suppose one aims to apply MCMC to simulate data $\boldsymbol X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ from a FOES model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$, $\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{X}^N$ whereby a chain is constructed with $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ as the stationary distribution. For an unstable FOES model, one-component changes in outcomes may produce radically different probabilities, which may then impose numerical barriers to MCMC. For example, consider implementation of a Gibbs sampler from the full conditional distributions $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (X_i = x| \boldsymbol x_{-i})$, $x\in\mathcal{X}$, of each variable $X_i$ based on values $\boldsymbol x_{-i}\in \mathcal{X}^{N-1}$ for the remaining variables, say $\boldsymbol X_{-i}$, in $\boldsymbol X$. If a single change in $X_i$ from one value $x_1$ to another $x_2$ may produce two outcomes $\boldsymbol x^{(1)}$ and $\boldsymbol x^{(2)}$ for $\boldsymbol X$ with vastly different probabilities under the joint distribution $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, then the Gibbs sampler can have extreme log-ratios in its transition probabilities, $$\log \left| \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (X_i =x_1 | \boldsymbol x^{(1)}_{-i})}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (X_i = x_2| \boldsymbol x^{(2)}_{-i}) } \right|=\log \left| \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} ( \boldsymbol x^{(1)} )}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} ( \boldsymbol x^{(2)} ) } \right|,$$\
as conditional probabilities are proportional to joint probabilities that, with unstable models, can have unbounded log-probability ratios in one-component changes (Theorem \[thm:instab-elpr\]). This can hinder the ability of a chain to effectively explore the sample space of the observations $\boldsymbol X$, as the chain may mix poorly by moving rapidly to, and slowly away from, sections of the sample space. In this case, for example, the Markov chain may become entrapped within a mode of the probability function, with rare chance of escaping to adequately mimic the occupation frequencies in the overall sample space. If modes of the unstable model are not unique, then important outcomes may be missed without multiple chains or impractically enormous numbers of MCMC samples. This mixing problem is due to the unstable stationary distribution (unbounded ratios of probabilities under the joint model), rather than in any particulars of the MCMC algorithm, and similar complications can also arise for Metropolis-Hastings algorithms for MCMC. Hence, while an unstable FOES model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ may be valid and technically open to simulation by MCMC, the aspect of instability can render applications of MCMC as numerically infeasible for simulation purposes. This result is in line with conclusions of Handcock () and Schweinberger () for other exponential models.
Implications for Maximum Likelihood Inference
---------------------------------------------
Volatility in the probability structure of an unstable model can also hamper efforts to maximize likelihood functions in statistical inference. When a FOES model is unstable along a parameter sequence $\boldsymbol \theta_N$, the same model can further be unstable along parameters $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$ in an opposite direction from the origin (model condition PSR and Corollary \[cor:sign\]). This can translate into potential sensitivity of the likelihood function around zero, and lead to numerical complications in maximizing the objective function. We next provide a discussion of this issue in a way that builds upon and extends related findings by Schweinberger (), who largely focused on the case of one-parameter exponential models.
With many probability models, the modes and anti-modes in the probability structure under one parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ are reversed in role when the parameter sign changes $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$. Because unstable models tend to degeneracy, the opposite signed parameters further push unstable models to assign nearly all probability to extremely opposite data configurations, given by modes/anti-modes. This is made concrete in Theorem \[thm:something\], relating the degeneracy from unstable models to the expected behavior of log-likelihood functions.
Let $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, $N \geq 1$, denote an S-unstable FOES model sequence, which additionally satisfies model condition PSR. Let $\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N},\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}\in\mathcal{X}^N$ denote, respectively, a mode and anti-mode of the model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$, $\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N$, for $N$ observations $\boldsymbol X = (X_1,\ldots,X_N)$, whereby $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) = \max_{\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^N} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol y)$ and $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) = \min_{\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^N} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol y)$.
Then, letting $\stackrel{p, \mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow}$ denote convergence in probability and expectation, as $N\to \infty$, $$\frac{1}{{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)} \log\left[ \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol X) }{ \displaystyle{\min_{\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^N}} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol y)}\right] = \frac{ \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N } ( \boldsymbol X) - \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) }
{ \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N } (\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) - \log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) }
\stackrel{p, \mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow}
\; 1$$ under $\boldsymbol\theta_N$ while $$\frac{1}{{\mathrm{LREP}}(-\boldsymbol \theta_N)} \log\left[ \frac{P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol X) }{ \displaystyle{\min_{\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^N}} P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol y)} \right]
= \frac{ \log P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N } ( \boldsymbol X) - \log P_{ \boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) }
{ \log P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N } (\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) - \log P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) }
\stackrel{p,\mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow}
\; 1,$$ under $-\boldsymbol\theta_N$, where $${\mathrm{LREP}}( \boldsymbol \theta_N) \equiv \log \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N } (\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N})}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N})} = \log \frac{P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N } (\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) }{ P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N})}= {\mathrm{LREP}}( -\boldsymbol \theta_N), \quad N \geq 1.$$
Theorem \[thm:something\] entails log-likelihood functions based on unstable models are both inversely related and degenerate at opposited signed parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ or $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$, so that likelihoods are highest at different extremes in data configuration (e.g., $\boldsymbol{x}_{\max, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ under $\boldsymbol \theta$-probabilities or $\boldsymbol{x}_{\min, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ under $-\boldsymbol \theta$-probabilities). If the observed outcome $\boldsymbol x$ for data $\boldsymbol X$ is not a mode/anti-mode, then probabilities for the outcome may be small under both parameters $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ and $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$, in which case associated optimization steps may then shift around zero and struggle to converge.
In many model formulations, the zero parameter $\boldsymbol \theta_N=\boldsymbol 0$ is a “safe” position among parameters, representing a guaranteed stable model (having uniform probabilities among outcomes), which can also tether a broad parameter search attempted among unstable models. Handcock () describes similar results for degenerate exponential models, and Theorem \[thm:something\] also supports an important finding of Schweinberger ( Corollary 1) for one-parameter linear exponential models . In the latter case, the likelihood score function at $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ is the expected value $\mu(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\equiv \mathrm{E}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} g(\boldsymbol X)$ of the sufficient statistic $g(\cdot)$, and optimization involves solving $\mu(\cdot)=g(\boldsymbol x)$ for an observed outcome $\boldsymbol x$. For unstable models in this exponential class, Schweinberger ( Corollary 1) shows that $$\lim_{N\to \infty}\frac{\mu(\boldsymbol \theta_N) -L_n}{U_n-L_N}= \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
1 && \text{for } \boldsymbol \theta_N>0,\\
0 && \text{for } \boldsymbol \theta_N<0, \end{array}\right.$$ where again $U_N$ and $L_N$ denote the maximum and minimum values of the statistic $g(\boldsymbol x)$, $\boldsymbol x\in\mathcal{X}^N$. As described by Schweinberger (), the implication for maximum likelihood estimation is that, unless an observed outcome $\boldsymbol x$ falls at an extreme $U_N, L_N$ (i.e., modes/anti-modes), optimization steps in the parameter space can iterate in relatively small increments around zero and fail to converge. For unstable one-parameter exponential models, the maximum likelihood results of Schweinberger () turn out to be a special case of Theorem \[thm:something\] and the LREP expansion in this setting; namely, for an unstable model with $\boldsymbol \theta_N>0$, $$\frac{1}{{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)} \log\left[ \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol X) }{\displaystyle{\min_{\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^N}} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol y)}\right] = \frac{\boldsymbol g(\boldsymbol X) - L_N}{U_N-L_N}\;\;\stackrel{p, \mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow}\;\; 1$$ holds as $N\to \infty$ by Theorem \[thm:something\], while under $-\boldsymbol \theta_N<0$ $$\frac{1}{{\mathrm{LREP}}(-\boldsymbol \theta_N)} \log\left[ \frac{P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol X) }{\displaystyle{\min_{\boldsymbol y\in\mathcal{X}^N}} P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N }(\boldsymbol y)}\right] = \frac{U_N -\boldsymbol g(\boldsymbol X)}{U_N-L_N} = 1 - \frac{\boldsymbol g(\boldsymbol X) - L_N}{U_N-L_N} \;\;\stackrel{p, \mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow}\;\; 1.$$ Again, when all probability in unstable models may be pushed to opposite extremes in the sample space, due to a combination of degeneracy and parameter sign, numerical complications in likelihood maximization may occur.
Implications for Bayes Inference {#bayes}
--------------------------------
The potential numerical difficulties with maximum likelihood with unstable models, as described in the previous section, can naturally carry over to Bayes inference. Considering that the degeneracy issues related to unstable models can cause likelihoods can be flat (e.g., near zero) for many parameters under a given data outcome and that sign changes in parameters can shift tremendous probability to extreme and opposite outcomes in the sample space (e.g., Corollary \[cor:sign\], Theorem \[thm:something\]), then numerical complications may arise with Bayes inference in sampling a posterior parameter space based on MCMC. The potential challenges in chain mixing are similar to those presented in Section \[mcmc\], though in chain movements through the parameter space as opposed to the sample space in data generation. That is, in the Bayes setting for sampling a posterior distribution for $\boldsymbol \theta_N$, a chain may unstable to effectively explore the parameter space due partly to extreme and potentially unbounded probability ratios from parameter sign changes, which represents a parameter space analog to how one-component changes in the sample space may impact data simulation with unstable models. For example, if $\pi(\cdot)$ denotes a prior density for $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ and $q(\cdot | \cdot)$ denotes a proposal distribution for use in a Metropolis-Hastings (MH) sampler, then MH acceptance probability becomes $$\alpha\left(\boldsymbol \theta^{(1)} \mid \boldsymbol \theta^{(2)}\right)= \min\left\{1,
\frac{q(\boldsymbol \theta_N^{(2)} \mid \boldsymbol \theta_N^{(1)})}{q(\boldsymbol \theta_N^{(1)} \mid \boldsymbol \theta_N^{(2)})}
\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N^{(1)}} ( \boldsymbol x ) \pi(\boldsymbol \theta_N^{(1)}) }{P_{\boldsymbol \theta^{(2)}_N} ( \boldsymbol x) \pi(\boldsymbol \theta_N^{(2)}) } \right\},$$ which indicates how parameter sensitivity in the likelihood $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} ( \boldsymbol x)$ may complicate sampling of the posterior $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} ( \boldsymbol x) \pi(\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ (i.e., moving from $\boldsymbol \theta^{(1)}$ to $\boldsymbol \theta^{(2)}$ in the parameter space). Furthermore, the potential for model instability and the size of the parameter space can also become greater with the introduction of latent variables to existing data variables, as involved in some model formulations described in Sections \[rbm\]-\[deep-learning\]. As latent variables are often sampled with parameters in a Bayes MCMC approach, this aspect may further compound numerical problems in chain mixing.
Concluding Remarks {#conclusions}
==================
For a large class of models that covers a broad range of applications (including “deep learning”), we have developed a formal definition of instability in model probability structure and elucidated multiple consequences of instability. We have shown for FOES models that instability manifests through small changes in data leading to potentially large changes in probability as well as the potential to place all probability on certain modal subsections of the sample space, which potentially could be small. Such instability is often due to a complex interaction between the model statistics used (i.e., how numerous and large these may become) and the number and magnitudes of parameters in the model formulation. For many FOES models, the possibility exists, at least in principle, to constraint parameters in a way balances their potential contributions against those of model statistics in order to prevent probability instabilities. The FOES model class is quite broad and, in developing such models for large data sets, some caution should be used in parameter specification to control effects of model instability.
Proofs of instability results {#appendix-instab}
=============================
**Proof of Proposition \[thm:instab-elpr\].** For part (i), we prove the contrapositive, supposing that ${\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \le C$ holds for some $C > 0$ and show ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \leq NC$. Let $\boldsymbol x_{min} \equiv \operatorname*{arg\,min}\limits_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$ and $\boldsymbol x_{max} \equiv \operatorname*{arg\,max}\limits_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$. Note there exists a sequence $\boldsymbol x_{min} \equiv \boldsymbol x_0, \boldsymbol x_1, \dots, \boldsymbol x_k \equiv \boldsymbol x_{max}$ in $\mathcal{X}^N$ of component-wise switches to move from $\boldsymbol x_{min}$ to $\boldsymbol x_{max}$ in the sample space (i.e. $\boldsymbol x_i, \boldsymbol x_{i + 1} \in \mathcal{X}^N$ differ in exactly $1$ component, $i = 0, \dots, k$) for some integer $k \in \{0, 1, \dots, N\}$. Under the FOES model, recall $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) > 0$ holds so that $\log P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$ is well-defined for each outcome $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N$. Then, if $k > 0$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) = \log\left[\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max})}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{min})}\right] &= \left|\sum\limits_{i = 1}^k\log\left(\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_i)}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{i-1})}\right)\right| \\
&\le \sum\limits_{i = 1}^k\left|\log\left(\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_i)}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta}(\boldsymbol x_{i-1})}\right)\right| \le k \Delta_N(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \le NC,\end{aligned}$$ using $k \le N$ and $\Delta(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \le C$. If $k = 0$, then $\boldsymbol x_{max} = \boldsymbol x_{min}$ and the same bound above holds. This establishes part (i). To show part (ii), note the definition of S-instability (i.e., $\lim_{N\to \infty}{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N= \infty$) combined with part (i) implies that $\lim_{N\to \infty}{\Delta_N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)=\infty$. $\Box$
**Proof of Proposition \[thm:degenFOES\].** As $|\mathcal{X}|<\infty$ holds in the FOES model, we may suppose $|\mathcal{X}|>1$; otherwise, $\mathcal{X}^N$ has one outcome and the model is trivially degenerate for all $N \geq 1$. Fix $0 < \epsilon < 1$ and write $\boldsymbol x_{min} \equiv \operatorname*{arg\,min}\limits_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$ and $\boldsymbol x_{max} \equiv \operatorname*{arg\,max}\limits_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)$. Then, $\boldsymbol x_{max} \in M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$, so $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) \ge P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max}) > 0$. If $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N \setminus M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$, then by definition $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \le [P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max})]^{1-\epsilon}[P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{min})]^{\epsilon}$ holds so that $$1-P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N})
= \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{X}^N \setminus M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)
\le (|\mathcal{X}|^N)[P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max})]^{1-\epsilon}[P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{min})]^{\epsilon}.$$ From the lower bound on $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N})$ and the upper bound on $1-P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N})$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}\log\left[\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N})}{1-P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N})}\right] & \ge \frac{1}{N} \log\left[\frac{P_{\boldsymbol\theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max})}{(|\mathcal{X}|^N)[P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max})]^{1-\epsilon}[P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{min})]^{\epsilon}}\right] \\
&= \frac{\epsilon}{N} \log\left[\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{max})}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_{min})}\right] - \log |\mathcal{X}| \rightarrow \infty\end{aligned}$$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$ by the definition of an S-unstable FOES model . Consequently, $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(M_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}) \rightarrow 1$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$ as claimed. $\Box$
**Proof of Corollary \[cor:sign\].** The model condition PSR implies that $$\label{eq:R}
\frac{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) }{\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) } = \frac{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) }{\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) }$$ so that the log-ratio ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)={\mathrm{LREP}}(-\boldsymbol \theta_N)$ is the same for both $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ and $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$ in . Now part (i) of Corollary \[cor:sign\] follows from ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N={\mathrm{LREP}}(-\boldsymbol \theta_N)/N\to \infty$ as $N\to \infty$ in . To show part (ii), fix $0 < \epsilon < 1$ and consider a $\epsilon$-mode set $\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ under $\boldsymbol \theta_N$ from . If $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c \equiv \mathcal{X}^N \setminus \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$, then, by definition, $$\frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)}{\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)} \leq \left[\frac{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) }{\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) } \right]^{1-\epsilon}$$ holds, which is equivalent to $$\frac{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y)}{P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x)} \leq
\left[\frac{\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) }{\min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N}P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) } \right]^{1-\epsilon}$$ by model condition PSR and . The latter is in turn equivalent to $$\label{eq:R2}
\log P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x) \geq \epsilon \max\limits_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} \log P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y) + (1-\epsilon)\min\limits_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} \log P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol y),$$ so that $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c$ if and only if holds. Next consider the $(1-\epsilon)$-mode set $\mathcal{M}_{1-\epsilon, -\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ under $-\boldsymbol \theta_N$ from . If $\boldsymbol x \in\mathcal{M}_{1-\epsilon, -\boldsymbol \theta_N}$, then by definition $\boldsymbol x$ fulfills and so $\boldsymbol x \in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c$, showing that $\mathcal{M}_{1-\epsilon, -\boldsymbol \theta_N} \subset \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c$. By this and the fact that that Theorem \[thm:degenFOES\] and Corollary \[cor:sign\](i) entail that $P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol X_N \in \mathcal{M}_{1-\epsilon, -\boldsymbol \theta_N})\to 1$ as $N\to \infty$ (i.e., $P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}$ is S-unstable), we have $$1 = \lim_{N\to \infty} P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol X_N \in \mathcal{M}_{1-\epsilon, -\boldsymbol \theta_N}) \leq \lim_{N\to \infty} P_{-\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol X_N \in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}^c ) \leq 1,$$ proving Corollary \[cor:sign\](ii) $\Box$
**Proof of Proposition \[prp:prop1\].** For any two outcomes $\boldsymbol x_1, \boldsymbol x_2\in\mathcal{X}^N$, the log-ratio of probabilities from the linear exponential model with $k$ parameters/statistics satisfies $$\left|\log \left[ \frac{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_1)}{P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}(\boldsymbol x_2)} \right] \right| =
\left| \sum_{i=1}^k \theta_{i,N} [g_{i,k}(\boldsymbol x_1) - g_{i,k}(\boldsymbol x_2) ] \right| \leq \sum_{i=1}^k | \theta_{i,N}| (U_{i,N}-L_{i,N});$$ consequently, ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_N ) \leq \sum_{i=1}^k | \theta_{i,N}| (U_{i,N}-L_{i,N})$ holds in and model stability in Proposition \[prp:prop1\] follows from . $\Box$
**Proof of Proposition \[prp:prop2\].** Writing $\boldsymbol x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N)$ and $\boldsymbol h = (h_1,\ldots,h_{N_{\mathcal{H}}})$ with all components $x_i,h_j\in\{\pm 1\}$, probabilities in the joint RBM model can be written as $\tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) = c(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\exp[ f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)]$ in terms of the function $f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)$ from and the normalizing constant $c(\boldsymbol \theta_N)= \exp [-\psi(\boldsymbol \theta_N)]$ from . Let $\boldsymbol x_M, \boldsymbol x_m\in\{\pm 1\}^N$ be such that $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_M) = \max_{\boldsymbol x}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x)$ and $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_m) = \min_{\boldsymbol x}P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x)$ under the marginal RBM model $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x) = c(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\sum_{\boldsymbol h \in\{\pm 1\}^{\mathcal{N}_H}} \tilde{P}_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)= c(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\sum_{\boldsymbol h \in\{\pm 1\}^{\mathcal{N}_H}} \exp[ f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)]$ from . Also, $\boldsymbol x_0,x_1\in\{\pm 1\}^N$ be such that $\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_0, \boldsymbol h)=\max_{\boldsymbol x}\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h)$ and $\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_1, \boldsymbol h)=\min_{\boldsymbol x}\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h)$. Then, Proposition \[prp:prop2\](i) follows from ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) = \log[P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_M) /P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_m) ]$ and the lower/upper bounds on $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_M)$ and $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_m)$ as $$c(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \exp[\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_0 , \boldsymbol h)]
\leq P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_0) \leq P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_M) \leq 2^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} c(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \exp[\max_{\boldsymbol x}\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)]$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
c(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \exp[\min_{\boldsymbol x}\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h)] &\leq c(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \exp[ \max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_m , \boldsymbol h)] \\
&\leq P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_m) \\
&\leq P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_1) \\
&\leq 2^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} c(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \exp[ \max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x_1 , \boldsymbol h)]\\&=&2^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} c(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \exp[\min_{\boldsymbol x}\max_{\boldsymbol h}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h)]\end{aligned}$$ To prove Proposition \[prp:prop2\], we next expand the function $f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)$ from as $$f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h)= \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}} + \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}}\right)x_i=\sum_{i=1}^N x_i \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} \left( \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}} + \sum_{i=1}^N x_i \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}}\right)h_j.$$ By this and the fact that $x_i,h_j\in\{\pm 1\}$, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \max_{\boldsymbol x} f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}} + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h), & \min_{\boldsymbol x} f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}} - a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h),\\
\nonumber \max_{\boldsymbol h} f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) = \sum_{i=1}^{N}x_i \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + b_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{V}} (\boldsymbol x), & \min_{\boldsymbol h} f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x, \boldsymbol h) = \sum_{i=1}^{N}x_i \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} - b_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{V}} (\boldsymbol x), \\
\label{eq:max}
a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h) \equiv \sum_{i=1}^N \left| \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}}\right|, & b_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{V}} (\boldsymbol x) \equiv \sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} \left| \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}} + \sum_{i=1}^N x_i \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}}\right|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol h^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_\mathcal{H}} h_j \theta_{j,N}^{\mathcal{H}}$, $\boldsymbol x^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{V}}= \sum_{i=1}^{N}x_i \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}}$ and ${B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \max_{\boldsymbol h} a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h)$. From this, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) &= \max_{\boldsymbol h}\max_{\boldsymbol x}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h) - \min_{\boldsymbol h}\min_{\boldsymbol x}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h)\\
&= \max_{\boldsymbol h_1 } \max_{\boldsymbol h_2 }\left[ (\boldsymbol h_1 - \boldsymbol h_2)^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_1) + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_2)\right],\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the upper bound ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \leq 2 {B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }+ 2 |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_1$. Then, taking $\boldsymbol h_1=\boldsymbol h_2$ (i.e., before maximization) gives ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \geq 2{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }$ and taking $\boldsymbol h_1=-\boldsymbol h_2$, such that $\boldsymbol h_1^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} = |\theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1$, gives ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) \geq 2|\theta_N^{\mathcal{H}}|_1$; this yields the lower bound ${\mathrm{LREP}}_{(\boldsymbol X, \boldsymbol H)}(\boldsymbol \theta_N)\geq 2\max\{{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }, |\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_1\}$.
We next consider ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }$ and, by , write $$\begin{aligned}
{A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }&= \max_{\boldsymbol h}\max_{\boldsymbol x}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h) - \max_{\boldsymbol h}\min_{\boldsymbol x}f_{\boldsymbol \theta_N} (\boldsymbol x , \boldsymbol h)\\
&= \max_{\boldsymbol h_1} \min_{\boldsymbol h_2 }\left[ (\boldsymbol h_1 - \boldsymbol h_2)^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_1) + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_2)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\boldsymbol h_1=\boldsymbol h_2$ and maximizing over both $\boldsymbol h_1,\boldsymbol h_2$ produces the upper bound ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\leq 2{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }$. Then, using $(\boldsymbol h_1 - \boldsymbol h_2)^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_2) \geq - 2|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_1$ and maximizing over $\boldsymbol h_1$ gives ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\geq {B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }- 2|\boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} |_1$, while setting $\boldsymbol h_1=\boldsymbol h_2^*$ for $\boldsymbol h_2^*$ such that $-(\boldsymbol h_2^*) ^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_2^*) = \min_{\boldsymbol h_2} [-\boldsymbol h_2^T \boldsymbol \theta_N^{\mathcal{H}} + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_2)]$ gives ${A_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\geq 2 a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_2^*) \geq {C_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \min_{\boldsymbol h} a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h)$. Finally, note that for any $\boldsymbol h$, the triangle inequality gives $$\begin{aligned}
{B_{N}(\boldsymbol \theta_N) }\equiv \max_{\boldsymbol h_1} a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h_1) &\geq
[a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (\boldsymbol h) + a_{\boldsymbol \theta_N, \mathcal{H}} (-\boldsymbol h)]/2 \\
&=
2^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N } \left(\left| \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} + \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} h_j \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}} \right|
+ \left| \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} - \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\mathcal{H}}} h_j \theta_{ij,N}^{\mathcal{VH}} \right|\right)\\
& \geq \sum_{i=1}^{N } \left| \theta_{i,N}^{\mathcal{V}} \right| \equiv |\boldsymbol \theta_{N}^{\mathcal{V}}|_1.\end{aligned}$$ $\Box$
**Proof of Theorem \[thm:something\].** Let $L_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X) = \log[ P_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X)/ \min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol y) ]/{\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_{N})$, where again $\boldsymbol X=(X_1, \dots, X_N)$ and ${\mathrm{LREP}}(\boldsymbol \theta_{N})= \log[\max_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol y)/ \min_{\boldsymbol y \in \mathcal{X}^N} P_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol y) ]$. As $L_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X)\in[0,1]$, convergence of $L_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X)$ to 1 in probability under $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}$ is equivalent to convergence to $1$ in expectation under $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}$ (i.e., convergence in expectation implies probabilistic convergence by Markov’s inequality while probabilistic convergence implies convergence in expectation by uniform integrability/boundedness).
For $\epsilon \in(0,1)$, let $\mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ denote a modal set as in . By Theorem \[thm:degenFOES\], $P_{\boldsymbol \theta_N}\left( \boldsymbol X\in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}\right) \rightarrow 1$ holds as $N \rightarrow \infty$ and, by definition of , $\boldsymbol X\in \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon, \boldsymbol \theta_N}$ follows if and only if $1-L_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X)<\epsilon$. Hence, $L_{\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X) \stackrel{p,\mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow} 1$ holds under $\boldsymbol \theta_{N}$ in Theorem \[thm:something\]. The convergence $L_{-\boldsymbol \theta_{N}}(\boldsymbol X) \stackrel{p,\mathrm{E}}{\longrightarrow} 1$ under $-\boldsymbol \theta_{N}$ likewise follows from Corollary \[cor:sign\]. $\Box$
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Besag, Julian. 1974. “Spatial Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of Lattice Systems.” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)*. JSTOR, 192–236.
Handcock, Mark S. 2003. “Assessing Degeneracy in Statistical Models of Social Networks.” Center for Statistics; the Social Sciences, University of Washington. <http://www.csss.washington.edu/>.
Hinton, Geoffrey E, Simon Osindero, and Yee-Whye Teh. 2006. “A Fast Learning Algorithm for Deep Belief Nets.” *Neural Computation* 18 (7). MIT Press: 1527–54.
Neal, Radford M. 1992. “Connectionist Learning of Belief Networks.” *Artificial Intelligence* 56 (1). Elsevier: 71–113.
Pearl, Judea. 1985. “Bayesian Networks: A Model of Self-Activated Memory for Evidential Reasoning.” UCLA Computer Science Department.
Ruelle, D. 1999. *Statistical Mechanics: Rigorous Results*. London: Imperial College Press.
Salakhutdinov, Ruslan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2009. “Deep Boltzmann Machines.” In *International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics*, 448–55. AI & Statistics.
Schweinberger, Michael. 2011. “Instability, Sensitivity, and Degeneracy of Discrete Exponential Families.” *Journal of the American Statistical Association* 106 (496). Taylor & Francis: 1361–70.
Smolensky, Paul. 1986. “Information Processing in Dynamical Systems: Foundations of Harmony Theory.” DTIC Document.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. *Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications*. Vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Memory bound applications such as solvers for large sparse systems of equations remain a challenge for GPUs. Fast solvers should be based on numerically efficient algorithms and implemented such that global memory access is minimised. To solve systems with up to one trillion ($10^{12}$) unknowns the code has to make efficient use of several million individual processor cores on large GPU clusters.
We describe the multi-GPU implementation of two algorithmically optimal iterative solvers for anisotropic elliptic PDEs which are encountered in atmospheric modelling. In this application the condition number is large but independent of the grid resolution and both methods are asymptotically optimal, albeit with different absolute performance. We parallelise the solvers and adapt them to the specific features of GPU architectures, paying particular attention to efficient global memory access. We achieve a performance of up to 0.78 PFLOPs when solving an equation with $0.55\cdot 10^{12}$ unknowns on 16384 GPUs; this corresponds to about $3\%$ of the theoretical peak performance of the machine and we use more than $40\%$ of the peak memory bandwidth with a Conjugate Gradient (CG) solver. Although the other solver, a geometric multigrid algorithm, has a slightly worse performance in terms of FLOPs per second, overall it is faster as it needs less iterations to converge; the multigrid algorithm can solve a linear PDE with half a trillion unknowns in about one second.
title: Petascale elliptic solvers for anisotropic PDEs on GPU clusters
---
Introduction
============
Many problems in geophysical modelling require the fast solution of anisotropic partial differential equations (PDEs) in “flat” domains. For example, a global PDE for the pressure correction has to be solved in every time step of many numerical weather- and climate prediction models if an implicit method is used to advance the atmospheric fields forward in time. As the height of the atmosphere is much smaller than the horizontal extent of the domain in global models, after discretisation this equation has a very strong vertical anisotropy. The discretised PDE can be written as a sparse system of equations $${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}} = {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}, \label{eqn:SparseSystemSchematic}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}$ is a sparse $n\times n$ matrix and the vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}$ has $n$ entries and represents the global (Exner-) pressure correction field in the whole domain. In modern applications the number of degrees of freedom $n$ can be very large, for a global grid with a horizontal resolution of $1km$ or less and ${\mathcal{O}}(100-200)$ vertical levels a system with $n\gtrsim 10^{11}$ unknowns needs to be solved. Resolutions of this order are expected to be achieved by state-of-the-art global forecast models within the next decade. As the PDE is solved in every model time step and accounts for a significant amount of the total model runtime, it is crucial to solve it as fast as possible to deliver forecasts on operational timescales. This can only be achieved by using algorithmically optimal methods and implementing them on the fastest available hardware. The main challenge faced by the solver is the vertical anisotropy which prevents a standard approach such as a geometric multigrid algorithm with point smoother or an iterative solver with Jacobi preconditioner. Recently we have shown that Krylov subspace solvers and multigrid methods tailored to the structure of the problem are highly efficient and scale up to tens of thousands of CPU cores [@Mueller2013b]. In particular we found that for our application the tensor-product geometric multigrid solver, suggested and first analysed in [@BoermHiptmair1999], is superior to a preconditioned Conjugate Gradient method and to state of the art parallel algebraic multigrid (AMG) implementations from the DUNE [@Blatt07; @Blatt10] and Hypre [@Henson2000] libraries.
As explained in detail below, the elliptic PDE for the atmospheric pressure correction has the structure of a shifted Laplace equation, which is usually known as the (sign-positive) Helmholtz equation in the meteorological literature. In contrast to the conventional Helmholtz equation encountered for example in wave scattering problems, the elliptic operator we consider is positive definite. While implicit time marching schemes permit larger model time steps, advective time scales and constraints on the accuracy of the solution limit the permitted time step size. This implies that the CFL number, which is proportional to the ratio of the time step size and horizontal grid spacing, is typically in the range $2-10$. After preconditioning, the condition number of the elliptic operator is ${\mathcal{O}}(100-1000)$, independent of the horizontal grid resolution. Because of this Krylov subspace methods and multigrid algorithms with a fixed number of levels are asymptoptically optimal and algorithmically scalable as the problem size increases.
Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) have been used very successfully in many areas of Scientific Computing and can be superior to more traditional CPU architectures both in terms of speed and power efficiency. A particular challenge for solvers of sparse systems of linear equations such as (\[eqn:SparseSystemSchematic\]) is that their performance is typically limited by the speed with which data can be read from (and written to) global GPU memory. While the number of floating point operations for the iterative solvers we consider is typically two to five times larger than the number of memory operations, on modern GPUs, such as the Kepler GK110 on the K20X cards on the Titan supercomputer [@top500.org] the cost for one (double precision) memory access is more than $40\times$ larger than the cost of one floating point operation. This factor is given by the ratio of the peak floating point performance and the peak global memory bandwidth, namely $1.31 {\ensuremath{\operatorname{TFLOPs}}}/(250{\ensuremath{\operatorname{GByte/s}}}) \times 8 \operatorname{Byte} \approx 42$ for double precision arithmetic on the K20X card [@TeslaDatasheet]. It should be compared to the corresponding number for CPU architectures where only around 3 floating point operations can be carried out per variable loaded from memory. Furthermore, due to limited memory, only problems with up to a few million degrees of freedom can be solved on a single GPU. To solve larger systems a distributed-memory multi-GPU implementation has to be used. For problems with up to a trillion ($10^{12}$) unknowns, several million processor cores are necessary.
To implement the fastest possible massively parallel GPU solver we followed three design principles:
1. **Algorithmically optimal solver.** To minimise the overall solution time, the biggest gains can be achieved by using an iterative solver method which is tailored to the problem to be solved and converges in the smallest possible number of iterations. Krylov subspace methods are very popular in meteorological applications because of their simplicity (see e.g. [@Skamarock1997; @Thomas1997; @Qaddouri2003; @Davies05] and the detailed review in [@Mueller2013b]). For anisotropic PDEs it is particularly important to exploit the strong coupling in the vertical direction by using a suitable preconditioner. Since the elliptic system considered in this work is symmetric and positive definite, the most suitable Krylov subspace method is a Conjugate Gradient solver preconditioned with vertical line relaxation. The preconditioner requires the frequent solution of a tridiagonal system in each vertical column; this can be achieved with the Thomas algorithm (see e.g. [@Press2007]).
However, we already found in [@Mueller2013b] that the geometric tensor-product multigrid solver proposed and analysed in [@BoermHiptmair1999], which uses vertical line relaxation as the smoother, converges significantly faster than the preconditioned CG iteration. As the numerical experiments in this article confirm, the CG solver requires at the order of 60 iterations to reduce the residual by five orders of magnitude, whereas the multigrid method converges in less than 10 iterations.
2. **Memory optimised CUDA-C implementation.** We optimised the single GPU implementation by minimising the number of memory references per iteration. As already shown in [@Mueller2013a], the biggest gains can be achieved by using a “matrix-free” approach and recomputing the (sparse) matrix ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}$ instead of storing it explicitly. For example, carrying out a sparse matrix-vector product (SpMV) ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}} \mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ requires 1 to 7 global reads (depending on the caching of the vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$) and 1 global write at each grid cell. This should be compared to a matrix-explicit implementation which requires 7 additional reads for a finite volume stencil and can hence be more than twice as expensive. Not storing the matrix explicitly also reduces the memory requirements of the solver significantly. This allows the solution of larger problems and better utilisation of the GPU resources. For optimal global memory troughput on the GPU it is crucial to adapt the data layout to achieve optimally coalesced access for all threads in a warp. This requires a horizontally contiguous ordering of the degrees of freedom, which differs from the vertically contiguous ordering which allows optimal cache reusage on CPUs. In addition we reduced the number of memory references by fusing several GPU kernels.
We find that on a single GPU our CG implementation achieves $36\%-56\%$ of the peak global memory bandwidth depending on the problem size. For the multigrid solver the rate is slightly lower with $15\%-36\%$ of the peak global memory bandwidth, but this is more than compensated by the faster convergence rate.
3. **Massively parallel multi-GPU code.** We extended our implementation to clusters of GPUs by using a horizontal decomposition of the computational domain, which is common for applications in atmospheric modelling. For this we used the Generic Communication Library [@bianco2013interface] which allows the straightforward implementation of halo exchanges on structured two- and three-dimensional grids and supports GPUDirect data transfer between different GPUs. For the largest problem we studied, the additional overhead from the MPI communications is about $10\%$ for the CG solver and about $40\%$ for the multigrid solver, both solvers show very good weak scaling to up to 16384 GPUs.
#### Main achievements
In this paper we describe this approach in detail for the solution of a model equation which captures the main features of the elliptic PDE for the pressure correction in global weather- and forecast models; further details on the model equation and relevant meteorological literature can be found in previous publications [@Mueller2013b; @Dedner2014]. In [@Mueller2013a] we described the single-GPU implementation of a matrix-free CG solver, here we extend this approach to the geometric-multigrid solver analysed in [@BoermHiptmair1999] and extend both solvers to run on clusters of GPUs. We tested the performance of our solvers and ran them on up to 16384 GPUs of the Titan Cray XK7 cluster (OLCF, Oak Ridge National Lab), which contains 18,688 nVidia K20X cards with GK110 Kepler GPUs and is currently ranked as the second fastest computer in the world (``[top500.org]{}, June 2014 [@top500.org]).
We are able to solve a problem with half a trillion ($0.55\cdot 10^{12}$) degrees of freedom in about one second with the multigrid solver. The GPU implementation is about a factor four faster on one K20X GPU card on Titan than our optimised Fortran 90 CPU code running on one 16 core AMD Opteron processor of HECToR, the UK’s national supercomputing resource.
On Titan we achieve a performance of $0.78$ [$\operatorname{PFLOPs}$]{} for the CG solver (and $0.65$ [$\operatorname{PFLOPs}$]{} for the multigrid algorithm). It should be stressed that this time includes all components of the solver, such as host-device data transfer and transposition of the fields for horizontally contiguous ordering on the GPU. As the code is bandwidth limited, the absolute performance should be quantified in fractions of the peak global GPU bandwidth. For the CG solver we can achieve a percentage of $32\%$-$42\%$ of the peak global memory bandwidth when running on 16384 GPUs, for the multigrid solver this fraction is $15\%$-$25\%$. All source code is freely available for download under the LGPL 3 license.
#### Previous work
Early work on the GPU parallelisation of Conjugate Gradient methods and multigrid solvers for sparse linear systems is discussed in [@Bolz03; @Goodnight2005]. The authors solve the two dimensional shifted Laplace equation $-\Delta u+\sigma u = RHS$ [@Bolz03] and the Poisson equation $-\Delta u=0$ [@Goodnight2005] arising in implicit time stepping methods for the solution of the Navier Stokes equations. In both cases the code is implemented by using the low level graphics API on GPU hardware which is quite dated now. More recent GPU implementations of (preconditioned) Conjugate Gradient- [@Menon2007; @cevahir2009fast; @Knittel2010; @cevahir2010high; @Georgescu2010; @griebel2010multi; @jacobsen2010mpi] and geometric multigrid solvers [@feng2010parallel; @Geveler2011; @jacobsen2011full] are also reported in the literature. To solve problems which arise for example from finite element discretisations on unstructured grids, typically the system matrix is stored explicitly in formats such as compressed sparse row storage (CSR) or in the ELLPACK format (see [@Bell2008] for a detailled discussion of sparse matrix storage formats on GPUs) and the authors concentrate on optimising the sparse matrix-vector multiplication. The advantage of this approach is that the solvers can be applied to very general and grid-independent problems such as power grid simulations in [@feng2010parallel] or arbitrary sparse matrices from the University of Florida sparse matrix collection [@Davis2011] as described in [@cevahir2009fast]. However, for very general problems, the construction of a suitable preconditioner is very difficult and convergence is slow. Similarly, while AMG implementations such as those reported in [@haase2010parallel; @Brannick2013] can be used to solve a very large class of elliptic problems, the requirement of explicit matrix storage makes them more expensive than geometric multigrid for the structured PDEs which we discuss in this article. On the other hand, the only matrix-free implementations we are aware of are [@Goodnight2005; @Menon2007; @Knittel2010], and in all cases the authors focus on solving the homogeneous and isotropic Poisson equation in a regular two- or three- dimensional domain. Both extremes should be compared to our approach: by exploiting the structure of the problem to construct a suitable preconditioner our solvers can deal with three dimensional anisotropic equations on curved domains but avoid explicit storage of the matrix which has a negative impact on performance for bandwidth limited applications.
More recently iterative solvers have also been parallelised across multiple GPUs. For example (unpreconditioned) Conjugate Gradient solvers are tested for a range of sparse matrices in [@cevahir2009fast; @cevahir2010high; @Georgescu2010]. Of particular interest for this work are the multigrid solvers discussed in [@jacobsen2010mpi; @griebel2010multi; @jacobsen2011full] for the 3D Poisson equation which arises in implicit time stepping methods for the solution of the Navier Stokes equations. The equation we consider in the following can be derived in a similar fashion for the compressible Euler equations. A significant but important difference is that compressibility gives rise to an additional zero order term which introduces an intrinsic length scale beyond which interactions between gridpoints are exponentially suppressed. This has an important impact on the parallelisation of the multigrid solver: it is sufficient to use a relatively small number of multigrid levels and one or two smoother iterations are sufficient to solve the well conditioned coarse grid problem, thus avoiding an exact global coarse grid solve across all processors. This should be compared to the more complicated approaches such as parallel coarse grid aggregation discussed in [@jacobsen2011full] for the homogeneous Poisson equation.
An interesting approach combining the computational power of both the CPU and the GPU on a node is described in [@Goeddeke2008] where the authors describe a BiCG solver for the Poisson problem on an unstructured grid and parallelise the solver on a cluster with up to 17 nodes. A multigrid V-cycle is used for preconditioning and the smoother, which is a separate multigrid iteration on structured subgrids, is offloaded to the GPU. As CPU-GPU data transfer is expensive and there are now efficient ways for exchanging data directly between GPUs on different nodes, we implemented our solver such that all calculations are carried out on the device only.
Only recently clusters with several thousands of GPUs have become available and as far as we are aware to date there are no multi-GPU implementations which have been shown to scale to up to more than around 100 GPUs. Parallel scaling on up to 128 GPU for a CG solver with Jacobi preconditioner for the Poisson equation is described in [@jacobsen2010mpi], and scaling for the multigrid solver of the same problem is reported on up to 64 nodes in [@jacobsen2011full]. Elliptic problems solved so far typically have less than 1 billion unknowns and the results in this work represent a significant contribution to extending the scalability of iterative solvers to several millions of processor cores on tens of thousands of GPUs and for solving very large systems with up to half a trillion unknowns. In this context we mention the work reported in [@Yang2013] where the authors achieved a GPU performance of 1.9 [$\operatorname{PFLOPs}$]{} for an explicit time stepping solver of the shallow water equations on a cubed sphere grid (however, in contrast to implicit timestepping methods, this does not require the solution of an elliptic PDE for the pressure correction). That solver is run on 3750 nodes with 1 GPU each to solve problems with up to 4 billion unknowns per atmospheric variable.
Although we believe that here we describe the first massively parallel GPU implementation of solvers for sparse systems with more than half a trillion ($0.5\cdot 10^{12}$) unknowns, problems of this size have been solved on more conventional CPU clusters before. For example, a massively parallel implementation of a multigrid solver on hybrid grids is described in [@Gmeiner2014] and the authors demonstrate the excellent scalability of the algorithm on nearly 300,000 CPU cores by solving systems with up to $10^{12}$ unknowns.
While in the past, bespoke geometric multigrid solvers for anisotropic elliptic PDEs have been studied extensively in the literature (see e.g. [@Trottenberg2001] for a standard textbook), we will not discuss those more algorithmic aspects here and instead refer the reader to to [@BoermHiptmair1999] and a forthcoming publication ([@Dedner2014]) which contain more compresensive reviews of this topic.
#### Structure
This paper is organised as follows: in we briefly review the application of iterative solvers to anisotropic elliptic PDEs in atmospheric modelling with particular focus on Conjugate Gradient and geometric multigrid methods. The GPU implementation of these methods is discussed in and a theoretical performance analysis is carried out in . The results of our numerical experiments and weak scaling tests on Titan are presented in . Finally we conclude and outline some ideas for further work in .
Iterative solvers for anisotropic elliptic PDEs {#sec:IterativeSolvers}
===============================================
Model problem
-------------
We consider the following PDE, which can be used as a simplified model of the pressure correction equation arising in semi-implicit semi-Lagrangian time stepping methods in atmospheric forecast models: $$- \omega(h)^2 \left({\ensuremath{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}_{\!\!{\mathcal{S}}}}}^2 u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r) +
\lambda(h)^2\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2\frac{\partial
u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r)}{\partial r}\right)\right) + u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r) = f({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r).
\label{eqn:ModelEquation}$$ Here $r\in[1,1+H]$ is the radial coordinate in units of the earth’s radius ${R_{\operatorname{earth}}}$ and $H=D/{R_{\operatorname{earth}}}\ll 1$ is the ratio between the depth of the atmosphere and the radius of the earth. The unit vector ${\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}}$ is used to describe a position on a unit sphere ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}_{\!\!{\mathcal{S}}}}}\equiv {\boldsymbol{\nabla}}- \langle {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}\rangle{\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}}$ denotes the tangential conponent of the three dimensional gradient. Homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions are used at the top and bottom boundary of the domain. A structured vertical grid and a semi-structured horizontal grid ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}_h}}$ are used for discretising the equation on the domain ${{{\mathcal{S}}}}\times[1,1+H]$. Since $H\ll 1$ the vertical grid spacing $h_z$ is much smaller than the horizontal mesh width $h$, and so the discretised equation has a very strong grid aligned anisotropy in the vertical direction. The parameters $\omega(h)$ and $\lambda(h)$ depend on the meteorological conditions and on the time step size and are discussed in more details in [@Mueller2013b]. Most importantly, as the horizontal resolution increases, i.e. the mesh width $h$ tends to zero, we have $\omega(h)\propto h$ and $\lambda(h)\rightarrow 1$. More specifically the coefficient of the second order term in (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) is given by $$\omega(h) = \frac{c_h\Delta t(h)}{2R_{\operatorname{earth}}}
\label{eqn:omegahdependence}$$ where $c_h$ is at the order of the speed of sound. Because of fast advective time scales and to represent large scale flow accurately, in meteorological applications the resolution dependent time step size $\Delta t(h)$ has to be chosen such that the horizontal CFL number $\nu_{CFL} = c_h\Delta t/\Delta x = 2\omega(h)/h$ is not larger than around $2-10$. On the other hand, implicit time stepping methods will not be competitive if $\nu_{CFL}$ is too small. To satisfy these conditions we always use $$\omega(h) = \frac{1}{2}\nu_{CFL}h\qquad\text{with}\quad \nu_{CFL}=8.4
\label{eqn:OmegaNumerical}$$ in our numerical experiments. We also study the robustness of our solvers to variations in the CFL number.
The equation in (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) can be seen as a special case of the more general PDE studied in [@Dedner2014] (see also [@Wood2013] which describes how an equation of this form is derived in the ENDGame dynamical core of the UK Met Office’s Unified Model) $$-\omega^2 {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}} \cdot({\ensuremath{\underline{\alpha}}}({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r){\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}} u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r)) - \omega^2 {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r)\cdot {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}} u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r) + \beta({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r) u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r) = f({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r),
\label{eqn:ModelEquationComplex}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\underline{\alpha}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}$ and $\beta$ are atmospheric “profiles”, i.e. functions which depend on the current state of the model. Due to the vertical layering of the atmosphere each of these functions can be approximated very well as the product of a vertically varying field and a horizontally varying function. This is why tensor-product methods are of particular interest. Even if the profiles do not factorise exactly, an approximate factorisation can still be used in a preconditioner. This is discussed in a lot of detail in [@Dedner2014]. It is for these reasons that we believe that the PDE in (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) is a good model for the pressure correction equation encountered in atmospheric models.
We chose not to make any further simplifications such as solving a (shifted) Laplace equation in a simplified geometry, as is often done in the literature on massively parallel solvers, since this would allow significant further performance improvements which are not reasonable in realistic meteorological applications.
### Discretisation
Equation (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) is discretised using a simple cell centred finite volume scheme on one panel of a non-conformal cubed sphere grid with gnomonic projection as described in [@Sadourny1972].
For simplicitly homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions are used in the horizontal direction. To represent a field $u({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}}}},r)$, all data in one vertical column above the horizontal grid cell $T$ is stored in a vector $\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(T)}$ of length $n_z$. Then the discretised equations associated with the horizontal grid cell $T\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}_h}}$ can be written as $$\left({\ensuremath{\underline{A}}} \overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}\right)^{(T)} = {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_T
\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(T)} + \sum_{T'\in\mathcal{N}(T)} {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{TT'}
\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(T')} = \overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}}^{(T)}.
\label{eqn:TridiagonalPDE}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_T$ is a tridiagonal matrix containing all vertical couplings, as well as diagonal terms, and where the diagonal matrices ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{TT'}$ describe the couplings to the horizontally neighbouring cells $T'\in\mathcal{N}(T)$. Due to the strong vertical anisotropy, the entries in ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_T$ are much larger than the ones in ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{TT'}$.
To understand the origin of the individual terms in (\[eqn:TridiagonalPDE\]), it is instructive to write down the explicit form of these matrices for a simplified equation instead of (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]). Consider the shifted Laplace equation $-\omega^2\left(\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{2D}^2u+\lambda^2\partial^2/\partial_r^2u\right)+u=f$ in a flat box $\Omega \times[0,H]$; here the horizontal domain $\Omega=[0,1]\times[0,1]$ is the unit square and $\boldsymbol{\nabla}_{2D}=\partial^2/\partial_x^2+\partial^2/\partial_y^2$ denotes the two dimensional Laplacian. If we choose an equidistant Cartesian grid with spacing $h$ on $\Omega$ then every horizontal cell $T$ can be labelled with a pair of indices, i.e. $T\equiv (i,j)$. In this case equation (\[eqn:TridiagonalPDE\]) can be written explicitly as $$\left({\ensuremath{\underline{A}}} \overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}\right)^{(i,j)} = {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j)}
\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(i,j)}
+ {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j),(i+1,j)}\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(i+1,j)}
+ {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j),(i-1,j)}\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(i-1,j)}
+ {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j),(i,j+1)}\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(i,j+1)}
+ {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j),(i,j-1)}\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(i,j-1)}
= \overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}}^{(i,j)}$$ with the matrices ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j),(i',j')}=-\omega^2/h^2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{I}_{n_z\times n_z}}}$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{I}_{n_z\times n_z}}}$ is the $n_z\times n_z$ identity matrix. The entries on the diagonal of the matrix ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{(i,j)}$ would be $1+4\omega^2/h^2+2\omega^2\lambda^2/h_z^2$ and the off-diagonal entries are $-\omega^2\lambda^2/h_z^2$ where $h_z$ is the vertical grid spacing. We stress, however, that equation (\[eqn:TridiagonalPDE\]) allows more general geometries with semi-structured horizontal grids. In this case the exact form of the matrices ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{TT'}$ and ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_T$ is more complicated as the finite volume discretisation leads to non-trivial geometric factors.
The elliptic equation in (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) is symmetric and positive definite. For a given horizontal resolution we can give a rough estimate of the condition number by again considering the equation in a flat box. After preconditioning by vertical line relaxation, it can be shown that the resolution dependent condition number $\kappa(h)$ is $$\kappa(h) \approx 1 + 8 \omega(h)^2/h^2\qquad\text{for $h\ll 1$ and $\omega(h) \ll 1$}.\label{eqn:ConditionNumber}$$ Since $\omega(h)=4.2h$ for $\nu_{CFL}=8.4$, this leads to an estimate of $\kappa(h) \approx 142$. Geometric factors arising from the spherical geometry will modify this estimate by factors of ${\mathcal{O}}(1)$ and hence we expect the condition number of our problem to be in the range $100-1000$, independent of the grid resolution.
In principle we do not need to make any assumptions on the ordering of the horizontal degrees of freedom and indirect addressing could be used in the horizontal direction, as is described for the DUNE implementation of the problem on quasi-uniform icosahedral and cubed-sphere grids for the entire sphere in [@Dedner2014]. However, in this work we assume for simplicity that each horizontal grid cell on the panel can be identified by a pair of indices $(i,j) \in [1,n_x]\times[1,n_y]$, and each vertical level is indexed by an additional integer $k\in[0,n_z-1]$.
Algorithmically scalable and efficient solvers
----------------------------------------------
Large sparse systems of equations can be solved efficiently using state-of-the-art iterative solvers which improve an initial solution ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_0$ by reducing the residual ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}-{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}$ (and hence the error) at every iteration. Krylov subspace methods (see e.g. [@Saad2003] for an introduction) minimise the residual by constructing the solution in the space spanned by the vectors $${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_0, {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_0, {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}^2{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_0, \dots\, ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_0={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}-{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_0$ is the initial residual. The simplest (and most efficient) Krylov subspace method for symmetric positive systems is the preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (CG) iteration. Closely related methods such as Conjugate Residual (CR), GMRES and BiCGStab are very popular in the meteorological literature (see e.g. [@Skamarock1997; @Thomas1997; @Qaddouri2003; @Davies05]) and due to the strong vertical anisotropy, a very effective preconditioner ${\ensuremath{\underline{M}}}$ is vertical line relaxation, which requires the solution of a tridiagonal problem in each vertical column. This preconditioner corresponds to solving the equation which is obtained by only keeping the first term on the left hand side of (\[eqn:TridiagonalPDE\]), which describes the dominant vertical couplings; the resulting matrix ${\ensuremath{\underline{M}}}$ is block-diagonal. Each of the tridiagonal systems can be solved independently using the Thomas algorithm (see e.g. [@Press2007]). Mathematically this is equivalent to a block-Jacobi or block-SOR method where each of the blocks correspond to the degrees of freedom in one particular vertical column.
The computationally most expensive components of the algorithm are a sparse matrix-vector (SpMV) multiplication and a preconditioner (tridiagonal-) solve, in the following we write these operations as
[2]{} [$\boldsymbol{y}$]{} &[$\underline{A}$]{}[$\boldsymbol{x}$]{}, & [$\boldsymbol{y}$]{} &[$\underline{M}$]{}\^[-1]{}[$\boldsymbol{x}$]{}. \[eqn:SpMVPrec\]
As discussed in detail in [@Mueller2013a] (where also the algorithm is written down explicitly), the efficiency of the implementation can be improved by fusing these two operations with the level 1 BLAS operations in the main loop. Other Krylov subspace methods, such as BiCGStab, CR or GMRES can be used to solve more general systems and differ from the CG method only in the number of sparse matrix-vector products, preconditioner applications, level 1 BLAS operations, and in the storage requirements.
In contrast, multigrid methods (see e.g. [@Briggs2000; @Trottenberg2001]) use a hierarchy of coarse levels to minimise the error on all scales simultaneously. In the following we write ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)}$ for the field on multigrid level $\ell$, where $\ell=1$ corresponds to the coarsest level and $\ell=L$ to the finest level where we want to solve the equation, i.e. ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(L)}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}$. For simplicity we omit the multigrid-level index $(\ell)$ wherever it is obvious from the context, such as on all the coarse grid matrices. The fine grid equation is solved by starting with an initial guess for the solution and improving on this by repeated calls to the recursive subroutine `Vcycle` in Algorithm \[alg:VCycle\] (for simplicity the iteration is written down for one pre- and one post-smoothing step here). After each Vcycle convergence is checked by comparing the norm of the residual to a given tolerance $\varepsilon$, i.e. the algorithm terminates as soon as $$||{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}||/||{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_0||<\varepsilon.\label{eqn:epsilonTolerance}$$ In our numerical experiments we always reduce the residual by five orders of magnitude, which is typical in atmospheric applications.
\[alg:VCycle\]
To achieve rapid convergence the different multigrid components have to be adapted to the problem to be solved. In [@BoermHiptmair1999] geometric multigrid algorithms for equations with a tensor-product structure and grid-aligned anisotropy are analysed. The authors show that the convergence rate of a multigrid solver for a two-dimensional problem with strong coupling in the vertical direction can be bounded by the convergence rate of the multigrid algorithm for a related one-dimensional horizontal problem if the following tensor-product multigrid algorithm is used:
- **Horizontal-only semicoarsening**: Only coarsen the grid in the horizontal direction.
- **vertical block-Jacobi/-SOR smoother**: Use vertical line relaxation as the smoother, i.e. solve the equation for all degrees of freedom in a vertical column simultaneously. Hence, in essence the multigrid smoother is identical to the preconditioner used for the CG algorithm described above.
As shown in [@Dedner2014], the generalisation from two to three dimensions is straightforward and this is the algorithm which we use in this work. On each level we use a block-Jacobi smoother which can be written as $${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)} \mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)} + {\rho_{\operatorname{relax}}}{\ensuremath{\underline{M}}}^{-1}\left({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}^{(\ell)}-{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)}\right)
\label{eqn:MultigridSmoother}$$ and requires one sparse-matrix-vector product and one preconditioner solve in (\[eqn:SpMVPrec\]). For the intergrid operations
[2]{} [$\boldsymbol{u}$]{}\^[()]{} &[$\underline{R}$]{}\_[,+1]{}[$\boldsymbol{u}$]{}\^[(+1)]{} ,& [$\boldsymbol{u}$]{}\^[()]{} &[$\underline{P}$]{}\_[,-1]{}[$\boldsymbol{u}$]{}\^[(-1)]{}
we use a simple cell-average for the restriction and (piecewise) linear interpolation for prologation (both in the horizontal direction only), and we found that these methods are sufficient for scalable performance. By carrying out the restriction at the beginning of the subroutine in Algorithm \[alg:VCycle\] it is possible to fuse it with the first presmoothing step on the coarse levels. Apart from that fusing kernels has little potential for further gains in the multigrid algorithm.
Recall that the condition number $\kappa_{\operatorname{fine}}$ of the fine grid problem is ${\mathcal{O}}(100-1000)$ independent of the horizontal resolution. The condition number of each subsequent coarse level is reduced by a factor $4$, i.e. the square of the relative grid spacings. We typically choose $L=5$ multigrid levels. Hence on the coarsest grid we have $\kappa_{\operatorname{coarse}}=4^{-(L-1)}\kappa_{\operatorname{fine}}$, i.e. the operator is well conditioned and the coarse grid equation can be solved by a small number (two turned out to be sufficient) of smoother iterations. This has already been confirmed by the detailed numerical experiments on CPU architectures in [@Mueller2013b]. For the particular model problem in (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) where $\omega(h)\propto h$ to accurately represent large scale atmospheric flow, both these iterative methods are algorithmically scalable, i.e. the number of iterations is independent of the mesh size $h$ and thus of the problem size. However, an additional benefit of multigrid solvers is their greater robustness with respect to variations in the model coefficients [@Mueller2013b].
Implementation {#sec:Implementation}
==============
In the following we describe the CUDA-C implementations of both the CG- and multigrid solvers discussed in the previous section. The code was written from scratch by the authors and we use the CUBLAS library for some level 1 BLAS operations as well as the GCL library [@bianco2013interface] for inter-GPU communication. The source code is made available under the LGPL 3 license and can be accessed as a git repository via the following link: <https://bitbucket.org/em459/ellipticsolvergpu>. Further details on the single GPU implementation of our CG solver can be found in [@Mueller2013a].
Memory throughput optimised implementation {#sec:ImplementationMemory}
------------------------------------------
Due to the vertical dependency in the tridiagonal solver, which is used both as the preconditioner in CG and as the smoother in multigrid, one thread is assigned to each vertical column. To achieve optimal performance it is crucial to coalesce access to global memory for all threads within one warp. This is achieved by storing data contiguously in the horizontal ($x$-) direction. As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 6.1 of [@Mueller2013a], a three dimensional field ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}$ on one panel of a cubed sphere grid can be described as a collection of $n_x\times n_y$ vectors $\overline{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}^{(i,j)}$, one for each horizontal cell $(i,j)\in[1,n_x]\times[1,n_y]$. Internally the field can be stored as a linear array of length $n_x\times n_y\times n_z$ defined by the mapping, $$u_{{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}(i,j,k)} = \overline{u}_k^{(i,j)}, \qquad \text{where}\quad
{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}(i,j,k) \equiv n_x \cdot\left(n_z\cdot (j-1) + k\right)+(i-1).
\label{eqn:MemoryMapSingleGPU}$$ In the following we also assume that (at least on the finest multigrid levels) both $n_x$ and $n_y$ are multiples of 32. This further improves performance as global memory access is not only coalesced but also well-aligned. We stress, however, that our approach can be generalised to more unstructured grids e.g. by the use of a space filling curve for numbering the horizontal grid cells.
#### Matrix-free implementation
As in [@Mueller2013a] we use a matrix-free implementation, i.e. we recalculate the local matrix stencil whenever it is needed. In particular, the diagonal matrix ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{T,T'}$ and the tridiagonal matrix ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_T$ in (\[eqn:TridiagonalPDE\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{T,T'} &= \alpha_{T,T'} \operatorname{diag}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{d}}}), \\
{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{T} &= |T| \operatorname{diag}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}})-\alpha_T \operatorname{diag}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{d}}}) + |T|\operatorname{tridiag}(-({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}}+{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{c}}}),{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}},{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{c}}}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eqn:LocalMatrixStencil}$$ The four vectors ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{c}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{d}}}$ have length $n_z$ and can be derived from the vertical stiffness- and mass- matrices in a tensor product representation of (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) [@Dedner2014]. As they do not differ from column to column they can be precomputed once for the entire grid. The coefficients $\alpha_{T,T'}$ and $\alpha_T$ are different for each horizontal grid cell $T$ (and depend on the multigrid level). However, they are scalars which can be computed for an entire vertical column with a small overhead as long as $n_z$ is sufficiently large (in atmospheric applications $n_z={\mathcal{O}}(100)$, and we use $n_z=128$ throughout this work). This should be compared to a matrix-explicit implementation where seven matrix entries need to be loaded from memory per grid cell to carry out a sparse matrix-vector product. The matrix-free implementation significantly reduces global memory access, in particular if the vectors ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{c}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{d}}}$ are cached. Instead of ${\mathcal{O}}(7\times n_{\operatorname{horiz}}\times n_z)$ the storage requirements of the matrix are only ${\mathcal{O}}(4\times n_z)$ which also means that significantly larger problems can be solved on a single GPU.
At this point we mention that a very similar structure for the matrices ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_{T,T'}$ and ${\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}_T$ arises when discretising more general equations of the form $$-\omega^2 {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}} \cdot({\ensuremath{\underline{\alpha}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}} u) - \omega^2 {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}\cdot {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}} u + \beta u = f$$ as long as the “profiles” ${\ensuremath{\underline{\alpha}}}$, $\beta$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}$ can be factorised into a parts which contain on the horizontal and vertical coordinates only. In this case the factors $|T|$, $\alpha_{T,T'}$ and $\alpha_{T}$ in (\[eqn:LocalMatrixStencil\]) have to be replaced by more complicated expressions which can, however, still be evaluated only once per column. It is for this reason that we believe that the results in this article can be generalised easily to more complicated equations, this is discussed in more detail in [@Dedner2014].
In addition, in the CG algorithm we reduce the amount of global memory access by fusing the two computationally most expensive kernels (SpMV and tridiagonal solve) with several of the level 1 BLAS operations. The following operations need to be carried out for the solvers and were implemented as CUDA-C kernels:
#### Conjugate Gradient
1. *Sparse matrix-vector product* \[Kernel [$\text{(Fused) SpMV}$]{}\]: Simultaneously calculate ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}\mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}+\alpha{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{p}}}$; ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{p}}}\mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{z}}}+\beta{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{p}}}$; ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{q}}}\mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{z}}}+\beta{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{q}}}$; $\sigma \mapsfrom \langle{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{p}}},{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle$
2. *Preconditioner (tridiagonal solve)* \[Kernel [$\text{(Fused) Tridiag}$]{}\]: Simultaneously calculate ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}\mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}-\alpha{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{q}}}$; ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{z}}}\mapsfrom{\ensuremath{\underline{M}}}^{-1}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}$; $||{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}||\mapsfrom{\langle{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}},{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}\rangle}$; $\kappa\mapsfrom\langle {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}},{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{z}}}\rangle $
#### Multigrid
1. *Smoother* \[Kernel [$\operatorname{Smooth}$]{}\]: ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)} \mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)} + {\rho_{\operatorname{relax}}}{\ensuremath{\underline{M}}}^{-1}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}^{(\ell)}-{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)})$; to avoid a race condition in ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)}$, this operation is split up into two kernels, with the residual calculation and forward sweep of the tridiagonal solver in the first and the backward sweep and axpy-like update of $u$ in the second.
2. *Residual calculation* \[Kernel [$\operatorname{Residual}$]{}\]: ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}^{(\ell)}\mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}^{(\ell)}-{\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)}$
3. *Interleaved (fused) restriction and smoother* \[Kernel [$\operatorname{RestrictSmooth}$]{}\]: Simultaneously calculate ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}^{(\ell)}\mapsfrom{\ensuremath{\underline{R}}}_{\ell,\ell+1} {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}^{(\ell+1)}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)} \mapsfrom {\rho_{\operatorname{relax}}}{\ensuremath{\underline{M}}}^{-1}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}^{(\ell)}$
4. *Prologation* \[Kernel [$\operatorname{Prolongate}$]{}\]: ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)}={\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell)}+{\ensuremath{\underline{P}}}_{\ell,\ell-1}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{(\ell-1)}$
Each of the kernels requires a single iteration over the grid. For the multigrid solver the first presmoothing step on the coarse grids (on which the initial solution is initialised to zero) has been fused with the residual calculation to reduce the number of accesses to the vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{f}}}^{(\ell)}$.
In addition, a small number of level 1 BLAS operations still needs to be carried out for global reductions. For example, the global reductions in the interleaved CG kernels are implemented by each thread summing up the values in a vertical column into a two-dimensional field, which is then summed by a cuBLAS dot product with a field that is set to 1 in the whole two dimensional domain. For simplicity the calculation of the norm of the residual on the finest multigrid level was also implemented via a 3D cuBLAS norm instead of fusing it with the corresponding kernel (note that this norm calculation is also not necessary if a fixed number of V-cycles is carried out). While there is further potential for (small) additional speedups, we found that the cost of these level 1 BLAS operations is negligible (to see this, compare the last two rows in Tables \[tab:TimingBreakdownCG\] and \[tab:TimingBreakdownMultigrid\] below) and not worth the effort.
Multi-GPU implementation
------------------------
To parallelise the solvers across several GPUs we split the horizontal domain into equal square parts, such that each GPU is responsible for a quadratic subdomain. Consistency between neighbouring domains is guaranteed by exchanging halo data when necessary. For this we used the Generic Communication Library (GCL) [@bianco2013interface]. The extension of this approach to more general partitionings and different (semi-) structured horizontal grids is possible. This is discussed in [@Dedner2014] where we discuss a parallel CPU implementation of the tensor-product multigrid solver on an icosahedral grid.
In addition to the interior degrees of freedom with horizontal indices $(i,j)\in[1,n_x]\times[1,n_y]$ a halo of cells of width ${\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{halosize}}}}=1$ is stored on each GPU. To avoid unaligned memory access, which we found can reduce performance by as much as $30\%$, we pad data by a total amount of ${\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_x=32$ in the $x-$ direction, and set ${\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_y={\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{halosize}}}}$ in the $y-$ direction (in this direction padding is not necessary). Then the linear mapping (\[eqn:MemoryMapSingleGPU\]) is modified to $$\hat{{\ensuremath{\Lambda}}}(i,j,k) \equiv (n_x+2{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_x)\cdot\left(n_z\cdot(j-1-{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_y)\right)+ (i-1-{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_x)
\label{eqn:xContiguousLayout}$$ with $(i,j) \in [1-{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_x,n_x+{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_x-1]\times [1-{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_y,n_y+{\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_y-1]$; the local domain is shown in Figure \[fig:Domain\].
![Data layout of the local subdomain on one processor. Interior degrees of freedom $(i,j)\in [1,n_x]\times [1,n_y]$ “owned” by the processor are shown in white, the halo is shown in dark gray and extra padding space in light gray. We set ${\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_x=32$ and ${\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{OL}}}}_y={\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{halosize}}}}$ to guarantee aligned memory access in the $x$-direction.[]{data-label="fig:Domain"}](\figdir/Domain.eps){width="0.4\linewidth"}
We stress, however, that only degrees of freedom on the halo cells are exchanged between processors i.e. the padding does not increase the amount of data that is sent over the network. In the GCL this can be achieved by registering the appropriate degrees of freedom in the halo exchanger object
he->add_halo<0>(halosize, halosize, OL_X, NX+OL_X-1, NX+2*OL_X);
he->add_halo<1>(halosize, halosize, OL_Y, NY+OL_Y-1, NY+2*OL_Y);
he->add_halo<2>(0, 0, 0, NZ-1, NZ);
where `he` is an instantiation of the *uniform type* halo structure interface class `GCL::halo_exchange_dynamic_ut`.
Theoretical performance analysis {#sec:PerformanceAnalysis}
================================
Floating point operations and memory transfer costs {#sec:PerformanceAnalysisSingleGPU}
---------------------------------------------------
The number of floating point operations (FLOPs) and memory references per grid cell is shown for the CG and multigrid algorithms in Table \[tab:KernelTable\]. The total number of operations on all 5 multigrid levels (penultimate row in Table \[tab:KernelTable\], right) was obtained by adding up the number of operations on all levels and dividing by the size of the fine grid. We assume that 1 pre- and post-smoothing step is applied on each level and the coarse grid problem is solved by two smoother iterations. The residual norm is only calculated on the fine level to test for convergence.
The column labelled with “[$\operatorname{Mem}$]{}” shows the number of global memory references without any caching. On the other hand the “[$\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}$]{}” column shows the corresponding number assuming optimal caching, i.e. we assume that data is only loaded from global memory once per kernel call. As our implementation is matrix-free (and we assume that the vectors ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{a}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{b}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{c}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{d}}}$ in (\[eqn:LocalMatrixStencil\]) are always cached), there are no costs associated with reading the local stencil from global memory. Consider, for example, the sparse matrix vector product ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}}\mapsfrom {\ensuremath{\underline{A}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$. Without caching, the value of the vector ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ in each cell and its six direct neighbours needs to be read from memory and one value is written back to ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{y}}}$, resulting in a total of 8 memory references. With perfect caching each entry in ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ only has to be read from global memory once and the total number of memory references is reduced to 2 per grid cell. How much caching can actually be achieved is hard to predict, so these two values should be interpreted as upper and lower bounds. As explained in Section \[sec:SingleGPUPerformance\] we always use the lower value (i.e. the number in the “[$\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}$]{}” column) for our estimates of the achieved global memory bandwidth. The quantity which is constructed in this way is commonly know as the “useful bandwidth” since it does not include any spurious memory traffic which is not required by the algorithm (for example data which is read twice due to poor caching).
In the multigrid solver the grid size is reduced by a factor 4 with each coarsening step and as a result most of the computational work is concentrated on the finest grid level. To demonstrate this we also list the number of operations per grid cell on the fine level only in the last row of Table \[tab:KernelTable\], right. In practise, once the size of the horizontal grid drops below a certain threshold, the GPU might not be utilised efficiently and the actual runtime is reduced by less than a factor four on subsequent levels. Our measurements (see Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\]) show that calculations on the fine grid account for most of the total computational cost and that the cost reduction factor is close to four as long as the local domain is larger that $64\times 64$ (see Figure \[fig:MultigridBreakdownLogarithmic\] (left)). The impact of inter-GPU communications, which is also more significant on the coarser grids, will be discussed below.
For the CG solver, the number of FLOPs is only $3.6\times$ larger than the minimal number of memory references, for the multigrid solver the corresponding factor is $5\times$, and we conclude that both algorithms are clearly memory bound on a GPU. By comparing the number of memory references in the two algorithms, the theoretically expected time per iteration is $2\times$ to $3\times$ larger for the multigrid solver where the exact ratio depends on the cache efficiency.
It is worth counting the additional number of global memory accesses which would be required in a matrix-explicit code: to read the matrix from memory requires 10 memory accesses for the CG solver and 42.9 for the multigrid algorithm (the full seven point stencil is required to evaluate the sparse matrix-vector product, but only the couplings to the cell above and below are required in the tridiagonal solver). This should be compared to the minimal number of memory references shown for the matrix-free code in Table \[tab:KernelTable\] which is 15 for CG and 29.6 for multigrid.
(Fused) CG\
[$\operatorname{FLOPs}$]{} [$\operatorname{Mem}$]{} [$\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}$]{}
------------------------------ ---------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------
[$\text{(Fused) SpMV}$]{} 32 12 6
[$\text{(Fused) Tridiag}$]{} 22 12 9
**Total** **54** **24** **15**
: Number of FLOPs and memory references per grid cell for the kernels in the (fused) CG algorithm (left) and the multigrid solver (right); see Section \[sec:ImplementationMemory\] and Algorithm \[alg:VCycle\] for a definition of the individual kernels.[]{data-label="tab:KernelTable"}
Multigrid\
[$\operatorname{FLOPs}$]{} [$\operatorname{Mem}$]{} [$\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}$]{}
------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------
[$\operatorname{Smooth}$]{} 37 17 8
[$\operatorname{RestrictSmooth}$]{} 17 12 6
[$\operatorname{Residual}$]{} 23 9 3
[$\operatorname{Prolongate}$]{} 6 5 3
[$\operatorname{\text{Residual norm}}$]{} 2 1 1
**Total** **149.4** **67.2** **29.6**
(fine level only) (122) ( 53) ( 23)
: Number of FLOPs and memory references per grid cell for the kernels in the (fused) CG algorithm (left) and the multigrid solver (right); see Section \[sec:ImplementationMemory\] and Algorithm \[alg:VCycle\] for a definition of the individual kernels.[]{data-label="tab:KernelTable"}
Parallel communications between GPUs {#sec:PerformanceAnalysisComm}
------------------------------------
In the CG solver a halo exchange is required after each call to the (fused) tridiagonal solver kernel. In the multigrid algorithm halos need to be exchanged after each kernel launch (with the exception of the residual calculation). Denoting the number of halo exchanges per iteration by $n_{\operatorname{halo}}$ and the minimal number of memory references by $n_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}}}}$, on a given level with a local problem size of $n_x\times n_y\times n_z$ (where we always implicitly assume that $n_x=n_y$), the ratio between the communication time and calculation time is given by $$\rho = \frac{2(n_x+n_y)n_z\times \operatorname{sizeof}(\texttt{double})\times {\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{halosize}}}}\times n_{\operatorname{halo}}}{n_xn_yn_z \times n_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}}}}}\times \frac{{BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}}{{BW_{\operatorname{MPI}}}} \equiv R \times\frac{{BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}}{{BW_{\operatorname{MPI}}}}.
\label{eqn:CommCalcRatio}$$ This ratio decreases as $\propto (n_x+n_y)/(n_x\cdot n_y) \propto 1/n_x$ as the local domain size $n_x$ increases. We assume that the global memory bandwidth ${BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}$ is about two orders of magnitude larger than the network bandwidth ${BW_{\operatorname{MPI}}}$ required for communication between different GPUs (the exact ratio between the bandwidths will be quantified in more detail in Section \[sec:MultiGridParallelOverhead\]). For the multigrid solver the amount of exchanged data and the number of memory references have to be summed over all levels to calculate the ratio $R$ in (\[eqn:CommCalcRatio\]).
In Table \[tab:CommCalcRatio\] the ratio $R$ is shown for all solvers. For the multigrid algorithm we also distinguish between the full level hierarchy and the finest level only. While (based on our estimate ${BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}/{BW_{\operatorname{MPI}}}\approx 100$) the resulting ratio $\rho$ is at the order of $10\%$ or less for the CG solver and on the finest multigrid level (for local problem sizes larger than $256\times256\times128$), it is approximately four times larger for the multigrid solver. The main reason for this is that three halo exchanges are required on each level instead of one for the CG solver. In addition on the coarser levels the ratio between communications and calculations is a factor $n_x/n^{(\ell)}_x>1$ larger than on the finest level, where $n^{(\ell)}_x=n^{(\ell)}_y$ is the problem size on level $\ell$. With $L=5$ multigrid levels this corresponds to an increase by a factor $2^{L-1}=16$ on the coarsest level. For both reasons we expect the overhead from MPI communications to be larger for the multigrid solver and this is confirmed by our numerical experiments in Section \[sec:MultiGridParallelOverhead\].
------------------------ ------- ------- ------- -------
Solver $128$ $256$ $512$ $768$
(Fused) CG 20.8 10.4 5.2 3.5
Multigrid 80.5 40.2 20.1 13.4
Multigrid (fine level) 54.3 27.2 13.6 9.1
------------------------ ------- ------- ------- -------
: Theoretical ratio between MPI communication- and calculation- times as defined in (\[eqn:CommCalcRatio\]). The table shows $R$ multiplied by $10^4$ for different local horizontal problem sizes $n_x=n_y$ with ${\ensuremath{\text{\texttt{halosize}}}}=1$ and double precision arithmetic ($\text{sizeof(\texttt{double})}=8$).[]{data-label="tab:CommCalcRatio"}
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
In the following we report on detailed numerical experiments with our solvers and quantify both their algorithmic- and computational performance on up to 16384 nVidia GPUs.
#### Hardware and compilers
Most GPU results shown in this section were obtained on the Cray XK7 Titan supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Lab. According to the June 2014 release of the `top500.org` list [@top500.org] this machine is currently ranked as the second fastest computer in the world and consists of 18,688 nodes in total. Each node contains one 16-core 2.2GHz AMD Opteron(TM) 6274 (Interlagos) CPU and one nVidia Tesla K20X card with a GK110 Kepler GPU (compute capability 3.5). The nodes are linked with a Cray Gemini interconnect in a torus topology. Each GPU has 2688 cores, which are organised into 15 streaming multiprocessors of 192 cores each. The K20X card has 6 GB of global memory, in addition to 1536KB L2 cache and 48KB+16KB configurable L1 cache/shared memory. The theoretical peak FLOP rate of a single GPU is 1.31 [$\operatorname{TFLOPs}$]{} and the theoretical peak global memory bandwidth is $250{\ensuremath{\operatorname{GByte/s}}}$ [@TeslaDatasheet], resulting in a theoretical peak floating point performance of 27 [$\operatorname{PFLOPs}$]{} (combined CPU and GPU performance); the LinPACK benchmark performance is quoted as 17.59 [$\operatorname{PFLOPs}$]{} [@top500.org]. The code was compiled with release 5.0 (V0.2.1221) of the nVidia nvcc compiler and version 4.7.2 of the gnu c++ compiler; a vendor optimised MPICH2 implementation that supports GPUDirect was used for internode communications.
To study the dependency of the performance on the GPU hardware we also carried out a number of runs on up to 64 GPUs of the EMERALD GPU cluster hosted at Rutherford Appleton Lab in the UK. This cluster consists of 372 NVidia M2090 cards with Fermi GPUs (compute capability 3.0), which are organised into 60 nodes with 3 GPUs each and 24 nodes with 8 GPUs each. With 0.67[$\operatorname{TFLOPs}$]{} the double precision floating point performance is half as large as for the Kepler GK110 cards in Titan. The global memory bandwidth is $177{\ensuremath{\operatorname{GByte/s}}}$. Each node contains two 6-core Intel X5650 Xeon CPUs and a QDR Infiniband network is used to link the nodes; the MVAPICH2 implementation was used for MPI communications.
To quantify the performance of our algorithms on traditional CPU hardware we compared the GPU code to a bespoke Fortran implementation of the multigrid solver which is based on the MPI distributed memory programming model. The Fortran code was run on up to 65536 cores of HECToR, the UK’s national supercomputer which is hosted and managed by the Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre (EPCC). The performance and scalability of this Fortran code is discussed in more detail in [@Mueller2013b]. HECToR is a Cray XE6 supercomputer consisting of 2816 compute nodes connected by a Cray Gemini interconnect. Each node contains two AMD Opteron (Interlagos, model 6276, 2.3 GHz) processors with 16 cores [@OpteronDatasheet], and we adjusted the problem size such that it is the same on one GPU and on one CPU, i.e. we always carried out a socket-to-socket comparison.
#### Problem- and solver- parameters
For a given problem size, which in the following is defined by the number of horizontal grid cells $n_x$ in one direction, the parameters $\omega(h)$ and $\lambda(h)$ in (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]) were adjusted to physically realistic values, for the exact values compare Table \[tab:Problemsizes\] to Table 1 in [@Mueller2013b]. In particular $\omega(h)$ decreases linearly with increasing model resolution as described in (\[eqn:OmegaNumerical\]), which implies that the condition number of the discretised equations does not increase with problem size, and hence the number of iterations is roughly independent of $n_x$. As estimated above, the condition number is ${\mathcal{O}}(100-1000)$. The number of vertical grid levels was kept fixed at $n_z=128$.
We use five multigrid levels in all cases and solve the coarse grid problem by applying two smoother iterations and use one pre- and post-smoothing step on all multigrid levels. The overrelaxation parameter in the block-Jacobi smoother was set to ${\rho_{\operatorname{relax}}}=2/3$, which is the optimal value for the two dimensional Poisson equation.
Single GPU performance {#sec:SingleGPUPerformance}
----------------------
The performance of CG and of the multigrid solver is shown in Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\] for different problem sizes $n_x$. The largest problem that could be solved with the CG algorithm has $768\times768\times128=7.55\cdot10^{7}$ degrees of freedom, whereas for the multigrid solver the largest problem that fits into memory has $512\times 512\times 128=3.36\cdot 10^{7}$ unknowns. On the GPU the horizontal thread layout was chosen such that each block consists of 64 threads in the (memory contiguous) $x$- direction and 2 threads in the $y$- direction. We iterate in both cases until the residual has been reduced by five orders of magnitude, i.e. we use $\varepsilon=10^{-5}$ in (\[eqn:epsilonTolerance\]). The number of iterations is almost 8 times smaller for the multigrid solves. The numbers depend only weakly on the problem size, confirming the good algorithmic scalability of both solvers. For the $n_x=512$ problem, one iteration of the multigrid solver is three times as expensive as a CG iteration which is in line with the prediction based on the number of memory references in Section \[sec:PerformanceAnalysisSingleGPU\]. This ratio deteriorates for smaller problem sizes because as the problem size decreases, the GPU will be underutilised on the coarse grid levels, see also Figure \[fig:MultigridBreakdownLogarithmic\].
At this point it is worth recalling the significant reduction in runtime which is achieved by not storing the matrix explicitly. In [@Mueller2013a] the performance of the matrix-free fused CG solver is compared to an implementation based on the CUSparse library which stores the matrix in compressed sparse row (CSR) storage format. For a $256\times256\times128$ problem on a single Fermi M2090 GPU a speedup of a factor $4.6\times$ is achieved by recalculating the local matrix stencil on-the-fly instead of using the CSR implementation.
In Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\] we also quantify the floating point performance and the percentage of the peak global memory bandwidth which can be utilised by our solvers. For this we use the figues in Table \[tab:KernelTable\] and divide them by the measured time per iteration in the first row of Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\]. In all cases our calculation is based on the minimal number of memory accesses, i.e. the number in the “[$\operatorname{Mem}^{(C)}$]{}” column, i.e. we calculate the “useful bandwidth”. For a memory bound application a bandwidth of $100\%$ would correspond to perfect caching. It is very hard to achieve this theoretical upper bound in practice.
We stress that the total solution time in the last row includes the time for copying the right hand side from the host to the device and for copying the final solution back to the host. This time is listed separately in Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\] together with the time for transposing the fields from a $z$-contiguous data format on the host to the $x$-contiguous format in (\[eqn:xContiguousLayout\]) on the GPU. For optimal efficiency the transposition was implemented on the GPU by adapting the algorithm described by Mark Harris [@Harris2013]. Looking at the $512$ problem again, the multigrid solver converges twice as fast as the CG iteration. This speedup is reduced for smaller problem sizes but still $1.6\times$ for the smallest problem we considered. In summary this stresses the point made at the beginning of this article: the highest performance gains can be achieved by choosing the algorithmically most efficient solver even if it is more expensive and computationally less efficient in a single iteration and has a slightly worse parallel efficiency.
------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
128 256 512 768 128 256 512
$t_{\operatorname{iter}}$ $ 2.8$ $ 7.5$ $29.7$ $65.0$ $12.8$ $27.3$ $88.8$
GFLOPs $41.0$ $60.1$ $60.9$ $62.7$ $24.6$ $45.9$ $56.4$
percentage of peak BW $36.4\%$ $53.4\%$ $54.2\%$ $55.7\%$ $15.6\%$ $29.1\%$ $35.8\%$
\# iterations $70$ $62$ $59$ $58$ $9$ $8$ $8$
**$t_{\operatorname{MemCpy+transpose}}$** $19.4$ $63.5$ $228.4$ $494.0$ $19.6$ $64.3$ $229.5$
**total solution time** $\boldsymbol{217.1}$ $\boldsymbol{543.7}$ $\boldsymbol{2029.0}$ $\boldsymbol{4365.0}$ $\boldsymbol{135.5}$ $\boldsymbol{285.7}$ $\boldsymbol{949.9}$
------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
: Time per iteration $t_{\operatorname{iter}}$, number of iterations and total solution time for different problem sizes $n_x$ and solvers. The total solution time includes the host-device memory transfer and data transposition time, which is listed separately as $t_{\operatorname{MemCpy+transpose}}$. All times are given in milliseconds. The floating point performance and percentage of theoretical peak global memory bandwidth are calculated based on $t_{\operatorname{iter}}$ and the numbers in Table \[tab:KernelTable\], see main text for details.[]{data-label="tab:SingleGPUTiming"}
Robustness {#sec:Robustness}
----------
For Krylov solvers the algorithmic performance, i.e. the number of iterations to reduce the relative residual below a certain threshold, depends on the condition number $\kappa(h)$ of the preconditioned elliptic operator. As discussed above, in the case of vertical line relaxation, $\kappa(h)$ only depends on the ratio of $\omega(h)$ and the grid spacing $h$; the size of $\kappa(h)$ is estimated in (\[eqn:ConditionNumber\]). The dimensionless quantity $\omega(h)$ is proportional to the time step size (see (\[eqn:omegahdependence\])) and hence $2\omega(h)/h=\nu_{CFL}$ is the horizontal CFL number. As already shown in [@Mueller2013b], the tensor-product multigrid method converges in a constant number of iterations for our model problem, independent of the condition number. While for most numerical experiments presented in this paper we fixed $\nu_{CFL}=8.4$, here we also study the algorithmic performance for other choices of $\nu_{CFL}$ for fixed horizontal resolution. In the limit $\Delta t\rightarrow \infty$, $\nu_{CFL}\rightarrow\infty$ one would recover the Laplace equation from (\[eqn:ModelEquation\]). In Fig. \[fig:Robustness\] both the number of iterations and the total solution time are shown for different values of $\nu_{CFL}$. In addition to the results for 5 multigrid levels, which were used for the numerical experiments in the rest of this paper, we also show results for 7 and 10 multigrid levels. As expected, since $\kappa(h)\propto \nu_{CFL}^2$ for $\nu_{CFL}\gg 1$, the number of CG iterations increases linearly with $\nu_{CFL}$ for the CG solver. In terms of the total solution time CG only becomes competitive for small CFL numbers.
The multigrid algorithm is significantly more robust. The number of iterations and the total solution time depends only weakly on the CFL number. As the CFL number increases, the coarse grid problem becomes less well conditioned. Depending on the number of levels, it may be necessary to increase the number of smoother iterations on the coarsest grid (or use a different coarse grid solver, such as preconditioned CG). We found that for the 10-level method 2 smoother iterations are sufficient to solve the coarse grid problem up to a value of $\nu_{CFL}=840$ without any significant increase in the number of iterations or in the total solution time. For the 7-level method it was necessary to increase the number of smoother iterations on the coarsest level slightly for $\nu_{CFL} > 16.8$. To maintain robustness, 5 and 15 smoother steps were sufficient for $\nu_{CFL} = 84$ and $\nu_{CFL} = 840$, respectively. For the 5-level method, still 2 smoother steps on the coarsest level suffice up to $\nu_{CFL} =16.8$, but the number has to increase significantly faster for larger CFL numbers, namely to $30$, for $\nu_{CFL} = 84$, and to $150$, for $\nu_{CFL}$ = 840, leading to a slightly faster increase of the number of iterations and of the total solution time for the 5-level method. Nevertheless, with these modifications the multigrid solver is robust over a very wide range of CFL numbers.
![Number of iterations (left) and total solution time (right) for different solvers and a range of CFL numbers. The problem size was fixed to $512\times 512 \times 128$ and all runs were carried out on one M2090 GPU of the EMERALD cluster. The dashed vertical line marks the CFL number used for numerical experiments in the rest of this article.[]{data-label="fig:Robustness"}](\figdir/robustness_niter.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![Number of iterations (left) and total solution time (right) for different solvers and a range of CFL numbers. The problem size was fixed to $512\times 512 \times 128$ and all runs were carried out on one M2090 GPU of the EMERALD cluster. The dashed vertical line marks the CFL number used for numerical experiments in the rest of this article.[]{data-label="fig:Robustness"}](\figdir/robustness_ttotal.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
Communication overhead between GPUs and multigrid performance {#sec:MultiGridParallelOverhead}
-------------------------------------------------------------
To identify the bottlenecks of the multigrid algorithm and also to study the impact of parallel communications, the time per iteration was broken down into the time spent in the individual kernels both for a 1 GPU run and for a 64 GPU run with identical local grid size. For the (fused) SpMV and preconditioner kernels these times are shown in Table \[tab:TimingBreakdownCG\] for a local $512\times 512\times 128$ grid. The total time per iteration increases by around $10\%$ due to the halo exchange, this should be compared to the theoretically predicted increase of around $5\%$ according to Table \[tab:CommCalcRatio\]. The corresponding results are shown for the multigrid solver in Table \[tab:TimingBreakdownMultigrid\]. Here the time per iteration grows by nearly $40\%$ when going from one to 64 GPUs, while the theoretical analysis predicts a $20\%$ increase.
For the theoretical estimates of the communication/calculation ratio $R$ in (\[eqn:CommCalcRatio\]) we quantify the memory and inter-GPU bandwidth as follows: the peak global memory bandwidth of the K20X card is ${BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}=250GB/s$, and as demonstrated in Section \[sec:SingleGPUPerformance\], our solvers can typically utilise at the order of $30\%-50\%$ of this peak value on a single GPU (see Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\]). We measured the communication bandwidth by carrying out 1000 halo exchanges on 64 GPUs and obtained ${BW_{\operatorname{MPI}}}\approx1GB/s$, which implies that ${BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}/{BW_{\operatorname{MPI}}}={\mathcal{O}}(100)$.
1 GPU 64 GPUs
----------------------- ---------- ----------
(Fused) SpMV $14.1$ $14.2$
(Fused) Tridiag $15.6$ $18.0$
**Total \[kernels\]** **29.7** **32.2**
Total \[iteration\] $29.8$ $32.5$
: Breakdown of the (fused) CG solver time per iteration on a $512\times 512\times 128$ grid for 1 and 64 GPUs \[all times in milliseconds\].[]{data-label="tab:TimingBreakdownCG"}
Looking at the time spent on different multigrid levels, which is also plotted on a logarithmic scale in Figure \[fig:MultigridBreakdownLogarithmic\], we see that part of this poor scaling can be attributed to a worse calculation/communication ratio on the coarser levels. On a single GPU the times decrease by roughly a factor of 4 from level to level as expected, until a horizontal problem size of $64\times 64$ is reached. Beyond this point the costs do not decrease further as the GPU is underutilised. However, on 64 GPUs the cost per level is reduced by less than a factor 4 on all levels due to the worse communication and calculation ratio.
----------------------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------
kernel 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Smooth $45.0$ $ 5.9$ $ 1.9$ $ 0.8$ $ 0.7$ $50.7$ $ 7.6$ $ 3.2$ $ 1.8$ $ 1.7$
ResSmooth — $ 4.7$ $ 1.7$ $ 0.7$ $ 0.7$ — $ 6.3$ $ 3.0$ $ 1.8$ $ 1.6$
Residual $15.4$ $ 2.0$ $ 0.8$ $ 0.3$ — $21.7$ $ 3.5$ $ 2.0$ $ 1.3$ —
Prolongate $ 4.3$ $ 1.1$ $ 0.4$ $ 0.2$ — $ 6.7$ $ 2.7$ $ 1.6$ $ 1.3$ —
**Total \[kernels\]** **64.7** **13.7** **4.8** **2.0** **1.4** **79.1** **20.1** **9.8** **6.3** **3.3**
Total \[iteration\]
----------------------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------
: Breakdown of the multigrid solver time per iteration on a $512\times 512\times 128$ grid for 1 and 64 GPUs \[all times in milliseconds\].[]{data-label="tab:TimingBreakdownMultigrid"}
![Breakdown of the multigrid solver time on a $512\times 512\times 128$ grid on 1 (left) and 64 GPUs (right). The horizontal grid size is shown separately for each multigrid level.[]{data-label="fig:MultigridBreakdownLogarithmic"}](\figdir/MultigridBreakdownLog_1GPUs_512.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![Breakdown of the multigrid solver time on a $512\times 512\times 128$ grid on 1 (left) and 64 GPUs (right). The horizontal grid size is shown separately for each multigrid level.[]{data-label="fig:MultigridBreakdownLogarithmic"}](\figdir/MultigridBreakdownLog_64GPUs_512.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
Massively parallel scaling on GPU and CPU clusters {#sec:WeakScaling}
--------------------------------------------------
We finally carried out a series of weak scaling runs on Titan. For each of these runs the local problem size was kept fixed at $n_x\times n_y \times n_z$, such that the global problem size grows linearly with the number of GPUs. The resulting numbers of cores and global problem sizes are shown in Table \[tab:Problemsizes\]. The largest problem solved has half a trillion ($0.55\cdot 10^{12}$) unknowns.
------------------ ------------ -------------- -------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
\# CPU cores
\# sockets ($p$) Titan EMERALD HECToR 256 512 768
1 2,688 512 16 $8.39\cdot 10^{6}$ $3.36\cdot 10^{7}$ $7.55\cdot 10^{7}$
4 10,752 2,048 64 $3.36\cdot 10^{7}$ $1.34\cdot 10^{8}$ $3.02\cdot 10^{8}$
16 43,008 8,192 256 $1.34\cdot 10^{8}$ $5.37\cdot 10^{8}$ $1.21\cdot 10^{9}$
64 172,032 32,768 1,024 $5.37\cdot 10^{8}$ $2.15\cdot 10^{9}$ $4.83\cdot 10^{9}$
256 688,128 — 4,096 $2.15\cdot 10^{9}$ $8.59\cdot 10^{9}$ $1.93\cdot 10^{10}$
1024 2,752,512 — 16,384 $8.59\cdot 10^{9}$ $3.44\cdot 10^{10}$ $7.73\cdot 10^{10}$
4096 11,010,048 — 65,536 $3.44\cdot 10^{10}$ $1.37\cdot 10^{11}$ $3.09\cdot 10^{11}$
16384 44,040,192 — — $1.37\cdot 10^{11}$ $5.50\cdot 10^{11}$ —
------------------ ------------ -------------- -------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
: Global number of degrees of freedom $p\times n_x\times n_y\times n_z$ for different numbers of processors $p$ and local problem sizes $n_x=n_y$. The number of vertical columns is always $n_z=128$.[]{data-label="tab:Problemsizes"}
The weak scaling of the time per iteration and the total solution time is plotted in Figure \[fig:WeakScalingTime\]. After a slight initial increase all GPU solvers scale very well up to 16384 GPUs and, as expected, the scalability increases with the problem size due to the resulting better calculation / communication ratio.
![Weak scaling of the time per iteration (left) and total solution time (right) on different numbers of GPUs on Titan.[]{data-label="fig:WeakScalingTime"}](\figdir/Weakscaling_Titan_tIter.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![Weak scaling of the time per iteration (left) and total solution time (right) on different numbers of GPUs on Titan.[]{data-label="fig:WeakScalingTime"}](\figdir/Weakscaling_Titan_tTotal.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
![Time per iteration (left) and total solution time (right) of the multigrid solver on different clusters. Results obtained on EMERALD with 8 GPUs per node are shown in brackets.[]{data-label="fig:WeakScalingComparison"}](\figdir/Weakscaling_tIter.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![Time per iteration (left) and total solution time (right) of the multigrid solver on different clusters. Results obtained on EMERALD with 8 GPUs per node are shown in brackets.[]{data-label="fig:WeakScalingComparison"}](\figdir/Weakscaling_tTotal.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
In Figure \[fig:WeakScalingComparison\] we compare the performance of the multigrid solver for two problem sizes on all three computer systems. On the EMERALD cluster two memory links have to be shared between all GPUs on a node and we found that we can achieve the best performance if we only use two GPUs per node, all results shown in Figure \[fig:WeakScalingComparison\], except for the ones which are specifically marked, are obtained with this configuration. In summary the GPU implementation on Titan is roughly a factor 4 faster than the CPU implementation on HECToR (comparing one K20X GPU card to one 16 core AMD CPU) or, put differently, it is possible to solve a four times larger problem in the same total runtime. For the $512$ problem we find that the CG solver on the GPU is about 6 times faster than the CPU implementation (not shown here).
The absolute performance on Titan both in terms of the global memory bandwidth and in terms of floating point operations per second was also quantified as described in Section \[sec:SingleGPUPerformance\]. The absolute floating point performance is plotted in Figure \[fig:FLOPandMEMPerformance\] (left) for different problem sizes and numbers of GPUs. On one GPU the CG solver on the $512$ problem can utilise about 5 % of the peak performance and on the largest core count it can still use 3 % of the peak FLOP rate of the entire machine. As both algorithms are memory bound, a more meaningful measure for the performance of the solvers is the global memory bandwidth. According to Figure \[fig:FLOPandMEMPerformance\] the CG solver can utilise between $30\%$ and $60\%$ of the theoretical peak global memory bandwidth. For the multigrid solver this number is smaller and in the range $15\%$ - $25\%$ on 16384 GPUs and $25\%$ - $35\%$ on one GPU. We stress again that we measure the “useful bandwidth” and obtaining a value close to $100\%$ is very hard to achieve in practice.
![Floating point performance and percentage of utilised peak global memory bandwidth for different numbers of GPUs and local problem sizes $n_x$ on Titan.[]{data-label="fig:FLOPandMEMPerformance"}](\figdir/Performance_Titan_FLOPs.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![Floating point performance and percentage of utilised peak global memory bandwidth for different numbers of GPUs and local problem sizes $n_x$ on Titan.[]{data-label="fig:FLOPandMEMPerformance"}](\figdir/Performance_Titan_MEM.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}
It is also interesting to compare the performance on the two GPU systems. Although the difference in floating point performance between the cards is a factor two, one multigrid iteration on the Fermi card is only $20\%-35\%$ slower than on the Kepler GPU, which is closer to what is expected due to the ratio between the global memory bandwidths on the two different cards (${BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}(K20X)/{BW_{\operatorname{mem}}}(M2090)=(250{\ensuremath{\operatorname{GByte/s}}})/(177{\ensuremath{\operatorname{GByte/s}}})\approx 1.4$). For the same number of total GPUs, using all 8 GPUs on an EMERALD node (instead of only using 2 per node) leads to a significant increase in the total runtime as all cards have to share the host-device bandwidth (see the additional data in Figure \[fig:WeakScalingComparison\]). This is expected as for the multigrid solver the cost of copying the right hand side to the GPU and copying the final solution back to the CPU is not negligible (see Table \[tab:SingleGPUTiming\]).
--------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------
\# GPUs \# columns per GPU
$t_{\operatorname{solve}} [s]$ parallel efficiency $t_{\operatorname{solve}} [s]$ parallel efficiency
256 $512\times512=262,144$ 2.141 — 1.102 —
1024 $256\times256=65,536$ 0.631 84.8% 0.415 66.4%
4096 $128\times128=16,384$ 0.541 24.8% 0.250 27.6%
--------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------
: Strong scaling of the total runtime for a problem of size $8192\times 8192 \times 128$ on Titan. The parallel efficiency is given relative to the 256 GPU run.[]{data-label="tab:StrongScaling"}
While we have not attempted to carry out detailled strong scaling runs, we report in Tab. \[tab:StrongScaling\] some preliminary results for a problem of size $8192\times 8192\times128=8.6\cdot 10^{9}$ unknowns on $256$, $1024$ and $4096$ GPUs; the results were obtained on Titan. The efficiency is still around $85\%$ for CG and $66\%$ for the multigrid solver when the number of GPUs is increased from 256 to 1024, i.e. when the number of local columns on one GPU has gone from 512 x 512 to 256 x 256. When the number of GPUs is increased further to 4096, the efficiency (measured relative to the 256 GPU run) drops to around $25\%$ for both algorithms. On 4096 GPUs the number of threads per GPU is $128\times 128=16384$. This has to be compared to the number of CUDA cores on the Kepler card which is 2688, i.e. each core will process only around 6 columns. As the local problem size is reduced further the number of columns per core will drop below 1 and it becomes impossible to exploit the full capacity of the GPU with our current implementation.
Conclusion and outlook {#sec:Conclusion}
======================
In this article we described massively parallel and efficient CUDA-C implementations of two memory bound iterative solvers for anisotropic PDEs. Equations of this type are encountered in many areas of geophysical modelling and we focus on the pressure correction equation which arises from semi-implicit semi-Lagrangian time stepping in atmospheric forecast models. The biggest gains can be achieved by choosing the algorithmically most efficient solver tailored to the problem, which in this case is a tensor-product geometric multigrid solver. It is about twice as fast as a preconditioned Conjugate Gradient method. We demonstrated the excellent absolute performance (measured in terms of the achieved memory bandwidth) of our solvers on Kepler GK110 GPUs and showed the very good weak scaling on up to 16384 GPUs of the Titan supercomputer. The GPU implementation is about a factor four faster than the CPU code on HECToR.
Although we believe that our implementation is close to optimal there are still potential improvements that could be considered. In this article we only give preliminary results for strong scaling of our solvers. In the strong scaling limit the number of threads will eventually be too small to utilise the full computational power of the GPU. This could be improved by exposing more parallelism in the algorithm, for example by using a parallel tridiagonal solver as described below. Furthermore the overhead from parallel communcations between GPUs can be “hidden” by overlapping the halo exchange with computations. For this the domain is split up into an interior part and a boundary. After the calculations have been completed on the boundary, an asynchronous halo exchange is posted and calculations are continued for the interior part of the domain. While on a CPU this approach is straighforward, on a GPU the calculations on the boundary degrees of freedom will only be efficient if it is large enough in the $x$-direction to allow contiguous memory access in this direction. This is a problem in particular for the multigrid method on the coarse levels which are already very small. In some preliminary experiments we were not able to achieve any speedups with this technique.
Part of the reason for the poorer computational efficiency of the multigrid method is that the grids on the coarse levels are so small that the GPU can not be fully utilised, as we only parallelise in the horizontal direction due to the dependency in the tridiagonal solver. The amount of parallelism can be increased if we can assign several threads to work on each vertical column, by using a parallel tridiagonal solver such as cyclic reduction or a substructuring algorithm (see also [@Laszlo2014]). Preliminary experiments with the subtructuring method have shown that some gains with speedups of up to a factor two can be achieved on the coarser multigrid levels.
Currently our entire solver is implemented on the GPU, which means that the host CPU is idle. This is wasteful and could potentially be improved by splitting the work between the two processors. The obvious way of doing this is via splitting the domain between the CPU and GPU, as described for a shallow water solver in [@Yang2013]. For the multigrid solver an alternative approach might be to process the finer levels on the GPU and the coarse levels on the CPU, thus minimising the amount of data that is copied between host and device. This could for example be done by using an additive multigrid algorithm, and potential benefits have to be balanced against worse algorithmic performance of the method.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to Benson Muite for his help with porting and running the code on the Titan supercomputer and for kindly making part of his compute time allocation on the machine available for this project. We would like to thank Mauro Bianco (CSCS, Switzerland) for his help with using the GCL library and Mike Giles and István Reguly (Oxford) for useful discussions.
This work was funded as part of the NERC project on “Next Generation Weather and Climate Prediction” (NGWCP), grant number NE/K006762/1 and was supported also by European Regional Development Fund through the Estonian Centre of Excellence in Computer Science and the Estonian Science Foundation grant 9019. We used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725; the runs on Titan were carried out under DD Project CSC113. In addition we made use of the facilities of HECToR, the UK’s national high-performance computing service, which is provided by UoE HPCx Ltd at the University of Edinburgh, Cray Inc and NAG Ltd, and funded by the Office of Science and Technology through EPSRC’s High End Computing Programme. We would also like to acknowledge use of the EMERALD High Performance Computing facility provided via the Centre for Innovation (CfI). The CfI is formed from the universities of Bristol, Oxford, Southampton and UCL in partnership with STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory.
[10]{}
Eike Müller and Robert Scheichl. . , 2014.
S. Börm and R. Hiptmair. Analysis of tensor product multigrid. , 26:200–1, 1999.
Markus Blatt and Peter Bastian. . In [*[Lecture Notes in Computer Science]{}*]{}, volume 4699, pages 666–675. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.
Markus Blatt. . , 2010.
Van Emden Henson and Ulrike Meier Yang. . , 41:155–177, 2000.
Hans Meuer, Erich Strohmaier, Jack Dongarra, and Horst Simon. . <http://www.top500.org/lists/2014/06/>. Accessed: 13 Aug 2014.
nVidia Corporation. . <http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-servers.html>. Accessed: 8 Jan 2014.
W C Skamarock, P K Smolarkiewicz, and J B Klemp. . , 125(4):587–599, 1997.
S.J. Thomas, A.V. Malevsky, M. Desgagné, R. Benoit, P. Pellerin, and M. Valin. Massively parallel implementation of the mesoscale compressible community model. , 23:2143 – 2160, 1997.
Abdessamad Qaddouri and Jean Côté. . In José Palma, A. Sousa, Jack Dongarra, and Vicente Hernández, editors, [*High Performance Computing for Computational Science VECPAR 2002*]{}, volume 2565 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pages 451–455. Springer, Berlin, 2003.
T. Davies, M. J. P. Cullen, A. J. Malcolm, M. H. Mawson, A. Staniforth, A. A. White, and N. Wood. A new dynamical core for the [Met Office’s]{} global and regional modelling of the atmosphere. , 131(608):1759–1782, 2005.
William H. Press, Saul A. Teukolsky, William T. Vetterling, and Brian P. Flannery. . Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007.
Eike Müller, Xu Guo, Robert Scheichl, and Sinan Shi. . , Feb 2014.
Mauro Bianco. An interface for halo exchange pattern. <http://www.prace-ri.eu/IMG/pdf/wp86.pdf>, 2013. Accessed: 11 Jan 2014.
Andreas Dedner, Eike Mueller, and Robert Scheichl. . submitted to SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing (SISC), 2014.
Jeff Bolz, Ian Farmer, Eitan Grinspun, and Peter Schröder. . , 22:917–924, 2003.
Nolan Goodnight, Cliff Woolley, Gregory Lewin, David Luebke, and Greg Humphreys. . In [*ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Courses*]{}, SIGGRAPH ’05, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM.
S Menon and JB Perot. . In [*Proceedings of the 2007 Meeting of the Canadian CFD Society, Toronto Canada*]{}, 2007.
Ali Cevahir, Akira Nukada, and Satoshi Matsuoka. . In [*Computational Science–ICCS 2009*]{}, pages 893–903. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009.
M. Ament, G. Knittel, D. Weiskopf, and W. Strasser. . In [*[Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), 2010, 18th Euromicro International Conference on]{}*]{}, pages 583 –592, feb. 2010.
Ali Cevahir, Akira Nukada, and Satoshi Matsuoka. . , 25(1-2):83–91, 2010.
Serban Georgescu and Hiroshi Okuda. . , 64(10-12):1254–1273, 2010.
Michael Griebel and Peter Zaspel. . , 25(1-2):65–73, 2010.
Dana A Jacobsen, Julien C Thibault, and Inanc Senocak. . In [*48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit*]{}, volume 16, 2010.
Zhuo Feng and Zhiyu Zeng. . In [*Proceedings of the 47th Design Automation Conference*]{}, pages 661–666. ACM, 2010.
Markus Geveler, Dirk Ribbrock, Dominik G[ö]{}ddeke, Peter Zajac, and Stefan Turek. . Techn. Univ., Fak. f[ü]{}r Mathematik, 2011.
Dana A Jacobsen and Inanc Senocak. . In [*49th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting*]{}, 2011.
Nathan Bell and Michael Garland. Efficient sparse matrix-vector multiplication on [CUDA]{}. NVIDIA Technical Report NVR-2008-004, NVIDIA Corporation, December 2008.
Timothy A. Davis and Yifan Hu. . , 38(1):1:1–1:25, December 2011.
Gundolf Haase, Manfred Liebmann, Craig C Douglas, and Gernot Plank. . In [*High performance computing and applications*]{}, pages 38–47. Springer, 2010.
James Brannick, Yao Chen, Xiaozhe Hu, and Ludmil Zikatanov. . In Oleg P. Iliev, Svetozar D. Margenov, Peter D Minev, Panayot S. Vassilevski, and Ludmil T Zikatanov, editors, [*Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations: Theory, Algorithms, and Their Applications*]{}, volume 45 of [*Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics*]{}, pages 81–102. Springer New York, 2013.
Dominik G[ö]{}ddeke, Robert Strzodka, Jamaludin Mohd-Yusof, Patrick McCormick, Hilmar Wobker, Christian Becker, and Stefan Turek. Using [GPUs]{} to improve multigrid solver performance on a cluster. , 4(1):36–55, 2008.
Chao Yang, Wei Xue, Haohuan Fu, Lin Gan, Linfeng Li, Yangtong Xu, Yutong Lu, Jiachang Sun, Guangwen Yang, and Weimin Zheng. . , 48(8):1–12, February 2013.
Björn Gmeiner, Harald Köstler, Markus Stürmer, and Ulrich Rüde. . , 26(1):217–240, 2014.
U Trottenberg, C W Oosterlee, and A Schüller. . Academic Press, San Diego, London, Sydney, Tokyo, 2001.
N. Wood, A. Staniforth, A. White, T. Allen, M. Diamantakis, M. Gross, T. Melvin, C. Smith, S. Vosper, M. Zerroukat, and J. Thuburn. An inherently mass-conserving semi-implicit semi-[L]{}agrangian discretisation of the deep-atmosphere global nonhydrostatic equations. , 2013. Published online December 4th 2013.
Robert Sadourny. . , 100(2):136–144, 1972.
Yousef Saad. . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2003.
W. L. Briggs, V. E. Henson, and S. F. McCormick. . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2000.
AMD Corporation. . <http://www.amd.com/uk/products/server/processors/6000-series-platform/6200/Pages/6200-series-processors.aspx>. Accessed: 12 Jan 2014.
Mark Harris. . <http://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/efficient-matrix-transpose-cuda-cc/>. Accessed: 7 Jan 2014.
Endre Laszlo. . GPU Technology Conference, 2014.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Xudong Mao, Qing Li, , Haoran Xie, , Raymond Y.K. Lau, , Zhen Wang, and Stephen Paul Smolley'
title: On the Effectiveness of Least Squares Generative Adversarial Networks
---
\[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{}
learning has launched a profound reformation and even been applied to many real-world tasks, such as image classification [@He2015], object detection [@Ren2015], and segmentation [@Long2014]. These tasks fall into the scope of supervised learning, which means that a lot of labeled data is provided for the learning processes. Compared with supervised learning, however, unsupervised learning (such as generative models) obtains limited impact from deep learning. Although some deep generative models, e.g., RBM [@Hinton2006], DBM [@Salakhutdinov2009], and VAE [@Kingma2013], have been proposed, these models all face the difficulties of intractable functions (e.g., intractable partition function) or intractable inference, which in turn restricts the effectiveness of these models.
Unlike the above deep generative models which usually adopt approximation methods for intractable functions or inference, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [@Goodfellow2014] requires no approximate inference and can be trained end-to-end through a differentiable network [@Goodfellow2016]. The basic idea of GANs is to train a discriminator and a generator simultaneously: the discriminator aims to distinguish between real samples and generated samples; while the generator tries to generate fake samples as real as possible, making the discriminator believe that the fake samples are from real data. GANs have demonstrated impressive performance for various computer vision tasks such as image generation [@Nguyen2016; @Chen2016], image super-resolution [@Ledig2016], and semi-supervised learning [@Salimans2016].
--------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
{width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
(a) (b) (c)
--------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ (a): The non-saturating loss and the minimax loss. (b): The least squares loss. []{data-label="fig:loss"}](loss_sigmoid.pdf "fig:"){width="1.5in"} ![ (a): The non-saturating loss and the minimax loss. (b): The least squares loss. []{data-label="fig:loss"}](loss_l2.pdf "fig:"){width="1.5in"}
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original GAN paper [@Goodfellow2014] adopted the sigmoid cross entropy loss for the discriminator and presented two different losses for the generator: the “minimax" loss (M-GANs) and the “non-saturating" loss (NS-GANs). They have pointed out that M-GANs will saturate at the early stage of the learning process. Thus NS-GANs are recommended for use in practice.
We argue that both the non-saturating loss and the minimax loss, however, will lead to the problem of vanishing gradients when updating the generator. As Fig. \[fig:loss\](a) shows, the non-saturating loss, i.e., , will saturate when the input is relatively large, while the minimax loss, i.e., , will saturate when the input is relatively small. Consequently, as Fig. \[fig:boundary\](b) shows, when updating the generator, the non-saturating loss will cause almost no gradient for the fake samples in magenta, because these samples are on the side of real data, corresponding to the input with relatively large values in Fig. \[fig:loss\](a). Similarly, the minimax loss will cause almost no gradient for the fake samples in green. However, these fake samples are still far from real data, and we want to pull them closer to real data. Based on this observation, we propose the Least Squares Generative Adversarial Networks (LSGANs) which adopt the least squares loss for both the discriminator and the generator. The idea is simple yet powerful: the least squares loss is able to move the fake samples toward the decision boundary, because the least squares loss penalizes samples that lie in a long way to the decision boundary even though they are on the correct side. As Fig. \[fig:boundary\](c) shows, the least squares loss will penalize the above two types of fake samples and pull them toward the decision boundary. Based on this property, LSGANs are able to generate samples that are closer to real data.
Another benefit of LSGANs is the improved training stability. Generally speaking, training GANs is a difficult issue in practice because of the instability of GANs learning [@Radford2015; @Metz2016]. Recently, several papers have pointed out that the instability of GANs learning is partially caused by the objective function [@Arjovsky2017; @Metz2016; @Qi2016]. Specifically, minimizing the objective function of regular GANs may cause the problem of vanishing gradients, which makes it hard to update the generator. LSGANs can alleviate this problem because penalizing samples based on the distances to the decision boundary can generate more gradients when updating the generator. Moreover, we theoretically show that the training instability of regular GANs is due to the mode-seeking behavior [@Bishop2006] of the objective function, while LSGANs exhibit less mode-seeking behavior.
In this paper, we also propose a new method for evaluating the stability of GANs. One popular evaluation method is to use difficult architectures, e.g., by excluding the batch normalization [@Arjovsky2017]. However, in practice, one will always select the stable architectures for their tasks. Sometimes the difficulty is from the datasets. Motivated by this, we propose to use difficult datasets but stable architectures to evaluate the stability of GANs. Specifically, we create two synthetic digit datasets with small variability by rendering $28\times 28$ digits using some standard fonts. Datasets with small variability are difficult for GANs to learn, since the discriminator can distinguish the real samples very easily for such datasets.
Recently, gradient penalty has shown the effectiveness of improving the stability of GANs training [@Kodali2017; @Gulrajani2017]. We find that gradient penalty is also helpful for improving the stability of LSGANs. By adding the gradient penalty in [@Kodali2017], LSGANs are able to train successfully for all the difficult architectures used in WGANs-GP [@Gulrajani2017]. However, gradient penalty also has some inevitable disadvantages such as additional computational cost and memory cost. Based on this observation, we evaluate the stability of LSGANs in two settings: LSGANs without gradient penalty and LSGANs with gradient penalty.
Our contributions in this paper can be summarized as follows:
- We propose LSGANs which adopt least squares loss for both the discriminator and the generator. We show that minimizing the objective function of LSGANs yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence.
- We show that the derived objective function that yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence performs better than the classical one of using least squares for classification.
- We evaluate the image quality of LSGANs on several datasets including the LSUN-scenes and a cat dataset, and the experimental results demonstrate that LSGANs can generate higher quality images than NS-GANs.
- We also evaluate LSGANs on four datasets using the quantitative evaluation metric of Fréchet inception distance (FID), and the results show that LSGANs with the derived objective function outperform NS-GANs on four datasets and outperform WGANs-GP on three datasets. Furthermore, LSGANs spend a quarter of the time comparing with WGANs-GP to reach a similar relatively optimal FID on LSUN-bedroom.
- A new evaluation method for the training stability is proposed. We propose to use datasets with small variability to evaluate the stability of GANs. Furthermore, two synthetic digit datasets with small variability are created and published.
- We evaluate the training stability of LSGANs without gradient penalty through three experiments including Gaussian mixture distribution, difficult architectures, and datasets with small variability. The experimental results demonstrate that LSGANs perform more stably than NS-GANs.
- We also evaluate the training stability of LSGANs-GP through training on six difficult architectures used in WGANs-GP. LSGANs-GP succeed in training for all the six architectures including 101-layer ResNet.
This paper extends our earlier conference work [@Mao2017] in a number of ways. First, we present more theoretical analysis about the properties of LSGANs and $\chi^2$ divergence. Second, we conduct a new quantitative experiment based on the FID evaluation metric, and the results demonstrate that LSGANs perform better than NS-GANs and WGANs-GP. The results also show that the derived objective function (Eq. ) that yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence performs better than the classical one (Eq. ) of using least squares for classification. Eq. is used in our earlier conference work, but we change to use Eq. in this paper. Third, we provide new qualitative results on a cat dataset, which also shows that LSGANs generate higher quality images than NS-GANs. Fourth, we propose a new method for evaluating the training stability. In addition to using difficult architectures [@Arjovsky2017], we propose to use difficult datasets but stable architectures to evaluate the training stability. Fifth, we present a new comparison experiment between LSGANs-GP and WGANs-GP. The results show that LSGANs-GP succeed in training for all the difficult architectures used in [@Gulrajani2017], including 101-layer ResNet. Finally, we present a new comparison experiment between the two parameter schemes (Eq. and ) of LSGANs.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Deep generative models attempt to capture the probability distributions over the given data. Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), one type of deep generative models, are the basis of many other hierarchical models, and they have been used to model the distributions of images [@Taylor2010] and documents [@Hinton2009]. Deep Belief Networks (DBNs) [@Hinton2006_DBN] and Deep Boltzmann Machines (DBMs) [@Salakhutdinov2009] are extended from the RBMs. The most successful application of DBNs is for image classification [@Hinton2006_DBN], where DBNs are used to extract feature representations. However, RBMs, DBNs, and DBMs all have the difficulties of intractable partition functions or intractable posterior distributions, which thus use the approximation methods to learn the models. Another important deep generative model is Variational Autoencoders (VAE) [@Kingma2013], a directed model, which can be trained with gradient-based optimization methods. But VAEs are trained by maximizing the variational lower bound, which may lead to the blurry problem of generated images [@Goodfellow2016].
Recently, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have been proposed by Goodfellow [@Goodfellow2014], who explained the theory of GANs learning based on a game theoretic scenario. A similar idea is also introduced by Ganin [@Ganin2016], where a method of adversarial training is proposed for domain adaptation. Showing the powerful capability for unsupervised tasks, GANs have been applied to many specific tasks, like image super-resolution [@Ledig2016], text to image synthesis [@Reed2016], and image to image translation [@Isola2016]. By combining the traditional content loss and the adversarial loss, super-resolution generative adversarial networks [@Ledig2016] achieved state-of-the-art performance for the task of image super-resolution. Reed [@Reed2016] proposed a model to synthesize images given text descriptions based on the conditional GANs [@Mirza2014]. Isola [@Isola2016] also used the conditional GANs to transfer images from one representation to another. In addition to unsupervised learning tasks, GANs also show the good potential for semi-supervised learning tasks. Salimans [@Salimans2016] proposed a GAN-based framework for semi-supervised learning, in which the discriminator not only outputs the probability that an input image is from real data, but also outputs the probabilities of belonging to each class. Another important problem of GANs is to inference the latent vectors from given examples [@Donahue2017; @Dumoulin2017; @Li2017]. Both [@Donahue2017] and [@Dumoulin2017] proposed a bidirectional adversarial learning framework by incorporating an encoder into the GANs framework. Li [@Li2017] proposed to use the conditional entropy to regularize the objectives in [@Donahue2017; @Dumoulin2017], making the learning process more stable.
Despite the great successes GANs have achieved, improving the quality of generated images is still a challenge. A lot of works have been proposed to improve the quality of images for GANs. Radford [@Radford2015] first introduced convolutional layers to GANs architecture, and proposed a network architecture called deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (DCGANs). Denton [@Denton2015] proposed a framework called Laplacian pyramid of generative adversarial networks to improve the image quality of high-resolution images, where a Laplacian pyramid is constructed to generate high-resolution images starting from low-resolution images. A similar approach is proposed by Huang [@Huang2016] who used a series of stacked GANs to generate images from abstract to specific. Salimans [@Salimans2016] proposed a technique called feature matching to get better convergence. The idea is to make the generated samples match the statistics of real data by minimizing the mean square error on an intermediate layer of the discriminator.
Another critical issue for GANs is the stability of the learning process. Many works have been proposed to address this problem by analyzing the objective functions of GANs [@Arjovsky2017; @Che2016; @Metz2016; @Nowozin2016; @Qi2016]. Viewing the discriminator as an energy function, Zhao [@Zhao2016] used an auto-encoder architecture to improve the stability of GANs learning. Dai [@Dai2017] extended the energy-based GANs by adding some regularizations to make the discriminator non-degenerate. To make the generator and the discriminator more balanced, Metz [@Metz2016] created an unrolled objective function to enhance the generator. Che [@Che2016] incorporated a reconstruction module and used the distance between real samples and reconstructed samples as a regularizer to get more stable gradients. Nowozin [@Nowozin2016] pointed out that the objective of regular GAN [@Goodfellow2014] which is related to Jensen-Shannon divergence is a special case of divergence estimation, and generalized it to arbitrary f-divergences [@Nguyen2010]. Arjovsky [@Arjovsky2017] extended this by analyzing the properties of four different divergences and concluded that Wasserstein distance is more stable than Jensen-Shannon divergence. Qi [@Qi2016] proposed the loss-sensitive GAN whose loss function is based on the assumption that real samples should have smaller losses than fake samples. They also introduced to use Lipschitz regularity to stabilize the learning process. Base on the above assumptions, they proved that loss-sensitive GAN has non-vanishing gradient almost everywhere. Some other techniques to stabilize GANs learning include the second order method [@Mescheder2017] and gradient penalty [@Gulrajani2017; @Kodali2017; @Roth2017]. Mescheder [@Mescheder2017] analyzed the convergence property of GANs from the perspective of the eigenvalues of the equilibrium and proposed a method to regularize the eigenvalues, which in turn leads to better training stability. Gulrajani [@Gulrajani2017] used gradient penalty to enforce the Lipschitz constraint in Wasserstein distance. They showed that this approach performs more stably than the method used in [@Arjovsky2017]. Unlike [@Gulrajani2017] that applies gradient penalty around the region between the real data and the fake data, Kodali [@Kodali2017] proposed to apply gradient penalty around the real data manifold only, which has the advantage that it is applicable to various GANs. Roth [@Roth2017] derived a new gradient-based regularization from analyzing that adding noise to the discriminator yields training with gradient penalty.
Method {#sec:method}
======
Generative Adversarial Networks
-------------------------------
The learning process of GANs is to train a discriminator $D$ and a generator $G$ simultaneously. The target of $G$ is to learn the distribution $p_g$ over data $\bm{x}$. $G$ starts with sampling input variables $\bm{z}$ from a uniform or Gaussian distribution $p_z(\bm{z})$, then maps the input variables $\bm{z}$ to data space $G(\bm{z}; \theta_g)$ through a differentiable network. On the other hand, $D$ is a classifier $D(\bm{x}; \theta_d)$ that aims to recognize whether an image is from training data or from $G$. The minimax objective for GANs can be formulated as follows:
$$\label{eq:gan}
\begin{split}
\min_G \max_D V_{\text{\tiny GAN}}(D, G) = \mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}[\log D(\bm{x})]& \\
+ \mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}[\log (1 - D(G(\bm{z})))]&.
\end{split}$$
In practice, Goodfellow [@Goodfellow2014] recommend implementing the following non-saturating loss for the generator, which provides much stronger gradients.
$$\label{eq:nsgan}
\begin{split}
\min_G V_{\text{\tiny GAN}}(G) = -\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}[\log (D(G(\bm{z})))].
\end{split}$$
Following [@Fedus2018], we refer to Eq. as minimax GANs (M-GANs) and Eq. as non-saturating GANs (NS-GANs). In the following experiments, we compare our proposed LSGANs with NS-GANs since NS-GANs perform much better than M-GANs [@Goodfellow2014; @Fedus2018].
Least Squares Generative Adversarial Networks {#sec:lsgan}
---------------------------------------------
As stated in Section \[sec:introduction\], the original GAN paper [@Goodfellow2014] adopted the sigmoid cross entropy loss function for the discriminator, and introduced the minimax loss and the non-saturating loss for the generator. However, both the minimax loss and the non-saturating loss will cause the problem of vanishing gradients for some fake samples that are far from real data, as shown in Fig. \[fig:boundary\](b). To remedy this problem, we propose the Least Squares Generative Adversarial Networks (LSGANs). Suppose we use the $a$-$b$ coding scheme for the discriminator, where $a$ and $b$ are the labels for the fake data and the real data, respectively. Then the objective functions for LSGANs can be defined as follows:
$$\label{eq:lsgan}
\begin{split}
\min_D V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(D) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-b)^2\bigr] \\
+ &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))-a)^2\bigr] \\
\min_G V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))-c)^2\bigr],
\end{split}$$
where $c$ denotes the value that $G$ wants $D$ to believe for the fake data.
### Benefits of LSGANs {#sec:benefits}
The benefits of LSGANs can be derived from two aspects. First, unlike M-GANs and NS-GANs which cause almost no gradient for some kinds of fake samples, LSGANs will penalize those samples even though they are correctly classified, as shown in Fig. \[fig:boundary\](c). When we update the generator, the parameters of the discriminator are fixed, i.e., the decision boundary is fixed. As a result, the penalization will cause the generator to generate samples toward the decision boundary. On the other hand, the decision boundary should go across the manifold of real data for a successful GANs learning; otherwise, the learning process will be saturated. Thus moving the generated samples toward the decision boundary leads to making them closer to the manifold of real data.
Second, penalizing the samples lying in a long way to the decision boundary can generate more gradients when updating the generator, which in turn relieves the problem of vanishing gradients. This allows LSGANs to perform more stably during the learning process. This benefit can also be derived from another perspective: as shown in Fig. \[fig:loss\], the least squares loss function is flat only at one point, while NS-GANs will saturate when $x$ is relatively large, and M-GANs will saturate when $x$ is relatively small. In Section \[sec:benefit\_chi\], we provide further theoretical analysis about the stability of LSGANs.
Theoretical Analysis
--------------------
### Relation to $\chi^2$ Divergence
In the original GAN paper [@Goodfellow2014], the authors have shown that minimizing Eq. yields minimizing the Jensen-Shannon divergence: $$\label{eq:gan_js}
\begin{split}
%\label{eq:sym-KL}
C(G) &=\text{KL} \left(p_\text{data} \left \| \frac{p_\text{data} + p_g}{2} \right. \right) + \text{KL} \left(p_g \left \| \frac{p_\text{data} + p_g}{2} \right. \right)-\log(4).
\end{split}$$
Here we also explore the relation between LSGANs and f-divergence. Consider the following extension of Eq. : $$\label{eq:general_lsgan}
\begin{split}
\min_D V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(D) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-b)^2\bigr] \\
+ &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))-a)^2\bigr] \\
\min_G V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-c)^2\bigr] \\
+ &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))-c)^2\bigr].
\end{split}$$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="90.00000%"}
\(a) Generated images ($64 \times 64$) by NS-GANs (reported in [@Radford2015]).
{width="90.00000%"}
\(b) Generated images ($112 \times 112$) by NS-GANs.
{width="90.00000%"}
\(c) Generated images ($112 \times 112$) by LSGANs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that adding the term $\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}[(D(\bm{x})-c)^2]$ to $V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G)$ causes no change of the optimal values since this term does not contain parameters of $G$.
We first derive the optimal discriminator $D$ for a fixed $G$.
\[pro:optimal\_d\] For a fixed $G$, the optimal discriminator $D$ is $$\label{eq:optimal_d}
D^*(\bm{x}) = \frac{bp_\text{data}(\bm{x})+ap_g(\bm{x})}{p_\text{data}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})}.$$
Given any generator $G$, we try to minimize $V(D)$ with respect to the discriminator $D$: $$\label{eq:optimal_proof}
\begin{split}
V(D) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-b)^2\bigr] + \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))-a)^2\bigr] \\
= &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-b)^2\bigr] + \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{g}}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-a)^2\bigr] \\
=&\int_{\mathcal{X}} \frac{1}{2} \bigl( p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})(D(\bm{x})-b)^2 + p_{g}(\bm{x})(D(\bm{x})-a)^2 \bigr) \textrm{d}x.
\end{split}$$ Consider the internal function: $$\frac{1}{2} \bigl( p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})(D(\bm{x})-b)^2 + p_{g}(\bm{x})(D(\bm{x})-a)^2 \bigr).$$ It achieves the mimimum at $\frac{bp_\text{data}(\bm{x})+ap_g(\bm{x})}{p_\text{data}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})}$ with respect to $D(\bm{x})$, concluding the proof.
In the following equations we use $p_\text{d}$ to denote $p_\text{data}$ for simplicity.
Optimizing LSGANs yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence between $p_\text{d}+p_g$ and $2p_g$, if a, b, and c satisfy the conditions of $b-c=1$ and $b-a=2$ in Eq. .
We can reformulate $V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G)$ in Eq. by using Proposition \[pro:optimal\_d\]:
$$\label{eq:lsgan_divergence}
\begin{split}
2C(G) &= \mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{d}}}\bigl[(D^*(\bm{x})-c)^2\bigr]+\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{z}}\bigl[(D^*(G(\bm{z}))-c)^2\bigr] \\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{d}}}\bigl[(D^*(\bm{x})-c)^2\bigr]+\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{g}}\bigl[(D^*(\bm{x})-c)^2\bigr] \\
&=\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{d}}}
\left[
\bigl(\frac{bp_\text{d}(\bm{x})+ap_g(\bm{x})}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})}-c\bigr)^2
\right] \\
&+\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{g}}
\left[
\bigl(\frac{bp_\text{d}(\bm{x})+ap_g(\bm{x})}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})}-c\bigr)^2
\right] \\
&=\int_{\mathcal{X}}p_\text{d}(\bm{x}) \bigl(\frac{(b-c)p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+(a-c)p_g(\bm{x})}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})}\bigr)^2 \textrm{d}\bm{x} \\
&+ \int_{\mathcal{X}}p_g(\bm{x}) \bigl(\frac{(b-c)p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+(a-c)p_g(\bm{x})}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})}\bigr)^2 \textrm{d}\bm{x} \\
&=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \frac{\bigl((b-c)p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+(a-c)p_g(\bm{x})\bigr)^2}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})} \textrm{d}\bm{x} \\
&=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \frac{\bigl((b-c)(p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x}))-(b-a)p_g(\bm{x})\bigr)^2}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})} \textrm{d}\bm{x}.
\end{split}$$ If we set $b-c=1$ and $b-a=2$, then $$\label{eq:lsgan_divergence_final}
\begin{split}
2C(G)&=\int_{\mathcal{X}} \frac{\bigl(2p_g(\bm{x})-(p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x}))\bigr)^2}{p_\text{d}(\bm{x})+p_g(\bm{x})} \textrm{d}\bm{x} \\
&=\chi^2_\text{Pearson}(p_\text{d}+p_g\|2p_g),
\end{split}$$ where $\chi^2_\text{Pearson}$ is the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence. Thus minimizing Eq. yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence between $p_\text{d}+p_g$ and $2p_g$ if $a$, $b$, and $c$ satisfy the conditions of $b-c=1$ and $b-a=2$.
---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
\(a) Church outdoor. \(b) Dining room.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
\(c) Kitchen. \(d) Conference room.
---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
### Properties of $\chi^2$ Divergence {#sec:benefit_chi}
As Eq. shows, the original GAN has been proven to optimize the JS divergence. Furthermore, Husz[á]{}r [@Ferenc2015] pointed out that Eq. can be viewed as an interpolation between $\text{KL}(p_g \| p_d)$ and $\text{KL}(p_d \| p_g)$:
$$\label{eq:js_kl}
\begin{split}
\text{JS}_{\pi}(p_d\|p_g) &=(1-\pi) \text{KL}(p_d\|\pi p_d+(1-\pi)p_g) \\
&+ \pi \text{KL}(p_g\|\pi p_d+(1-\pi)p_g),
\end{split}$$
where Eq. corresponds to $\pi=0.5$. They also found that optimizing Eq. tends to perform similarly to $\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d)$. $\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d)$ is widely used in variational inference due to the convenient evidence lower bound [@Bishop2006]. However, optimizing $\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d)$ has the problem of mode-seeking behavior or under-dispersed approximations [@Bishop2006; @Dieng2017; @Ferenc2015]. This problem also appears in GANs learning, which is known as the mode collapse problem. The definition of $\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d)$ is given below:
$$\label{eq:kl}
\begin{split}
\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d) = -\int_{\mathcal{X}} p_g(\bm{x})\ln\left(\frac{p_d(\bm{x})}{p_g(\bm{x})}\right)\text{d}\bm{x}.
\end{split}$$
The mode-seeking behavior of $\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d)$ can be understood by noting that $p_g$ will be close to zero where $p_d$ is near zero, because $\text{KL}(p_g\|p_d)$ will be infinite if $p_d=0$ and $p_g>0$. This is called the zero-forcing property [@Bishop2006].
Recently, $\chi^2$ divergence has drawn researchers’ attention in variational inference since $\chi^2$ divergence is able to produce over-dispersed approximations [@Dieng2017]. For the objective function in Eq. , it will become infinite if $p_d+p_g=0$ and $p_g-p_d>0$, which will not happen since $p_g\geq0$ and $p_d\geq0$. Thus $\chi^2_\text{Pearson}(p_\text{d}+p_g\|2p_g)$ has no zero-forcing property. This makes LSGANs less mode-seeking and alleviates the mode collapse problem.
Parameters Selection {#sec:para}
--------------------
One method to determine the values of $a$, $b$, and $c$ in Eq. is to satisfy the conditions of $b-c=1$ and $b-a=2$, such that minimizing Eq. yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence between $p_\text{d}+p_g$ and $2p_g$. For example, by setting $a=-1$, $b=1$, and $c=0$, we get the following objective functions: $$\label{eq:lsgan_peason}
\begin{split}
\min_D V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(D) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-1)^2\bigr] \\
+ &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))+1)^2\bigr] \\
\min_G V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z})))^2\bigr].
\end{split}$$
Another method is to make $G$ generate samples as real as possible by setting $c=b$, corresponding to the traditional way of using least squares for classification. For example, by using the $0$-$1$ binary coding scheme, we get the following objective functions: $$\label{eq:lsgan_01}
\begin{split}
\min_D V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(D) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-1)^2\bigr] \\
+ &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z})))^2\bigr] \\
\min_G V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))-1)^2\bigr].
\end{split}$$
In practice, we find that Eq. shows better FID results and faster convergence speed than Eq. , as demonstrated by experiments. For the experiments presented in our earlier conference work [@Mao2017], we adopted Eq. , but for the newly introduced experiments in this paper, Eq. is adopted.
[cccccc]{}\
\
\
\
{width="13.00000%"} & {width="13.00000%"} & {width="13.00000%"} & {width="13.00000%"} & {width="13.00000%"} & {width="13.00000%"}\
& &
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
In this section, we first present some details of our implementation. Next, we present the results of the qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation of LSGANs. Then we evaluate the stability of LSGANs in two groups. One is to compare LSGANs with DCGANs without gradient penalty by three experiments. The other one is to compare LSGANs-GP with WGANs-GP. Note that we implement DCGANs using the non-saturating loss (NS-GANs). In the following experiments, we denote NS-GANs as the baseline method.
Implementation Details
----------------------
The implementation of our proposed models is based on a public implementation of DCGANs[^1] using TensorFlow [@tensorflow2015]. The learning rate is set to $0.0002$ except for LSUN-scenes whose learning rate is set to $0.001$. The mini-batch size is set to 64, and the variables are initialized from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 0.02. Following DCGANs, $\beta_1$ for Adam optimizer is set to 0.5. The pixel values of all the images are scaled to \[-1,1\], since we use the Tanh in the generator to produce images. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/xudonmao/improved\_LSGAN.
--------------------------------------------------------
{width="96.00000%"}
\(a) Interpolation on the LSUN-bedroom dataset.
{width="96.00000%"}
\(b) Interpolation on the cats dataset.
--------------------------------------------------------
Image Quality
-------------
### Qualitative Evaluation
**Scenes Generation** We train LSGANs and NS-GANs using the same network architecture on the LSUN-bedroom dataset. The network architecture is presented in Table \[tab:scene\]. All the images are resized to the resolution of $112 \times 112$. The generated images by the two models are presented in Fig. \[fig:bedroom\_cmp\]. Compared with the images generated by NS-GANs, the texture details (e.g., the textures of beds) of the images generated by LSGANs are more exquisite, and the images generated by LSGANs look sharper. We also train LSGANs on four other scene datasets including church, dining room, kitchen, and conference room. The generated results are shown in Fig. \[fig:scene\].
Generator Discriminator
----------------------------- -------------------------------
Input z Input $112\times 112\times 3$
FC(O12544), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O64), LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O256), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O128), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S1,O256), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O256), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O256), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O512), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S1,O256), BN, ReLU FC(O1)
TCONV(K3,S2,O128), BN, ReLU Loss
TCONV(K3,S2,O64), BN, ReLU
TCONV(K3,S1,O3), Tanh
: The network architecture for scene generation, where CONV denotes the convolutional layer, TCONV denotes the transposed convolutional layer, FC denotes the fully-connected layer, BN denotes the batch normalization, LReLU denotes the Leaky-ReLU, and (K3,S2,O256) denotes a layer with $3 \times 3$ kernel, stride 2, and 256 output filters.[]{data-label="tab:scene"}
Generator Discriminator
----------------------------- -------------------------------
Input z Input $128\times 128\times 3$
FC(O32768), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O64), LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O256), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O128), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O128), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O256), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O64), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O512), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O3), Tanh FC(O1)
Loss
: The network architecture for cats generation. The meanings of the symbols can be found in Table \[tab:scene\].[]{data-label="tab:cat"}
**Cats Generation** We further evaluate LSGANs on a cat dataset [@Zhang2008]. We first use the preprocess methods in a public project[^2] to get cat head images whose resolution is larger than $128 \times 128$, and then resize all the images to the resolution of $128 \times 128$. The network architecture used in this task is presented in . We use the following evaluation protocol for comparing the performance between LSGANs and NS-GANs. First, we train LSGANs and NS-GANs using the same architecture on the cat dataset. During training, we save a checkpoint of the model and a batch of generated images every $1000$ iterations. Second, we select the best models of LSGANs and NS-GANs by checking the quality of saved images in every $1000$ iterations. Finally, we use the selected best models to randomly generate cat images and compare the quality of generated images. The selected models of LSGANs and NS-GANs are available at https://github.com/xudonmao/improved\_LSGAN. Fig. \[fig:cat\] shows the generated cat images of LSGANs and NS-GANs. We observe that LSGANs generate cats with sharper and more exquisite hair than the ones generated by NS-GANs. Fig. \[fig:cat\](c)(d) shows the details of the cat hair by zooming in the generated images. We observe that the cat hair generated by NS-GANs contains more artificial noise. By checking more generated samples using the above saved models, we also observe that the overall quality of generated images by LSGANs is better than NS-GANs.
**Walking in the Latent Space** We also present the interpolation results in Fig. \[fig:interpolation\]. The result of walking in the latent space is a sign of whether a model is just memorizing the training dataset. We first randomly sample two points of the noise vector $\bm{z}$, and then interpolate the vector values between the two sampled points. The images in Fig. \[fig:interpolation\] show smooth transitions, which indicates that LSGANs have learned semantic representations in the latent space.
### Quantitative Evaluation {#sec:quantitative}
For the quantitative evaluation of LSGANs, we adopt Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) [@Heusel2017] as the evaluation metric. FID measures the distance between the generated images and the real images by approximating the feature space of the inception model as a multidimensional Gaussian distribution, which has been proved to be more consistent with human judgment than inception score [@Salimans2016]. Smaller FID values mean closer distances between the generated and real images. We also conduct a human subjective study on the LSUN-bedroom dataset.
[@P[2.5cm]{}@P[1.1cm]{}P[1.1cm]{}P[1.1cm]{}P[1.1cm]{}@]{} Method & LSUN &Cat& ImageNet & CIFAR10\
NS-GANs & $28.04$ &$15.81$ & $74.15$ &$35.25$\
WGANs-GP & $22.77$ &$29.03$ & $\textbf{62.05}$ &$40.83$\
$\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$ & $27.21$ &$15.46$ & $72.54$ &$36.46$\
$\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$& $\textbf{21.55}$ &$\textbf{14.28}$ & $68.95$ & $\textbf{35.19}$\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ (a): Comparison of FID on LSUN between NS-GANs and LSGANs during the learning process, which is aligned with iterations. (b): Comparison of FID on LSUN between WGANs-GP and LSGANs during the learning process, which is aligned with wall-clock time. []{data-label="fig:fid"}](fid_ns_ls.pdf "fig:"){width="1.6in"} ![ (a): Comparison of FID on LSUN between NS-GANs and LSGANs during the learning process, which is aligned with iterations. (b): Comparison of FID on LSUN between WGANs-GP and LSGANs during the learning process, which is aligned with wall-clock time. []{data-label="fig:fid"}](fid_w_ls.pdf "fig:"){width="1.6in"}
(a) (b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="90.00000%"}
**Fréchet Inception Distance** For FID, we evaluate the performances of LSGANs, NS-GANs, and WGANs-GP on several datasets including LSUN-bedroom, the cat dataset, ImageNet, and CIFAR-10. We also compare the performances of Eq. (denoted as $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$) and Eq. (denoted as $\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$). For a fair comparison, all the models are trained with the same architecture proposed in DCGAN [@Radford2015] (i.e., four convolutional layers for both the discriminator and the generator), and the dimension of the noise input is set to $100$. For WGANs-GP, we adopt the official implementation for evaluation. The resolutions for LSUN, Cat, ImageNet, and CIFAR-10 are $64\times64$, $128\times128$, $64\times64$, and $32\times32$, respectively. We randomly generate $50,000$ images every 4k iterations for each model and then compute FID. The results are shown in Table \[tab:fid\], and we have the following four observations. First, $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ outperform NS-GANs for all the four datasets. Second, comparing with WGANs-GP, $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ perform better for three datasets, especially for the cat dataset. Third, $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ perform better than $\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$ for all the four datasets. Fourth, the performance of $\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$ is comparable to NS-GANs.
We also show the FID plot of the learning process in Fig. \[fig:fid\], where LSGANs refer to $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$. Following [@Heusel2017], the plots of NS-GANs and LSGANs are aligned by iterations, and the plots of WGANs-GP and LSGANs are aligned by wall-clock time. As Fig. \[fig:fid\](a) shows, NS-GANs and LSGANs show similar FID at the first 25k iterations, but LSGANs can decrease FID after 25k iterations, achieving better performance eventually. Fig. \[fig:fid\](b) shows that WGANs-GP and LSGANs achieve similar optimal FID eventually, but LSGANs spend much less time ($1,100$ minutes) than WGANs-GP ($4,600$ minutes) to reach a relatively optimal FID around $22$. This is due to that WGANs-GP need multiple updates for the discriminator and need additional computational time for the gradient penalty.
**Human Subjective Study** To further evaluate the performance of LSGANs, we conduct a human subjective study using the generated bedroom images ($112 \times 112$) from NS-GANs and LSGANs with the same network architecture. We randomly construct image pairs, where one image is from NS-GANs and the other one is from LSGANs. We ask Amazon Mechanical Turk annotators to judge which image looks more realistic. With 4,000 votes totally, NS-GANs get 43.6% votes and LSGANs get 56.4% votes, i.e., an overall 12.8% increase of votes over NS-GANs.
Training Stability
------------------
In this section, we evaluate the stability of our proposed LSGANs and compare with two baselines including NS-GANs and WGANs-GP. Gradient penalty has been proven to be effective for improving the stability of GANs training [@Kodali2017; @Gulrajani2017], but it also has some inevitable disadvantages such as additional computational cost and memory cost. Thus we evaluate the stability of LSGANs in two groups. One is to compare with the model without gradient penalty (i.e., NS-GANs), and the other one is to compare with the model with gradient penalty (i.e., WGANs-GP).
### Evaluation without Gradient Penalty {#sec:stability_wo_gp}
We first compare LSGANs with NS-GANs, both of which are without gradient penalty. Three comparison experiments are conducted: 1) learning on a Gaussian mixture distribution; 2) learning with difficult architectures; and 3) learning on datasets with small variability.
[c@[0.3in]{}c]{} Method &
----------------------------------
The number of generating samples
around one or two modes
----------------------------------
: Experiments on Gaussian mixture distribution. We run $100$ times for each model and record how many times that a model ever generates samples around one or two modes during the training process.[]{data-label="tab:gaussian"}
\
NS-GANs&$99$ / $100$\
LSGANs (ours)&$5$ / $100$\
**Gaussian Mixture Distribution** Learning on a Gaussian mixture distribution to evaluate the stability is proposed by Metz [@Metz2016]. If the model suffers from the mode collapse problem, it will generate samples only around one or two modes. We train NS-GANs and LSGANs with the same network architecture on a 2D mixture of eight Gaussian mixture distribution, where both the generator and the discriminator contain three fully-connected layers. Fig. \[fig:gaussian\] shows the dynamic results of Gaussian kernel density estimation. We can see that NS-GANs suffer from mode collapse starting at $15$k iterations. They only generate samples around a single valid mode of the data distribution. But LSGANs can learn the Gaussian mixture distribution successfully. We also try different architectures (four or five fully-connected layers) and different values of the hyper-parameters (the learning rate and the dimension of the noise vector). The results also show that NS-GANs tend to generate samples around one or two modes, while LSGANs are less prone to this problem.
To further verify the robustness of the above observation, we run $100$ times for each model and record how many times that a model suffers from the mode collapse problem. For each experiment, we save the density estimation every $5$k iterations and observe whether a model generates samples only around one or two modes in each saved estimation. The results show that NS-GANs appear to generate one or two modes 99 times out of 100, while LSGANs only have 5 times, as shown in Table \[tab:gaussian\].
[cccc]{} NS-GANs & LSGANs & NS-GANs& LSGANs\
\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
&\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
&
[c@[0.5in]{}c@[0.5in]{}c]{} Real Samples & NS-GANs & LSGANs\
\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
**Difficult Architectures** Another experiment is to train GANs with difficult architectures, which is proposed in [@Arjovsky2017]. The model will generate very similar images if it suffers from mode collapse problem. The network architecture used in this task is similar to the one in Table \[tab:cat\] except for the image resolution. Based on this network architecture, two architectures are designed to compare the stability. The first one is to exclude the batch normalization in the generator ($\text{BN}_G$ for short), and the second one is to exclude the batch normalization in both the generator and discriminator ($\text{BN}_{GD}$ for short). As pointed out in [@Arjovsky2017], the selection of optimizer is critical to the model performance. Thus we evaluate the two architectures with two optimizers, Adam [@Kingma2014] and RMSProp [@Tieleman2012]. In summary, we have the following four training settings: (1) $\text{BN}_G$ with Adam, (2) $\text{BN}_G$ with RMSProp, (3) $\text{BN}_{GD}$ with Adam, and (4) $\text{BN}_{GD}$ with RMSProp. We train the above models on the LSUN-bedroom dataset using NS-GANs and LSGANs separately. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:no\_BN\], and we make the following three major observations. First, for $\text{BN}_G$ with Adam, there is a chance for LSGANs to generate relatively good quality images. We test $10$ times, and $5$ of those succeed to generate relatively good quality images. For NS-GANs, however, we never observe successful learning, suffering from a severe degree of mode collapse. Second, for $\text{BN}_{GD}$ with RMSProp, as Fig. \[fig:no\_BN\] shows, LSGANs generate higher quality images than NS-GANs which have a slight degree of mode collapse. Third, LSGANs and NS-GANs have similar performance for $\text{BN}_G$ with RMSProp and $\text{BN}_{GD}$ with Adam. Specifically, for $\text{BN}_G$ with RMSProp, both LSGANs and NS-GANs can generate relatively good images. For $\text{BN}_{GD}$ with Adam, both have a slight degree of mode collapse.
Generator Discriminator
----------------------------- -----------------------------
Input z Input $28\times 28\times 1$
FC(O8192), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O20), LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O256), BN, ReLU CONV(K5,S2,O50), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O128), BN, ReLU FC(O500), BN, LReLU
TCONV(K3,S2,O1), Tanh FC(O1)
Loss
: The network architecture for stability evaluation on datasets with small variability. The meanings of the symbols can be found in Table \[tab:scene\].[]{data-label="tab:small_variance"}
[cccc]{} WGANs-GP & LSGANs-GP & WGANs-GP & LSGANs-GP\
\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
&\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
&\
{width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"} & {width="22.00000%"}\
&
{width="90.00000%"}
**Datasets with small variability** Using difficult architectures is an effective way to evaluate the stability of GANs [@Arjovsky2017]. However, in practice, it is natural to select a stable architecture for a given task. The difficulty of a practical task is the task itself. Inspired by this motivation, we propose to use difficult datasets but stable architectures to evaluate the stability of GANs. We find that the datasets with small variability are difficult for GANs to learn, since the discriminator can distinguish the real samples very easily for the datasets with small variability. Specifically, we construct the datasets by rendering $28\times 28$ digits using the Times-New-Roman font. Two datasets are created[^3]: 1) one is applied with random horizontal shift; and 2) the other one is applied with random horizontal shift and random rotation from $0$ to $10$ degrees. Each category contains one thousand samples for both datasets. Note that the second dataset is with larger variability than the first one. Examples of the two synthetic datasets are shown in the first column of Fig. \[fig:small\_variance\]. We adopt a stable architecture for digits generation, following the suggestions in [@Radford2015], where the discriminator is similar to LeNet, and the generator contains three transposed convolutional layers. The detail of the network architecture is presented in Table \[tab:small\_variance\]. We train NS-GANs and LSGANs on the above two datasets, and the generated images are shown in Fig. \[fig:small\_variance\], along with the results on MNIST. We have two major observations. First, NS-GANs succeed in learning on MNIST but fail on the two synthetic digit datasets, while LSGANs succeed in learning on all the three datasets. Second, LSGANs generate higher quality images on the second dataset than the first one. This implies that increasing the variability of the dataset can improve the generated image quality and relieve the mode collapse problem. Based on this observation, applying data augmentation such as shifting, cropping, and rotation is an effective way of improving GANs learning.
### Evaluation with Gradient Penalty {#sec:stability_with_gp}
Gradient penalty has been proven to be effective in improving the stability of GAN training [@Kodali2017; @Gulrajani2017]. To compare with WGANs-GP, which is the state-of-the-art GAN model in stability, we adopt the gradient penalty in [@Kodali2017] for LSGANs and set the hyper-parameters $c$ and $\lambda$ to $30$ and $150$, respectively. For this experiment, our implementation is based on the official implementation of WGANs-GP. We follow the evaluation method in WGANs-GP: to train with six difficult architectures including 1) no normalization and a constant number of filters in the generator; 2) 4-layer 512-dimension ReLU MLP generator; 3) no normalization in either the generator or discriminator; 4) gated multiplicative nonlinearities in both the generator and discriminator; 5) tanh nonlinearities in both the generator and discriminator; and 6) 101-layer ResNet for both the generator and discriminator. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig:cmp\_wgan\], where the generated images by WGANs-GP are duplicated from [@Gulrajani2017]. We have the following two major observations. First, like WGANs-GP, LSGANs-GP also succeed in training for each architecture, including 101-layer ResNet. Second, LSGANs-GP with 101-layer ResNet generate higher quality images than the other five architectures.
Comparison of Two Parameter Schemes
-----------------------------------
As stated in Section \[sec:quantitative\], $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ perform better than $\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$ for the FID-based experiment. In this experiment, we show another comparison between the two parameter schemes. We train $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ and $\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$ on SVHN [@Netzer2011] dataset using the same network architecture. Fig. \[fig:svhn\] shows the dynamic results of the two schemes. We can observe that $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ shows faster convergence speed than $\text{LSGANs}_{(011)}$. We also evaluate the two schemes on the LSUN-bedroom and cat dataset, and similar results are observed.
Suggestions in Practice
-----------------------
Based on the above experiments, we have the following suggestions in practice. First, we suggest using $\text{LSGANs}_{(-110)}$ without gradient penalty if it works, because using gradient penalty will introduce additional computational cost and memory cost. Second, we observe that the quality of generated images by LSGANs may shift between good and bad during the training process, which is also indicated in Fig. \[fig:fid\]. Thus we suggest to keep a record of generated images at every thousand or hundred iterations and select the model manually by checking the image quality. Third, if LSGANs without gradient penalty fail, we suggest using LSGANs-GP and set the hyper-parameters according to the suggestions in literature [@Kodali2017]. In our experiments, we find that the hyper-parameter setting, $c=30$ and $\lambda=150$, works for all the tasks.
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
===========================
In this paper, we have proposed the Least Squares Generative Adversarial Networks (LSGANs) to overcome the vanishing gradients problem during the learning process. The experimental results show that LSGANs generate higher quality images than regular GANs. Based on the quantitative experiments, we find that the derived objective function that yields minimizing the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence performs better than the classical one of using least squares for classification. We also conducted three comparison experiments for evaluating the stability, and the results demonstrate that LSGANs perform more stably than regular GANs. We further compare the stability between LSGANs-GP and WGANs-GP, and LSGANs-GP show comparable stability to WGANs-GP. For the future work, instead of pulling the generated samples toward the decision boundary, designing a method to pull the generated samples toward real data directly is worth further investigation.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in *Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, 2016.
S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28*, 2015, pp. 91–99.
J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in *Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)*, 2015.
G. Hinton and R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks,” *Science*, vol. 313, no. 5786, pp. 504 – 507, 2006.
R. Salakhutdinov and G. Hinton, “Deep [B]{}oltzmann machines,” in *Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics*, vol. 5, 2009, pp. 448–455.
D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*, 2014.
I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, “Generative adversarial nets,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2014, pp. 2672–2680.
I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, *Deep Learning*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emMIT Press, 2016.
A. Nguyen, J. Yosinski, Y. Bengio, A. Dosovitskiy, and J. Clune, “Plug & play generative networks: Conditional iterative generation of images in latent space,” *arXiv:1612.00005*, 2016.
X. Chen, Y. Duan, R. Houthooft, J. Schulman, I. Sutskever, and P. Abbeel, “Infogan: Interpretable representation learning by information maximizing generative adversarial nets,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2016, pp. 2172–2180.
C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Huszar, J. Caballero, A. Cunningham, A. Acosta, A. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wang, and W. Shi, “[Photo-Realistic Single Image Super-Resolution Using a Generative Adversarial Network]{},” *arXiv:1609.04802*, 2016.
T. Salimans, I. Goodfellow, W. Zaremba, V. Cheung, A. Radford, X. Chen, and X. Chen, “Improved techniques for training gans,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2016, pp. 2226–2234.
A. Radford, L. Metz, and S. Chintala, “Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*, 2015.
L. Metz, B. Poole, D. Pfau, and J. Sohl-Dickstein, “Unrolled generative adversarial networks,” *arXiv:1611.02163*, 2016.
M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou, “Wasserstein gan,” *arXiv:1701.07875*, 2017.
G.-J. Qi, “Loss-sensitive generative adversarial networks on lipschitz densities,” *arXiv:1701.06264*, 2017.
C. M. Bishop, *Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning*, 2006.
N. Kodali, J. Abernethy, J. Hays, and Z. Kira, “On convergence and stability of gans,” *arXiv:1705.07215*, 2017.
I. Gulrajani, F. Ahmed, M. Arjovsky, V. Dumoulin, and A. Courville, “Improved training of wasserstein gans,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2017.
X. Mao, Q. Li, H. Xie, R. Y. Lau, Z. Wang, and S. P. Smolley, “Least squares generative adversarial networks,” in *International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)*, 2017.
G. W. Taylor, R. Fergus, Y. LeCun, and C. Bregler, “Convolutional learning of spatio-temporal features,” in *European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)*, 2010, pp. 140–153.
G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Replicated softmax: an undirected topic model,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2009, pp. 1607–1614.
G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y.-W. Teh, “A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets,” *Neural Computation*, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1527–1554, Jul. 2006.
Y. Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Laviolette, M. Marchand, and V. Lempitsky, “Domain-adversarial training of neural networks,” *The Journal of Machine Learning Research*, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2096–2030, 2016.
S. Reed, Z. Akata, X. Yan, L. Logeswaran, B. Schiele, and H. Lee, “Generative adversarial text-to-image synthesis,” in *Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*, 2016.
P. Isola, J.-Y. Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” *arXiv:1611.07004*, 2016.
M. Mirza and S. Osindero, “[Conditional Generative Adversarial Nets]{},” *arXiv:1411.1784*, 2014.
J. Donahue, P. Krähenbühl, and T. Darrell, “Adversarial feature learning,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*, 2017.
V. Dumoulin, I. Belghazi, B. Poole, O. Mastropietro, A. Lamb, M. Arjovsky, and A. Courville, “Adversarially learned inference,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*, 2017.
C. Li, H. Liu, C. Chen, Y. Pu, L. Chen, R. Henao, and L. Carin, “Alice: Towards understanding adversarial learning for joint distribution matching,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2017.
E. Denton, S. Chintala, A. Szlam, and R. Fergus, “Deep generative image models using a laplacian pyramid of adversarial networks,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2015, pp. 1486–1494.
X. Huang, Y. Li, O. Poursaeed, J. Hopcroft, and S. Belongie, “Stacked generative adversarial networks,” *arXiv:1612.04357*, 2016.
T. Che, Y. Li, A. P. Jacob, Y. Bengio, and W. Li, “Mode regularized generative adversarial networks,” *arXiv:1612.02136*, 2016.
S. Nowozin, B. Cseke, and R. Tomioka, “f-gan: Training generative neural samplers using variational divergence minimization,” *arXiv:1606.00709*, 2016.
J. Zhao, M. Mathieu, and Y. LeCun, “[Energy-based Generative Adversarial Network]{},” *arXiv:1609.03126*, 2016.
Z. Dai, A. Almahairi, P. Bachman, E. Hovy, and A. Courville, “Calibrating energy-based generative adversarial networks,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*, 2017.
X. Nguyen, M. J. Wainwright, and M. I. Jordan, “Estimating divergence functionals and the likelihood ratio by convex risk minimization,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5847–5861, 2010.
L. Mescheder, S. Nowozin, and A. Geiger, “The numerics of gans,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2017.
K. Roth, A. Lucchi, S. Nowozin, and T. Hofmann, “Stabilizing training of generative adversarial networks through regularization,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2017.
W. Fedus, M. Rosca, B. Lakshminarayanan, A. M. Dai, S. Mohamed, and I. Goodfellow, “Many paths to equilibrium: Gans do not need to decrease a divergence at every step,” in *International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)*, 2018.
F. Husz[á]{}r, “How (not) to train your generative model: Scheduled sampling, likelihood, adversary?” *arXiv:1511.05101*, 2015.
A. B. Dieng, D. Tran, R. Ranganath, J. Paisley, and D. M. Blei, “Variational inference via $\chi$ upper bound minimization,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2017.
M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, and et al, “[TensorFlow]{}: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems,” 2015.
W. Zhang, J. Sun, and X. Tang, “Cat head detection - how to effectively exploit shape and texture features,” in *European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)*, 2008, pp. 802–816.
M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, and S. Hochreiter, “Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,” in *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)*, 2017.
D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” *arXiv:1412.6980*, 2014.
T. Tieleman and G. Hinton, “Lecture 6.5|[R]{}[M]{}[S]{}[P]{}rop: Divide the gradient by a running average of its recent magnitude,” *COURSERA: Neural Networks for Machine Learning*, 2012.
Y. Netzer, T. Wang, A. Coates, A. Bissacco, B. Wu, and A. Y. Ng, “Reading digits in natural images with unsupervised feature learning,” in *NIPS Workshop on Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning*, 2011.
[^1]: https://github.com/carpedm20/DCGAN-tensorflow
[^2]: https://github.com/AlexiaJM/Deep-learning-with-cats
[^3]: Available at https://github.com/xudonmao/improved\_LSGAN
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Shear transformations ** (*i.e.*, localised rearrangements of particles resulting in the shear deformation of a small region of the sample) are the building blocks of mesoscale models for the flow of disordered solids. In order to compute the time-dependent response of the solid material to such a shear transformation, with a proper account of elastic heterogeneity and shear wave propagation, we propose and implement a very simple Finite-Element (FE) - based method. Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations of a binary Lennard-Jones glass are used as a benchmark for comparison, and information about the microscopic viscosity and the local elastic constants is directly extracted from the MD system and used as input in FE. We find very good agreement between FE and MD regarding the temporal evolution of the *disorder-averaged* displacement field induced by a shear transformation, which turns out to coincide with the response of a *uniform* elastic medium. However, *fluctuations* are relatively large, and their magnitude is satisfactorily captured by the FE simulations of an elastically heterogeneous system. Besides, accounting for elastic anisotropy on the mesoscale is not crucial in this respect.
The proposed method thus paves the way for models of the rheology of amorphous solids which are both computationally efficient and realistic, in that structural disorder and inertial effects are accounted for.
address:
- 'Univ. Grenoble Alpes, LIPhy, F-38000 Grenoble, France'
- 'CNRS, LIPhy, F-38000 Grenoble, France'
- 'Institut Laue-Langevin, 6 rue Jules Horowitz, BP 156, F-38042 Grenoble, France'
author:
- Alexandre NICOLAS
- Francesco PUOSI
- Hideyuki MIZUNO
- 'Jean-Louis BARRAT'
title: 'Elastic consequences of a single plastic event: towards a realistic account of structural disorder and shear wave propagation in models of flowing amorphous solids'
---
shear transformation ,plastic event ,structural disorder ,elastic moduli 62.20.D- ,83.80.Ab ,02.70.Dh,61.43.Bn
Introduction
============
Methods
=======
Molecular Dynamics
------------------
To probe the flow properties of amorphous solids, we resort to MD simulations of a 2D amorphous system. More precisely, we simulate a binary mixture of *A* and *B* particles, with $N_{A}=32500$ and $N_{B}=17500$, of respective diameters $\sigma_{AA}=1.0$ and $\sigma_{BB}=0.88$, confined in a square box of dimensions $205\sigma_{AA}\times205\sigma_{AA}$, with periodic boundary conditions. The system is at reduced density 1.2. The particles, of mass $m=1$, interact via a pairwise Lennard-Jones potential, $$V_{\alpha\beta}\left(r\right)=4\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\left[\left(\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}}{r}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}}{r}\right)^{6}\right],$$ where $\alpha,\beta=A,\, B$, $\sigma_{AB}=0.8$,$\epsilon_{AA}=1.0$, $\epsilon_{AB}=1.5$, and $\epsilon_{BB}=0.5$. The potential is truncated at $r_{c}=2.5\sigma_{AA}$ and shifted for continuity.
We conduct our study in the athermal limit, by thermostatting the system to zero temperature, so that no fluctuating force appears in the equations of motion, *viz.,* $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\boldsymbol{r_{i}}}{dt} & = & \boldsymbol{v_{i}}\nonumber \\
m\frac{d\boldsymbol{v_{i}}}{dt} & = & -\sum_{i\neq j}\frac{\partial V\left(r_{ij}\right)}{\partial\boldsymbol{r_{ij}}}+\boldsymbol{f_{i}}^{D}.\label{eq:eq_of_motion_MD}\end{aligned}$$ The impact of this implementation on the propagation of shear waves will be discussed in Section \[sub:Theoretical-expectations\_prop\].
However, the DPD algorithm does not conserve the position of the centre of mass of the system *a priori*. Since the ensuing global translations of the system may disturb the forthcoming analysis of displacements in reponse to shear transformations, the system is regularly re-centred during the simulation.
Equations \[eq:eq\_of\_motion\_MD\] are integrated with the velocity Verlet algorithm with $\delta t=0.005$. In all the following, we use $\tau_{LJ}\equiv\sqrt{m\sigma_{AA}^{2}/\epsilon}$ as the unit of time and $\sigma_{AA}$ as the unit of length.
Simplified Finite Elements\[sec:FE\_presentation\]
--------------------------------------------------
In the presence of elastic heterogeneities, the elastic response to a localised shear transformation becomes intractable to analytical calculations. This notably implies that the Fast Fourier Transform routine commonly used in elastoplastic models needs to be replaced. As a minimal substitute, we propose a simplified FE algorithm, which will also allow us to account for inertial effects.
The FE method consists in discretising a Continuum Mechanics equation onto a mesh. Here, the Continuum Mechanics equation involves elastic and dissipative (viscous) forces, as well as inertia; hence, the momentum conservation equation reads
$$\underset{\text{inertial force}}{\underbrace{\rho\frac{D\boldsymbol{\dot{u}}}{Dt}(\boldsymbol{r,}t)}}=\underset{\text{elasticity}}{\underbrace{\nabla\cdot\left[{\bf C}(\boldsymbol{r,}t)\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol{r,}t)\right]}}+\underset{\text{viscosity}}{\underbrace{\eta\nabla^{2}\boldsymbol{\dot{u}}(\boldsymbol{r,}t)}},\label{eq:Continuum}$$
where $\boldsymbol{u}$ and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ are the displacement and strain fields, respectively, $\nicefrac{D\bullet}{Dt}\equiv\nicefrac{\partial\bullet}{\partial t}+\left(\boldsymbol{v}\cdot\nabla\right)\bullet$ denotes the convected derivative, dots denote time derivatives, $\rho$ is the (area) density of the material, ${\bf C}$ denotes a local stiffness matrix, and $\eta$ is the microscopic viscosity. Upon discretisation, it turns into
$$\underset{\text{inertial force}}{\underbrace{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}\cdot\ddot{u}}}=\underset{\text{elasticity}}{\underbrace{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}\cdot u}}+\underset{\text{viscosity}}{\underbrace{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}\cdot\dot{u}}},\label{eq:Discrete2}$$
where $u$ is now a shorthand for the high-dimensional vector $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
u_{x}^{{\bf (N-1)}}, & u_{y}^{{\bf (N-1)}}, & \ldots & u_{x}^{{\bf (0)}}, & u_{y}^{{\bf (0)}}\end{array}\right)^{\top}$$ containing the displacements along $x$ and $y$ at the $N$ nodes of the mesh. $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}$, and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}$ are $2N\times2N$ real matrices (to be specified later), and the dependences on time have been omitted.
![\[fig:mesh\_FEM\]Sketch of the FE mesh. The system is periodic in both directions, so that column $N_{x}$ coincides with column 0 and row $N_{y}$ coincides with row 0. There are $N=N_{x}\times N_{y}$ nodes and elements.](FEA_meshgrid){width="7cm"}
Bearing in mind our pursuit of minimalism, we choose a simple (static) regular square meshgrid, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:mesh\_FEM\]. In an element, the local strain $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\equiv\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\epsilon_{xx}, & \epsilon_{yy}, & \sqrt{2}\epsilon_{xy}\end{array}\right)^{\top}$, using condensed notations for 2D symmetric tensors, is a function of the displacements at the local nodes, and we make the approximation of a *uniform* strain within each element[^1]. For convenience, let us number these nodes from 0 to 3 counter-clockwise, for a given element, starting from the bottom left corner, *viz.*, . In an analogous way, the (uniform) elemental stress $\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{\mathrm{el}}$ is derived from the nodal forces $\left(f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}},f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}}\right)$. Since the mesh is regular, we can define a constant $3\times8$ real matrix ${\bf B}$ that relates, in a given element, the (nodal) displacements to the (elemental) strains, on the one hand, and the (nodal) forces to the (elemental) stresses, on the other hand, *viz.*,
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\epsilon_{xx}\\
\epsilon_{yy}\\
\sqrt{2}\epsilon_{xy}
\end{array}\right)={\bf B}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
u_{x}^{(0)}\\
u_{y}^{(0)}\\
\vdots\\
u_{x}^{(3)}\\
u_{y}^{(3)}
\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{el}}\\
\sigma_{yy}^{\mathrm{el}}\\
\sqrt{2}\sigma_{xy}^{\mathrm{el}}
\end{array}\right)=-{\bf B}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,(0)}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,(0)}\\
\vdots\\
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,(3)}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,(3)}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:B_transp_matrix_FEM-1}$$
The expression of the matrix ${\bf B}$ is given in \[app:FE\_routine\], along with further details pertaining to the implementation of the FE routine and the computation of the matrices Note that the $\sqrt{2}$ prefactors have been introduced with foresight (see Section \[sec:local\_el\_csts\]) and the “minus” sign preceding ${\bf B}$ in Eq. \[eq:B\_transp\_matrix\_FEM\] is due to the fact that $\boldsymbol{f}^{\mathrm{el}\,(i)}$ is the force exerted *by* the element *on* node $i$.
The resulting routine is still simple enough to be used quite efficiently in a coarse-grained model. In particular, (see \[app:discretisation\_dynamics\]), the global force-displacement matrix is constant and, accordingly, only has to be inverted *once*, at the beginning of the simulation.
On the other hand, there are naturally a few downsides to this simplicity. First and foremost, it is only marginally stable, insofar as the convergence of the discrete FE solution to the continuous solution of Eq. \[eq:Continuum\] is not guaranteed when the mesh size tends to zero. Consequently, this scheme is not suited to general purpose. However, as will be shown below, it is both satisfactory and very convenient for the modelling of (the response to) shear transformations, where elements represent material regions of finite size. In particular, the frequently encountered checkerboard issue, whereby high and low displacements/velocities alternate erratically in neighbouring cells (hence the image of a checkerboard), is practically circumvented, provided that shear transformations span four adjacent elements (a “macro-element”) and inertia is present, *i.e.*, $\rho\neq0$.
Fitting of elastic and viscous parameters
=========================================
We are now left with the task of fitting the physical parameters appearing in Eq. \[eq:Continuum\] with the MD parameters. Neglecting mesoscopic density fluctuations, the density $\rho$ and the miscroscopic viscosity $\eta$ are supposed to be constant, while the stiffness matrix ${\bf C}(\boldsymbol{r,}t)$ is allowed to vary in space.
Viscosity
---------
To fit the viscosity $\eta$ in Eq. \[eq:Continuum\], we compare the stress due to homogeneous shear, at a rate $\dot{\gamma}$, as calculated, on the one hand, in FE ($\sigma_{xy}=\eta\dot{\gamma}$), and, on the other hand, in MD (where it is obtained through the Irving-Kirkwood formula). The calculations are shown in their full extent in \[app:viscosity\_fitting\] and lead to the following formula for a binary mixture of A and B components: $$\eta=\frac{\pi}{4}\zeta\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[n_{A}^{2}g_{AA}(r)+2n_{A}n_{B}g_{AB}(r)+n_{B}^{2}g_{BB}(r)\right]w^{2}\left(r\right)r^{3}dr,$$ where $n_{A}$ and $n_{B}$ are the number densities of $A$ and $B$ constituents in the system, $g_{AA}$, $g_{BB}$, and $g_{AB}$ are the radial distribution functions for the $A-A$, $B-B$, and $A-B$ correlations, respectively, and $\zeta$ and $w$ are the DPD damping coefficient and the damping function defined in Eq. \[eq:f\_diss\_DPD\].
For the MD system under consideration, we obtain $$\eta=0.726\,\zeta.$$
Local elastic constants\[sec:local\_el\_csts\]
----------------------------------------------
Having determined the dissipative coefficient of the model, we turn our attention to the *local* elastic properties of the system.
The only relevant material lengthscale in the model being the typical size ($a=5\sigma_{AA}$) of a rearrangement [@Nicolas2014s], we tile the system into subregions of size $a$ and compute the local stiffness tensors on this “mesoscopic” scale, with
Contrary to their macroscopic counterpart, the local ${\bf C}$ matrices are not symmetric *a priori*, for very small regions [@Tsamados2009]. However, the coarse grain $a=5\sigma_{AA}$ is large enough here for the assumption of symmetry to be a reasonable approximation. To limit the number of parameters, we further assume that isotropic contraction/dilation of the region only generates an isotropic stress, *i.e.*, that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\epsilon_{xx} & \epsilon_{yy} & \sqrt{2}\epsilon_{xy}\end{array}\right)^{\top} & = & \nicefrac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 0\end{array}\right)^{\top}\end{aligned}$$ is an eigenvector of ${\bf C}$.
These two assumptions, namely, tensorial symmetry and isotropy of the response to contraction, imply that the stiffness tensor should be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf C} & = & \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha & \delta & \beta\\
\delta & \alpha & -\beta\\
\beta & -\beta & \upsilon
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:C_full_proj_FEM}\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $\alpha,\delta,\beta,\upsilon\in\mathbb{R}$ are assessed in \[app:local\_stiffness\_tensors\]. By analogy with the macroscopic situation, the eigenvalues $c_{1}\leqslant c_{2}\leqslant c_{3}$ of the approximated matrix ${\bf C}$ are related to the local shear moduli $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ and the local bulk modulus $K$ *via* $c_{1}=2\mu_{1}$, $c_{2}=2\mu_{2}$, and $c_{3}=2K$, and there exists a frame $\left(\boldsymbol{e_{x}}(\theta),\,\boldsymbol{e_{y}}(\theta)\right)$, rotated by an angle $\theta$ with respect to the original frame, in which the stiffness tensor reads $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
K+\mu_{2} & K-\mu_{2} & 0\\
K-\mu_{2} & K+\mu_{2} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 2\mu_{1}
\end{array}\right),\text{ with }\mu_{1}\leqslant\mu_{2}.$$ Consequently, the following four local parameters suffice to determine ${\bf C}$ completely: $\theta$, $\mu_{1}$, $\mu_{2}$, and $K$.
Table \[tab:Statistical-prop\] summarises the main features of the distributions of $\mu_{1}$, $\mu_{2}$, and $K$ measured in the Lennard-Jones glass under consideration; $\theta$ is uniformly distributed, in accordance with macroscopic isotropy.
It is noteworthy that the local stiffness matrices exhibit significant anisotropy, as indicated by the discrepancy between the mean value of the shear modulus in the (locally) weaker direction, $\left\langle \mu_{1}\right\rangle =13.16$, and its strong counterpart, $\left\langle \mu_{2}\right\rangle =24.46$.
Some regions actually even display negative shear moduli $\mu_{1}$. This is not unrealistic in the MD system, because these regions can be stabilised by the surrounding medium, but in the following they will be discarded, and arbitrarily set to zero, in the FE simulations, where they cause instabilities.
Lastly, the bulk modulus is much larger (by a factor of 5) than the shear moduli, in line with expectations, and its relative standard deviation (*i.e.*, the ratio of the standard deviation and the mean value) is by far smaller than it is for the shear moduli, which means that, on a relative basis, the latter are more broadly distributed. Consequently, we will henceforth always neglect spatial fluctuations of the bulk modulus and set $K=99.9$. As for the distributions of shear moduli, three types of systems will be considered in FE:
\(i) a uniform system, with
\(ii) a heterogeneous system made of isotropic blocks (“het. iso.”), with
\(iii) a heterogeneous system made of anisotropic blocks (“het. aniso.”), with
*Denomination* *Symbol* *Mean* *Std dev.*
---------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------- ------------
Shear modulus (weak direction) $\mu_{1}$ 13.16 7.2
Shear modulus (strong direction) $\mu_{2}$ 24.46 5.8
Average shear modulus $\mu\equiv\frac{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}}{2}$ 18.81 5.3
Bulk modulus $K$ 99.9 8.4
: \[tab:Statistical-prop\]Statistical properties of the elastic constant distributions: mean values and standard deviations (std dev.).
Through the simulation of plane shear waves, we have checked that the transverse sound velocity measured in FE is consistent with that measured in MD.
Protocol for the artificially triggered shear transformations
=============================================================
In this section, we describe the protocol to artificially trigger ideal shear transformations.
In the MD system, following @Puosi2014, shear transformations are artificially created by applying a pure shear strain $\epsilon_{xy}$ to a disk centred at $(x_{0},y_{0})$ and of diameter $a=5\sigma_{AA}$. To do so, particles whose initial position $(x_{i},y_{i})$ belongs to this region are moved to a new position $(x_{i}^{\prime},y_{i}^{\prime})$ at $t=0$, which satisfies
$$\begin{cases}
x_{i}\rightarrow x_{i}^{\prime} & =x_{i}+\epsilon_{xy}\left(y_{i}-y_{0}\right)\\
y_{i}\rightarrow y_{i}^{\prime} & =y_{i}+\epsilon_{xy}\left(x_{i}-x_{0}\right).
\end{cases}$$ Their positions are then frozen for the whole simulation. In order to measure the elastic, *i.e.*, reversible, response of the medium, $\epsilon_{xy}$ never exceeds a few percent strain. Clearly, all (transient or permanent) dilational effects [@Schuh2007] potentially accompanying shear transformations are here discarded.
A similar shear transformation is applied in the FE simulations to a macro-element made of four adjacent elements (see Section \[sec:FE\_presentation\]), by controlling the positions of the nodes of these elements, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:sketch\_FE\_STZ\].
![\[fig:sketch\_FE\_STZ\]Sketch of the displacements applied to a macro-element to model a pure shear transformation.](strain_FEM){width="4cm"}
Disorder-averaged propagation of shear waves\[sec:Disorder-averaged-propagation\]
=================================================================================
Let us first probe the *disorder-averaged* time-dependent response to a shear transformation, in different damping regimes, both in FE and in MD. To this end, MD simulations are averaged over many (50) locations of the shear transformation in the sample, while the FE results are averaged over many (50) realisations of the disorder, *i.e.,* of the random values of the local elastic constants.
Comparison between MD and Finite Elements\[sec:propagation\_comp\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
For a quantitative study, we make use of the average propagation radius $\Delta_{r}(t)$ introduced by @Puosi2014 to measure the advance of the wave, $$\Delta_{r}(t)\equiv\iint|u_{r}(\boldsymbol{r};t)|d^{2}\boldsymbol{r},$$ where $u_{r}(t)$ is the radial displacement at time $t$. If the final displacement ($u_{r}(\boldsymbol{r};t=\infty)\sim r^{-1}$ in any given direction $\theta$ in the far field) is essentially achieved as soon as a region is reached by the wavefront, $\Delta_{r}(t)$ will grow linearly with the (linear) size of the displaced region. The average propagation radius is plotted in Fig. \[fig:avg\_prop\_radius\_FEM\] for diverse values of the damping $\zeta$. The initial growth is ballistic in MD, with $\Delta_{r}(t)\sim t$ , while at long times $\Delta_{r}(t)$ saturates to its steady-state value. The evolution of $\Delta_{r}(t)$ before the steady state is reached strongly depends on $\zeta$. At low damping ($\zeta=1$), the interaction with the waves generated by the periodic replicas of the shear transformation leads to particularly long-lived oscillations of $\Delta_{r}(t)$ (Fig. \[fig:avg\_prop\_radius\_FEM\]a), while stronger damping ($\zeta=100$) completely suppresses these oscillations.
The FE simulations nicely capture this qualitative change, and the agreement both in the limit of low damping (Fig. \[fig:avg\_prop\_radius\_FEM\]a) and in the limit of strong damping (Fig. \[fig:avg\_prop\_radius\_FEM\]c) is excellent, at relatively long times. This is true for all three FE systems, including the uniform one, which supports the idea that the *average* propagation in elastically heterogeneous media is virtually identical to the propagation in a uniform medium.
For an intermediate value of the damping, namely, $\zeta=10$ (Fig. \[fig:avg\_prop\_radius\_FEM\]b), the agreement is reasonable, but not quite as good, insofar as the oscillations observed in MD are damped perceptibly faster than their counterparts in FE, not only in the uniform system, but also in the heterogeneous one (het. iso.). This suggests that the FE viscosity is somewhat underestimated, or that the anharmonicities present in MD significantly contribute to the damping of the oscillations.
Finally, the short-time propagation is well described at low damping, but the agreement declines when $\zeta$ increases, in which case the FE method overestimates the propagation velocity over short distances.
Theoretical rationalisation\[sub:Theoretical-expectations\_prop\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Puosi and co-workers [@Puosi2014] reported that, with a mean-field dissipative force (*i.e*., ** by substituting $\boldsymbol{f_{i}}^{D}=\nicefrac{-m\boldsymbol{v_{i}}}{\tau_{d}}$ for Eq. \[eq:f\_diss\_DPD\] in Eq. \[eq:eq\_of\_motion\_MD\]), $\Delta_{r}(t)\sim t^{\nicefrac{1}{2}}$, at large damping, that is to say, for short Langevin damping times $\tau_{d}$. By contrast, no such diffusive regime is observed here, even for large damping parameters $\zeta$.
### Mean-field dissipation
In the presence of a mean-field damping force, force balance on particle $i$ can schematically be written as $$\begin{aligned}
m\boldsymbol{\dot{v}_{i}}(t)+\frac{m\boldsymbol{v_{i}}(t)}{\tau_{d}} & \approx & k\sum_{\left\langle j|i\right\rangle }\left(\boldsymbol{u}_{j}(t)-\boldsymbol{u}_{i}(t)\right),\label{eq:MD_prop_FEM}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum runs over the neighbours $j$ of $i$, $k$ is a typical stiffness, *i.e.*, the order of magnitude of the relevant Hessian components $\partial^{2}V/\partial\boldsymbol{r_{i}}\partial\boldsymbol{r_{j}}$, and the $\boldsymbol{u_{j}}$’s are the displacements with respect to an equilibrium configuration. Let us now introduce a continuous, coarse-grained displacement field $\boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{r};t)$ and a typical interparticle distance $a_{0}$, and substitute the former into Eq. \[eq:MD\_prop\_FEM\], in the overdamped limit $\tau_{d}\rightarrow0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m}{\tau}\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{u}}{\partial t} & \approx & ka_{0}^{2}\nabla^{2}\boldsymbol{u}.\end{aligned}$$ In this regime of negligible inertia, we thus obtain a diffusive equation for the particle displacements, consistently with the MD observations.
### Dissipative Particle Dynamics
Very crudely, the DPD equations of motion (Eqs. \[eq:eq\_of\_motion\_MD\]-\[eq:f\_diss\_DPD\]) are approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
m\ddot{\boldsymbol{u}} & \approx & \tilde{\zeta}\sum_{\left\langle j|i\right\rangle }\left(\boldsymbol{\dot{u}}_{j}(t)-\boldsymbol{\dot{u}}_{i}(t)\right)+k\sum_{\left\langle j|i\right\rangle }\left(\boldsymbol{u}_{j}(t)-\boldsymbol{u}_{i}(t)\right)\nonumber \\
m\ddot{\boldsymbol{u}} & \approx & \tilde{\zeta}a_{0}^{2}\nabla^{2}\boldsymbol{\dot{u}}+ka_{0}^{2}\nabla^{2}\boldsymbol{u},\label{eq:DPD_eq_FEM}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\zeta}\equiv\zeta w^{2}\left(a_{0}\right)$.
Equation \[eq:DPD\_eq\_FEM\] is a diffusion equation (on $\boldsymbol{\dot{u}}$) *only if* the elastic force is negligible, which will not be the case in practice. (More generally, Eq. \[eq:DPD\_eq\_FEM\] can be solved with a space-time Fourier transform, or a joint Laplace-Fourier transform).
It can also be seen in Eq. \[eq:DPD\_eq\_FEM\] that, regardless of the value of $\zeta$, the inertial term $m\ddot{\boldsymbol{u}}$ will always dominate at long enough wavelengths. In an unbounded system, this notably implies that the inertialess Brownian limit, which features an infinite transverse sound velocity, is singular.
Effect of structural disorder in MD and in FE\[sec:Disorder\_fluctuations\_response\]
=====================================================================================
Let us now investigate the impact of elastic heterogeneity on the displacement field induced by an individual plastic event, *i.e.*, the importance of fluctuations around the disorder-averaged response.
The norm of the average displacement $\boldsymbol{u}\left(\boldsymbol{r};t\right)$ along a diagonal direction, at a long time lag $\Delta t=1000$, is plotted in Fig. \[fig:fluct\_avg\_FEM\] for $\zeta=1$ and $\zeta=100$, along with the associated standard deviation $\delta u$, *i.e.,* $$\delta u\left(\boldsymbol{r};t\right)=\sqrt{\left\langle \left[\boldsymbol{u}^{(d)}\left(\boldsymbol{r};t\right)-\boldsymbol{u}\left(\boldsymbol{r};t\right)\right]^{2}\right\rangle _{d}},$$ where the brackets denote an average over the realisations of disorder. Incidentally, one may notice that, for $\zeta=1$ (Fig. \[fig:fluct\_avg\_FEM\_1\]), MD and FE do not coincide satisfactorily with respect to the average displacements, but this is mostly due to a loss of synchronization: the oscillations described in Section \[sec:propagation\_comp\] have not died out yet at this time lag and they are not exactly in phase in the different systems. Had the true steady-state limit, $\Delta t\rightarrow\infty$, been reached (at the expense of much longer simulations), we would have expected much better agreement on the average displacements. This expectation is supported by the coincidence of the average displacements at $\Delta t=1000$ under strong damping, for $\zeta=100$ (see Fig. \[fig:fluct\_avg\_FEM\_100\]), in which case dissipation is more efficient and the steady state is reached after fewer MD steps; indeed, in the linear regime probed here, the final state should be independent of the dynamics, hence of $\zeta$.
Regarding the fluctuations, the main result is that their order of magnitude is well reproduced by the FE simulations, both with isotropic blocks (het. iso., $\mu_{1}=\mu_{2}$) and with anisotropic blocks (het. aniso.), although, quite naturally, het. aniso. displays larger fluctuations than het. iso. Moreover, it is noteworthy that these corrections $\delta u$ are roughly half as large as the mean reponse at a distance of, *e.g.*, $50\sigma_{AA}$. To avoid any misunderstanding on the possible nature of the fluctuations measured in MD, let us recall here that the centre of mass of the MD simulation cell is kept fixed, which prevents the variable global translations of the system that are sometimes observed otherwise (and which then dominate the fluctuations)[^2].
With regard to the spatial distribution of $\delta u$, colour maps of the relative fluctuations $\delta u(\boldsymbol{r};t)/u(\boldsymbol{r};t)$ are presented in Fig. \[fig:fluct\_over\_mean\_FEM\]. In regions with non-negligible displacements, *i.e.*, $u(\boldsymbol{r};t)\geqslant10^{-2}$, the relative fluctuations are approximately homogeneous and tend to increase slightly with time.
In conclusion to this section, taking into account the broad distribution of shear moduli in FE has enabled us to recover the fluctuations observed in MD. This further confirms the role of structural disorder on the redistribution of stress induced by a plastic event. In the last section, we go one step further by attempting to reproduce the individual, time-dependent response to a *given* plastic event in MD with the simple FE framework.
Time-dependent response to a particular plastic event
=====================================================
Even though the study of the propagation dynamics (Section \[sec:Disorder-averaged-propagation\]) and of disorder-induced fluctuations (Section \[sec:Disorder\_fluctuations\_response\]) validates the FE method for (future) use in, *e.g.*, mesoscopic rheological models, we would like to know whether the comparison can be pushed further. More precisely, can the FE routine describe the details of the elastic response in a *particular* configuration?
To address this question, within the third type of FE mode, namely, het. aniso., the local shear moduli $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ and the angle $\theta$ of each FE macro-element (*i.e.,* set of four adjacent elements) are directly extracted from the corresponding region in the MD system. Then, we compute the coarse-grained strain field[^3] induced by shear transformations occurring at given position in the sample, an example of which is shown in Fig. \[fig:singleST\_FEM\].
Clearly, the MD response and its FE counterpart look alike and both exhibit the distinctive quadrupolar angular structure associated to the response in a uniform medium. However, are the disorder-induced fluctuations, *i.e*, the deviations from this average response, also similar in MD and FE? In an endeavour to answer this question, we have looked at the *deviations* in half a dozen particular configurations (*not shown*) and considered a couple of basic measures of similarity, but our results remain inconclusive in this respect: there is no quantifiable evidence that the disorder-induced fluctuations in a particular MD configuration are satisfactorily reproduced in FE.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have extracted information about the local elastic constants of a binary Lennard-Jones mixture and the viscosity associated with a DPD damping scheme. Consistently with the findings of @Mizuno2013moduli, we have found that
These elastic and viscous properties were used as input in a simple FE routine and an ideal shear transformation was artificially triggered in the (FE and MD) systems.
We observed that the *average* time-dependent elastic response to this transformation in a disordered medium is similar to the propagation in a uniform medium and it is well reproduced in the FE simulations. However, fluctuations with respect to the average displacement field are considerable, with relative fluctuations of a few tens of percents. The approximate magnitude of these fluctuations is captured by FE simulations on heterogeneous, but locally isotropic systems. Refining the description by considering the elastic anisotropy on the mesoscale does not play a major role in this respect.
It should however be stressed that, throughout our investigation, shear transformations were arbitrarily imposed, through an instantaneous displacement of particles (or FE nodes). However, in a *bona fide* simulation, the dynamics of shear transformations are determined by the system itself; two dynamical regimes can then be envisioned:
\(i) if inertia is negligible, the competitition between elasticity and viscosity sets the timescale of the rearrangement, $\tau=\eta/\mu$,
\(ii) if the rearrangement mostly consists in the damping of the inertial force (initially generated by elasticity), then the duration of a rearrangement is set by the inverse damping coefficient $\zeta^{-1}$.
All in all, our method represents a powerful new framework for rheological models for amorphous solids, which improves on the traditional use of an analytical elastic propagator and the computation of the response by means of a Fast Fourier Transform, in that it accounts for structural disorder and inertial effects, whose impact has been underscored by @Salerno2012, it can be extended to arbitrary (in particular, confined) geometries, and it may include pre-existing local defects in the material, such as cracks. A further asset of this strategy is that, notwithstanding the enhanced capabilities of the algorithm, its complexity in terms of number of operations scales linearly with the number of blocks (or FE cells) for large systems, that is, with a scaling comparable to that of the Fast Fourier Transform routine.
*Acknowledgements*
AN thanks Richard [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Michel</span>]{} for his help with the Finite Element method. The MD simulations were carried out on clusters belonging to the CIMENT infrastructure (https://ciment.ujf-grenoble.fr), which is supported by the Rhône-Alpes region (GRANT CPER07\_13 CIRA: http://www.ci-ra.org), using LAMMPS molecular dynamics software [@Plimpton1995] (http: //lammps.sandia.gov). JLB is supported by Institut Universitaire de France and by grant ERC-2011-ADG20110209.
*Bibliography*
[31]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Amon, A., Bruand, A., Crassous, J., Cl[é]{}ment, E., et al., 2012. Hot spots in an athermal system. Physical Review Letters 108 (13), 135502.
Argon, A., Kuo, H., 1979. [Plastic flow in a disordered bubble raft (an analog of a metallic glass)]{}. Materials Science and Engineering 39 (1), 101–109.
Berthier, L., Biroli, G., 2011. Theoretical perspective on the glass transition and amorphous materials. Reviews of Modern Physics 83 (2), 587.
Budrikis, Z., Zapperi, S., 2013. Avalanche localization and crossover scaling in amorphous plasticity. Physical Review E 88 (6), 062403.
Chandler, D., Garrahan, J., 2010. Dynamics on the way to forming glass: Bubbles in space-time. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 61 (1), 191–217.
Desmond, K. W., Weeks, E. R., 2013. Experimental measurements of stress redistribution in flowing emulsions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.0269.
Eshelby, J., 1957. [The Determination of the Elastic Field of an Ellipsoidal Inclusion, and Related Problems]{}. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 241 (1226), 376–396.
Falk, M., Langer, J., 1998. [Dynamics of viscoplastic deformation in amorphous solids]{}. Physical Review E 57 (6), 7192–7205.
Lin, J., Saade, A., Lerner, E., Rosso, A., Wyart, M., 2014. On the density of shear transformations in amorphous solids. Europhysics Letters (EPL) 105 (2), 26003–26009.
Lubchenko, V., Wolynes, P., 2007. Theory of structural glasses and supercooled liquids. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 58, 235–266.
Martens, K., Bocquet, L., Barrat, J.-L., 2011. Connecting diffusion and dynamical heterogeneities in actively deformed amorphous systems. Physical Review Letters 106 (15), 156001.
Martens, K., Bocquet, L., Barrat, J.-L., 2012. Spontaneous formation of permanent shear bands in a mesoscopic model of flowing disordered matter. Soft Matter 8 (15), 4197–4205.
Mizuno, H., Mossa, S., Barrat, J.-L., 2013. Measuring spatial distribution of the local elastic modulus in glasses. Physical Review E 87 (4), 042306.
Nicolas, A., Martens, K., Bocquet, L., Barrat, J.-L., 2014. Universal and non-universal features in coarse-grained models of flow in disordered solids. Soft Matter 10, 4648–4661.
Nicolas, A., Rottler, J., Barrat, J.-L., 2014. Spatiotemporal correlations between plastic events in the shear flow of athermal amorphous solids. The European Physical Journal E 37 (6).
Picard, G., Ajdari, A., Lequeux, F., Bocquet, L., 2004. [Elastic consequences of a single plastic event: a step towards the microscopic modeling of the flow of yield stress fluids.]{} The European physical journal. E, Soft matter 15 (4), 371–81.
Picard, G., Ajdari, A., Lequeux, F., Bocquet, L., 2005. Slow flows of yield stress fluids: Complex spatiotemporal behavior within a simple elastoplastic model. Physical Review E 71 (1), 010501.
Plimpton, S., 1995. Fast parallel algorithms for short-range molecular dynamics. Journal of computational physics 117 (1), 1–19.
Puosi, F., Rottler, J., Barrat, J.-L., 2014. Time-dependent elastic response to a local shear transformation in amorphous solids. Physical Review E 89, 042302.
Rottler, J., Schoenholz, S., Liu, A., 2014. Predicting plasticity with soft vibrational modes: From dislocations to glasses. Physical Review E 89 (4), 042304.
Salerno, K., Maloney, C. E., Robbins, M. O., 2012. [Avalanches in Strained Amorphous Solids: Does Inertia Destroy Critical Behavior?]{} Physical Review Letters 109 (10), 105703.
Salerno, K. M., Robbins, M. O., 2013. Effect of inertia on sheared disordered solids: Critical scaling of avalanches in two and three dimensions. Physical Review E 88 (6), 062206.
Sandfeld, S., Budrikis, Z., Zapperi, S., Castellanos, D. F., 2015. Avalanches, loading and finite size effects in 2d amorphous plasticity: results from a finite element model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2015 (2), P02011. <http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2015/i=2/a=P02011>
Schall, P., Weitz, D., Spaepen, F., 2007. [Structural rearrangements that govern flow in colloidal glasses.]{} Science (New York, N.Y.) 318 (5858), 1895–9.
Schuh, C., Hufnagel, T., Ramamurty, U., 2007. Mechanical behavior of amorphous alloys. Acta Materialia 55 (12), 4067–4109.
Soddemann, T., D[ü]{}nweg, B., Kremer, K., 2003. Dissipative particle dynamics: A useful thermostat for equilibrium and nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations. Physical Review E 68 (4), 046702.
Talamali, M., Petäjä, V., Vandembroucq, D., Roux, S., 2011. [Avalanches, precursors, and finite-size fluctuations in a mesoscopic model of amorphous plasticity]{}. Physical Review E 84 (1).
Tsamados, M., Tanguy, A., Goldenberg, C., Barrat, J.-L., 2009. [Local elasticity map and plasticity in a model Lennard-Jones glass]{}. Physical Review E 80 (2).
Vandembroucq, D., Roux, S., 2011. Mechanical noise dependent aging and shear banding behavior of a mesoscopic model of amorphous plasticity. Physical Review B 84 (13), 134210.
Varnik, F., Mandal, S., Chikkadi, V., Denisov, D., Olsson, P., V[å]{}gberg, D., Raabe, D., Schall, P., 2014. Correlations of plasticity in sheared glasses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.3986.
Widmer-Cooper, A., Perry, H., Harrowell, P., Reichman, D., 2008. [Irreversible reorganization in a supercooled liquid originates from localized soft modes]{}. Nature Physics 4 (9), 711–715.
Simplified Finite Element routine\[app:FE\_routine\]
====================================================
Bearing in mind our pursuit of minimalism, we choose a simple regular square meshgrid, as sketched in Fig. \[fig:mesh\_FEM\]. If one assumes that the strain and stress fields are approximately uniform in each element, the following equations can be written between the (nodal) displacements $\left(u_{x},u_{y}\right)$ and the (elemental) strains $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$, on the one hand, and the (nodal) forces $\left(f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}},f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}}\right)$ and the (elemental) stresses $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, on the other hand:
$$\boldsymbol{\epsilon}={\bf B}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
u_{x}^{(0)}\\
u_{y}^{(0)}\\
\vdots\\
u_{x}^{(3)}\\
u_{y}^{(3)}
\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\boldsymbol{\sigma}=-{\bf B}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,(0)}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,(0)}\\
\vdots\\
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,(3)}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,(3)}
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:B_transp_matrix_FEM}$$
where the nodes of the element have been numbered from 0 to 3 counter-clockwise, starting from the bottom left corner, *viz.*, , and $u_{x}^{(0)}$ denotes the displacement along $x$ at the (0) node*, etc.* Here, we have used condensed notations for the 2D strains and the stresses, *viz.*, $$\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
\epsilon_{xx}\\
\epsilon_{yy}\\
\sqrt{2}\epsilon_{xy}
\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\boldsymbol{\sigma}\equiv\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_{xx}^{\mathrm{el}}\\
\sigma_{yy}^{\mathrm{el}}\\
\sqrt{2}\sigma_{xy}^{\mathrm{el}}
\end{array}\right),$$ and the matrix ${\bf B}$ is given by
Notice that our simplified FE method is close to a Finite Volume method, in practice.
Contrary to traditional FE codes, the mesh will here remain static, *i.e.*, not be distorted owing to the material deformation.
Elastic force-displacement matrix\[sec:elastic\_force\_disp\_matrix\_FEM\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objective is now to rewrite Eq. \[eq:Continuum\] in terms of nodal displacements and forces in order to arrive at Eq. \[eq:Discrete2\].
To relate the nodal displacements and the nodal forces in each element, we make use of the constitutive equation of the material.
To start with, the elastic contribution is governed by Hooke’s law, which reads, in condensed notations [@Tsamados2009], $$\boldsymbol{\sigma}=\mathbf{C}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon},\label{eq:Stiffness_0}$$ where ${\bf C}$ is a $3\times3$ real matrix. Substituting from Eq. \[eq:B\_transp\_matrix\_FEM\], one obtains the local relation between the forces exerted on the nodes by the material element under consideration and the displacements at the nodes, *viz.*, $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,(0)}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,(0)}\\
\vdots\\
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,(3)}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,(3)}
\end{array}\right)=-{\bf B}^{\top}\mathbf{C}{\bf B}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
u_{x}^{(0)}\\
u_{y}^{(0)}\\
\vdots\\
u_{x}^{(3)}\\
u_{y}^{(3)}
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:BCB_FEM}$$
To proceed, the *local* elastic force-displacement matrices ${\bf K}\equiv-{\bf B}^{\top}\mathbf{C}{\bf B}$ are assembled into a global elastic force-displacement matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}$, *viz.,* $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,\mathbf{(N-1)}}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,\mathbf{(N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
f_{x}^{\mathrm{el}\,\mathbf{(0)}}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{el}\,{\bf (0)}}
\end{array}\right)=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
u_{x}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
u_{y}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
u_{x}^{{\bf (0)}}\\
u_{y}^{{\bf (0)}}
\end{array}\right),$$ where the bold superscripts refer to the global labels used in Fig. \[fig:mesh\_FEM\], by opposition with the elemental labels used in Eq. \[eq:BCB\_FEM\]. Here, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}$ is a sparse $2N\times2N$ matrix.
Viscous force-velocity matrix
-----------------------------
The foregoing derivation relies on the linear relation connecting local strains and elastic stresses. Thus, it can straightforwardly be extended to the viscous stresses, insofar as they are linearly related with the local strain rates, *viz.*, $$\boldsymbol{\dot{\sigma}}^{\mathrm{diss}}=\mathbf{C^{diss}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\dot{\epsilon}}.\label{eq:C_diss_0}$$ Globally, the viscous force-velocity relation reads
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
f_{x}^{\mathrm{diss}\,\mathbf{(N-1)}}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{diss}\,\mathbf{(N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
f_{x}^{\mathrm{diss}\,\mathbf{(0)}}\\
f_{y}^{\mathrm{diss}\,{\bf (0)}}
\end{array}\right)=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
\dot{u}_{x}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\dot{u}_{y}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
\dot{u}_{x}^{{\bf (0)}}\\
\dot{u}_{y}^{{\bf (0)}}
\end{array}\right),$$ where the $2N\times2N$ matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}$ has been assembled from elemental matrices of the form $-{\bf B}^{\top}\mathbf{C^{diss}}{\bf B}$.
Inertial force-acceleration matrix
----------------------------------
Finally, we must express the inertial forces, that is to say, the matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$ in Eq. \[eq:Discrete2\]. The convected part of the material derivative of the velocity, namely, $\boldsymbol{v}\cdot\left(\nabla\boldsymbol{v}\right)$ , which scales with $v^{2}$ for elements of unit size, is neglected.
We compute the inertial forces directly at the nodes. In other words, each node is assigned a mass $m_{0}\equiv\rho V_{0}$, where $V_{0}$ is the elemental volume (*i.e.*, area). Accordingly, the lumped-mass matrix $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}$ connecting the accelerations at the nodes to the inertial forces at the nodes is a $2N\times2N$ matrix with $m_{0}$ on the diagonal, *i.e.*, $$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{0}\\
& \ddots\\
& & m_{0}
\end{array}\right).$$
Below, we detail the steps and approximations that bridge the gap between the Continuum Mechanics formulation of Eq. \[eq:Continuum\] and the following FE problem,
$$\underset{\text{inertial force}}{\underbrace{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{M}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\ddot{u}_{x}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\ddot{u}_{y}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
\ddot{u}_{x}^{\mathbf{(0)}}\\
\ddot{u}_{y}^{\mathbf{(0)}}
\end{array}\right)}}=\underset{\text{elasticity}}{\underbrace{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
u_{x}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
u_{y}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
u_{x}^{\mathbf{(0)}}\\
u_{y}^{\mathbf{(0)}}
\end{array}\right)}}+\underset{\text{viscosity}}{\underbrace{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\dot{u}_{x}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\dot{u}_{y}^{{\bf (N-1)}}\\
\vdots\\
\dot{u}_{x}^{\mathbf{(0)}}\\
\dot{u}_{y}^{\mathbf{(0)}}
\end{array}\right)}},\label{eq:Discrete}$$
where the $u_{x}^{\mathbf{(i)}}$’s and $u_{y}^{\mathbf{(i)}}$’s are the displacements at the nodes $i\in\left\{ 0,\ldots,N-1\right\} $ of a regular mesh.
Discretisation of the dynamics\[app:discretisation\_dynamics\]
--------------------------------------------------------------
A central difference scheme is used to discretise Eq. \[eq:Discrete\] in time, *viz.*, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\dot{u}\left(t_{n}\right) & = & \frac{\delta u\left(t_{n+1}\right)-\delta u\left(t_{n-1}\right)}{2\delta t}+\mathcal{O}(\delta t^{2})\nonumber \\
\delta\ddot{u}\left(t_{n}\right) & = & \frac{\delta u\left(t_{n+1}\right)+\delta u\left(t_{n-1}\right)-2\delta u\left(t_{n}\right)}{\delta t^{2}}+\mathcal{O}(\delta t),\label{eq:iterative_scheme_FEM}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{n-1}$, $t_{n}$, and $t_{n+1}$ refer to consecutive time , separated by a fixed time step $\delta t$.
After insertion into Eq. \[eq:Discrete\], provided that $\delta u(t_{n-1})$ and $\delta u(t_{n})$ are known, the displacements at the next time step $\delta u(t_{n+1})$ are straightforwardly obtained by inverting a matrix. The advantage of using a static meshgrid is that this matrix is then constant and, accordingly, can be inverted once and for all at the beginning of the simulation.
Biperiodic boundary conditions
------------------------------
We implement biperiodic boundary conditions by connecting the leftmost nodes of the system to the rightmost ones (see Fig. \[fig:mesh\_FEM\]), and the top row to the bottom one.
Relation between the intrinsic macroscopic viscosity and the microscopic damping coefficient\[app:viscosity\_fitting\]
======================================================================================================================
In MD, the damping magnitude is set by the coefficient $\zeta$ in the expression of the dissipative force $\boldsymbol{f_{i}}^{D}$ (Eq. \[eq:f\_diss\_DPD\]), whereas it is set by the viscosity $\eta$ in FE. In order to match the damping in both simulations, we must connect the MD dissipative force $\boldsymbol{f_{i}}^{D}$ to the viscous stress in FE, namely, $\boldsymbol{\sigma^{\mathrm{diss}}}=2\eta\boldsymbol{\dot{\epsilon}}$ (see Eq. \[eq:Continuum\]).
To this end, we consider a pure shear situation, in which particles are strictly advected by the flow $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{v}(\boldsymbol{r}) & = & \boldsymbol{\dot{\epsilon}}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}\\
\text{with }\boldsymbol{\dot{\epsilon}} & \equiv & \dot{\epsilon}_{xy}\left(\boldsymbol{e_{y}}\otimes\boldsymbol{e_{x}}+\boldsymbol{e_{x}}\otimes\boldsymbol{e_{y}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
On the one hand, in MD, the microscopic dissipative stress on particle $i$ (of volume $V_{0}$) is obtained with the help of the Irving-Kirkwood formula, *viz.,* $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\boldsymbol{r_{i}}) & = & V_{0}^{-1}\sum_{j}\boldsymbol{r_{ij}}\otimes\boldsymbol{f_{ij}^{D}}\\
& = & -\zeta V_{0}^{-1}\sum_{j}w^{2}\left(r_{ij}\right)\frac{\boldsymbol{v_{ij}}\cdot\boldsymbol{r_{ij}}}{r_{ij}^{2}}\boldsymbol{r_{ij}}\otimes\boldsymbol{r_{ij}}.\end{aligned}$$ Focusing on the xy-component of the stress and setting $\boldsymbol{r_{i}}$ as the origin of the frame, *i.e., $\boldsymbol{r_{i}}={\bf 0}$,* for convenience, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{xy}(\boldsymbol{r_{i}}={\bf 0}) & = & \zeta V_{0}^{-1}\sum_{j}w^{2}\left(r_{j}\right)\frac{\boldsymbol{v_{j}}\cdot\boldsymbol{r_{j}}}{r_{j}^{2}}x_{j}y_{j}\nonumber \\
& = & \zeta\dot{\epsilon}_{xy}V_{0}^{-1}\sum_{j}w^{2}\left(r_{j}\right)\frac{2y_{j}x_{j}}{r_{j}^{2}}x_{j}y_{j}\nonumber \\
& \simeq & 2\zeta\dot{\epsilon}_{xy}V_{0}^{-1}\iint ng(r)w^{2}\left(r\right)\frac{x^{2}y^{2}}{r^{2}}d^{2}r\nonumber \\
& = & 2\zeta n\dot{\epsilon}_{xy}V_{0}^{-1}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\cos^{2}(\theta)\sin^{2}(\theta)d\theta\int_{0}^{\infty}g(r)w^{2}\left(r\right)r^{3}dr\label{eq:sigma_DPD}\\
& = & \frac{\pi}{2}\zeta n\dot{\epsilon}_{xy}V_{0}^{-1}\int_{0}^{\infty}g(r)w^{2}\left(r\right)r^{3}dr.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here, $n$ is the average number density of the system and $g(r)$ is the (alledgedly isotropic) pair correlation function. Equation \[eq:sigma\_DPD\] expresses the stress in a volume of space occupied by a particle; elsewhere the stress is zero. Therefore, the average stress in the material reads $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\sigma_{xy}} & = & \left(nV_{0}\right)\sigma_{xy}(\boldsymbol{r_{i}}={\bf 0})\\
& = & \frac{\pi}{2}\zeta\dot{\epsilon}_{xy}n^{2}\int_{0}^{\infty}g(r)w^{2}\left(r\right)r^{3}dr\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, in FE, the shear stress simply obeys $\overline{\sigma_{xy}}=2\eta\dot{\epsilon}_{xy}$.
It immediately follows that
If $w^{2}$ decreases fast (but smoothly) and the particles are hard and dense enough, so that $g\left(r\right)$ exhibits a sharp peak at $r=a_{0}$, the viscosity in Eq. \[eq:eta\_Mono\] can be further approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta & \simeq & \frac{1}{8}\zeta n\left(2\pi n\right)\int_{a_{0}-\epsilon}^{a_{0}+\epsilon}g(r)w^{2}\left(r\right)r^{3}dr.\\
& \simeq & \frac{\zeta nw^{2}\left(a_{0}\right)}{8}\left(2\pi n\right)\int_{a_{0}-\epsilon}^{a_{0}+\epsilon}g(r)r^{3}dr\\
& \simeq & \frac{1}{8}\zeta nw^{2}\left(a_{0}\right)a_{0}^{2}z_{c},\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{c}$ is the coordination number, *i.e.*, the number of first neighbours (at a distance $r\sim a_{0}$).
Equation \[eq:eta\_Mono\] is valid for a one-component system, but the extension to binary mixtures, of components A and B, is straightforward; with transparent notations, the viscosity reads
In the considered Lennard-Jones system, this leads to $\eta=0.726\,\zeta$.
Determination of the local stiffness tensors\[app:local\_stiffness\_tensors\]
=============================================================================
With our condensed notations for the stress and strain tensors (Eq. \[eq:C3x3\_FEM\]), the macroscopic stiffness tensor of an isotropic material of bulk modulus $K$ and shear modulus $\mu$ reads $${\bf C}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
K+\mu & K-\mu & 0\\
K-\mu & K+\mu & 0\\
0 & 0 & 2\mu
\end{array}\right).$$
In comparison, local stiffness tensors display rather unusual properties. To grasp the meaning of their (lack of) symmetries, some brief general considerations about elasticity and deformation are in order.
Suppose that a small macroscopic strain $\bar{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}$ is applied to a sample and focus on a mesoscopic region $\mathcal{S}$. The local linear strain tensor $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ is defined as the *symmetric* tensor that best matches the displacements of the particles in $\mathcal{S}$ due to the applied strain. Only if the deformation is strictly affine over the whole sample do the local strain tensors equate to $\bar{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}$.
Because, for a given short-range interparticle potential, the local stress $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ results from the local configuration of particles, it is reasonable (but not strictly necessary) to suppose the existence of a function $f$ such that $$\boldsymbol{\sigma}=f\left(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\right).$$ Let us write the first-order Taylor expansion of $f$, provided that it exists,
$$\sigma_{\alpha\beta}-\sigma_{\alpha\beta}^{(0)}=C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\epsilon_{\gamma\delta}+\mathcal{O}\left(\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\right\Vert ^{2}\right),\label{eq:Stiffness1}$$
where $\alpha,\,\beta\in\left\{ x,y\right\} $ and $\sigma_{\alpha\beta}^{(0)}$ is the quenched stress in the original configuration. With condensed notations, Eq. \[eq:Stiffness1\] turns into[^4]
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\sigma_{xx}\\
\sigma_{yy}\\
\sqrt{2}\sigma_{xy}
\end{array}\right)=\underset{{\bf C}}{\underbrace{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{xx,xx} & C_{xx,yy} & C_{xx,xy}\\
C_{yy,xx} & C_{yy,yy} & C_{yy,xy}\\
C_{xy,xx} & C_{xy,yy} & C_{xy,xy}
\end{array}\right)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\epsilon_{xx}\\
\epsilon_{yy}\\
\sqrt{2}\epsilon_{xy}
\end{array}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\right\Vert ^{2}\right).\label{eq:Stiffness2}$$
The affine strain-local stress approximation consists in replacing the components of $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ on the rhs of Eq. \[eq:Stiffness2\] with those of the affine strain $\bar{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}$, in order to determine ${\bf C}$ more easily. For subregions of size larger than $5\sigma_{AA}$, @Mizuno2013moduli showed that this approximation is quite reasonable, although it slightly underestimates the spatial fluctuations of the elastic constants. On the other hand, should the local stress on the lhs be computed for a *local* deformation equal to $\boldsymbol{\bar{\epsilon}}$, *i.e.*, should the system not be allowed to relax to the energy minimum after the application of the affine strain $\boldsymbol{\bar{\epsilon}}$, then we would obtain the so-called Born term ${\bf C}^{B}$, which largely overestimates the stiffness of the disordered material [@Mizuno2013moduli].
For the time being, all components of the second-rank stiffness tensor ${\bf C}$ are independent. But, if the local stress derives from a (twice differentiable) local strain-energy density $e$, *i.e.*, $$\sigma_{\alpha\beta}\equiv\frac{\partial e}{\partial\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}},$$ then $$C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=\frac{\partial^{2}e}{\partial\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\partial\epsilon_{\gamma\delta}}.$$ It immediately follows that $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=C_{\gamma\delta\alpha\beta}$; this symmetry property is transferred to the second-rank tensor ${\bf C}$ (thanks to the carefully chosen $\sqrt{2}$ prefactors in Eq. \[eq:Stiffness2\]). Indeed, @Tsamados2009 observed numerically that, for coarse-graining regions larger than 5 Lennard-Jones particles in diameter, assuming a symmetric stiffness matrix ${\bf C}$ creates an error of less than 1% on the local stress evaluations. In the MD system under consideration, we quantify the asymmetry of the mesoscopic stiffness matrices, computed over regions of size $a=5\sigma_{AA}$, with the following measure:
$$\left\Vert \Delta{\bf C}\right\Vert \equiv\sqrt{\underset{^{\left\{ xx,yy,xy\right\} }}{\sum_{i,\, j\,\in}}\Delta C_{i,j}^{2}}\text{ with }\Delta{\bf C}\equiv{\bf C}-\frac{{\bf C}+{\bf C}^{\top}}{2}.$$ What should $\left\Vert \Delta{\bf C}\right\Vert $ be compared with? At first sight, the answer would be $\left\Vert {\bf C}\right\Vert $, but the latter is dominated by large symmetric terms involving the bulk modulus $K\approx100$. Thus, on second thoughts, it appears more informative to remove the terms involving $K$; $\left\Vert \Delta{\bf C}\right\Vert $ should then be compared to, *e.g.*, $\left\langle \mathrm{Tr}\left({\bf C}\right)-2K\right\rangle =4\left\langle \mu\right\rangle $, with $\left\langle \mu\right\rangle =18.8$. From the histogram of $\left\Vert \Delta{\bf C}\right\Vert $ values plotted in Fig. \[fig:Dev\_due\_to\_C\_proj\]a, it transpires that deviations from symmetry in ${\bf C}$ are not strictly negligible, but symmetry may nevertheless be a decent *approximation*.
To further reduce the number of local parameters, the isotropic contraction/dilation vector $(\nicefrac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\,\nicefrac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\,0)^{\top}$ is supposed to produce an isotropic compression and, thus, to be an eigenvector of ${\bf C}$, *ergo* $$\begin{cases}
C_{xy,xx} & =-C_{xy,yy}\\
C_{xx,xx} & =C_{yy,yy}
\end{cases}$$ The assumptions of tensorial symmetry and isotropic response to contraction come down to projecting ${\bf C}$ onto a matrix of the form $${\bf C}^{\prime}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha & \delta & \beta\\
\delta & \alpha & -\beta\\
\beta & -\beta & \upsilon
\end{array}\right)\text{ with }\alpha,\delta,\beta,\upsilon\in\mathbb{R},\label{eq:Cprime_FEM}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ will be the averages of the pairs $\left(C_{xx,xx},C_{yy,yy}\right)$ and $\left(C_{xy,xx},-C_{xy,yy}\right)$, respectively. The approximation error, quantified by $\left\Vert \Delta^{\prime}{\bf C}\right\Vert \equiv\left\Vert {\bf C}-{\bf C}^{\prime}\right\Vert $, is plotted in Fig. \[fig:Dev\_due\_to\_C\_proj\]b. As expected, the deviations are somewhat larger than were ${\bf C}$ only symmetrised, but they remain under control.
For each matrix ${\bf C}^{\prime}$, we compute the eigenvalues $c_{1}\leqslant c_{2}\leqslant c_{3}$ and define:
- the small local shear modulus $\mu_{1}\equiv c_{1}/2$,
- the large local shear modulus $\mu_{2}\equiv c_{2}/2$,
- and the bulk modulus is $K\equiv c_{3}/2$.
The distributions of these local elastic constants are presented in Fig. \[fig:Dist\_local\_el\_csts\] and their mean values and standard deviations are summarised in Table \[tab:Statistical-prop\]. It should be noted that the average eigenvalues of the projected tensor ${\bf C^{\prime}}$ differ by $10\%$ or less from the eigenvalues of the full local stiffness tensors ${\bf C}$.
The components of ${\bf C^{\prime}}$ can then be rewritten as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\alpha & \equiv K+\mu_{2}\cos^{2}2\theta+\mu_{1}\sin^{2}2\theta\\
\delta & \equiv K-\mu_{2}\cos^{2}2\theta-\mu_{1}\sin^{2}2\theta\\
\beta & \equiv\frac{\sin4\theta}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mu_{2}-\mu_{1}\right)\\
\upsilon & \equiv2\mu_{2}\sin^{2}2\theta+2\mu_{1}\cos^{2}2\theta
\end{cases} & ,\end{aligned}$$ where the angle $\theta$ has been defined in Section \[sec:local\_el\_csts\].
[^1]: In practice, our simplified FE method is therefore close to a Finite Volume method.
[^2]: When the centre of mass of the MD simulation cell is not kept fixed, the fluctuations $\delta u$ measured in MD are significantly larger and their profile with respect to the distance $r$ to the origin (dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:fluct\_avg\_FEM\]) is almost flat.
[^3]: In MD, local strains are computed after coarse-graining the displacement field on a grid similar to the FE one; note that the strain field is expected to be less sensitive to heterogeneities than the displacement field.
[^4]: As a minor technical detail, note that, because the tensorial multiplication $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\epsilon_{\gamma\delta}$ involves a summation on both $\epsilon_{xy}$ and $\epsilon_{yx}$, components $C_{\alpha\beta,\gamma\delta}$ of the *second-rank* tensor ${\bf C}$ may not exactly equate to their counterparts in the *fourth-rank* tensor $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$; for instance, $C_{xy,xy}=2C_{xyxy}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
The discovery of charge stripes in the nickelate [@nickel] and cuprate [@cuprate] materials has encouraged much theoretical work to explain the underlying physical principles behind the stripe order and to examine whether the stripes are related to the mechanism for high-temperature superconductivity. There are two schools of thought for the physics that drives stripe formation: (i) Kivelson, Emery, and coworkers [@kivelson] propose that strongly correlated systems have a natural tendency toward phase separation and the inhomogeneous spatial charge ordering arises from a competition between this tendency to phase separate and the long-range Coulomb interaction which does not allow the electron density to stray too far from its average; and (ii) Scalapino and White [@scalapino] propose that the stripe order arises from a competition between kinetic and exchange energies in a doped antiferromagnet which does not require long-range Coulomb forces to stabilize the stripes. Despite a large amount of numerical work ranging from high-temperature expansions [@hight], to Monte Carlo simulations [@qmc], to exact diagonalization [@diag], as well as semiclassical Hartree-Fock theory [@HF], no consensus has been reached about the region of stability for the phase separated states or the mechanism for stripe formation.
Here we take an alternate point of view. Rather than try to prove phase separation in the Hubbard or $t-J$ models, we choose an even simpler model—the spinless Falicov-Kimball model [@falicov_kimball], which can be analyzed exactly. The relation of the Falicov-Kimball model to the Hubbard model is analogous to the relation between the Ising and the Heisenberg models of magnetism (the Falicov-Kimball model can be viewed as a Hubbard model where the down-spin electrons are frozen and do not hop). The Hamiltonian is $$H=-t\sum_{\langle x,y\rangle}c^{\dagger}_{x}c_{y}+
U\sum_{x} c^{\dagger}_{x}c_{x}w_{x},$$ with $c^{\dagger}_{x}$ ($c_{x}$) the creation (annihilation) operator for a spinless electron at site $x$ and $w_{x}$ is a classical variable that denotes the presence (absence) of an ion at site $x$ when it is equal to 1 (0), respectively. The hopping occurs between nearest-neigbors on a square lattice and the interaction strength is denoted by $U$. For any given configuration of ions $\{w_{x}\}$ the ground state for $N_e$ electrons is determined by diagonalizing a one-body operator given by the above Hamiltonian, and filling in the lowest $N_e$ states. We typically are interested in the ground-state configuration of the ions for a given number of electrons $N_e=\sum_{x}\langle c^{\dagger}_{x}c_{x}\rangle$ and a given number of ions $N_i=\sum_{x}w_{x}$ (or their densities $\rho_e=N_e/N$ and $\rho_i=N_i/N$ respectively).
The possibility of phase separation when $U\rightarrow\infty$ was proposed in 1990 [@freericks_falicov] and is called the segregation principle. It was proved in the one-dimensional case [@lemberger], in the infinite-dimensional case [@freericks_infd], and recently in the general case [@freericks_lieb_ueltschi]. This phase separation is a special type of phase separation, often referred to as the segregated phase, where the electrons and ions avoid each other, and reside in separate domains. It is the analog of the ferromagnetic state in the Hubbard model. At half filling for the electrons and the ions, the ground state is known to be the chessboard phase [@lieb_kennedy; @brandt_schmidt]. This state is the analog of the antiferromagnetic state in the Hubbard model.
The question we pose is, if we fix the number of electrons to equal the number of ions, then what are the stable phases as a function of the number of electrons. This problem is the analog of doping the $S_z=0$ phase of the Hubbard model away from half filling. Since we know the system phase separates as $\rho_e\rightarrow 0$ and is in the chessboard phase for $\rho_e\rightarrow 1/2$, we have the interesting situation of determining how the transition is made from the segregated phase to the chessboard phase, which are two phases that are about as different from each other as possible.
It is well known that the ground-state phase diagram of the Falicov-Kimball model typically includes a large number of different phases as functions of the particle concentrations and the interaction strength. As such, it seems unlikely that one can rigorously analyze ground-state phases in the general case, although a number of interesting results exist for special cases [@2d_known] (usually for large $U$). Instead, we work with the restricted phase diagram technique, where we consider all possible periodic phases for which the number of sites per unit cell $N_0$ is less than or equal to $N_c=16$. The technique first identifies all nonequivalent periodic phases, which number 23 755 in our case. Then for each periodic phase in our trial set, we calculate the total energy at a given value of $U$. Since, unlike the 1D case (see [@RL]), there are no exact formulae known for the density of states of general periodic phases in 2D, we have performed a numerical solution of the corresponding eigenvalue problem to determine the bandstructure (see Ref. [@watson_lemanski] for the details). This involves finding the eigenvalues of an $N_0-dimensional$ matrix for each value of $k$ in a two-dimensional grid covering the Brillouin zone. Our calculations were performed with a $k-space$ grid of 110$\times$110 points for each phase. Then the grand canonical phase diagram is constructed as a function of the electron and ion chemical potentials, and finally the grand-canonical phase diagram is translated to the canonical phase diagram for arbitrary $\rho_i$ and $\rho_e$. This procedure assures thermodynamical stability of all phases (both periodic and their mixtures) present in the resulting canonical phase diagram. The stability problem is discussed extensively in Ref. [@GJL], where the canonical phase diagrams of the 1D Falicov-Kimball model were studied. Finally, we make the restriction $\rho_i=\rho_e$ in the canonical phase diagram to analyze the problem at hand.
The ground-state phase diagram is quite complex. We find many different stable phases occur, which can be classified into a number of different categories: (i) [*the empty lattice*]{} ($\rho_i=0$ and $\rho_e\ne 0$) denoted [**E**]{}; (ii) [*the full lattice*]{} ($\rho_i=1$ and $\rho_e=0$) denoted [**F**]{}; (iii) [*the chessboard phase*]{} ($\rho_i=\rho_e=1/2$ and ions occupy the A sublattice only) denoted [**Ch**]{}; (iv) [*diagonal neutral*]{} ($\rho_i=1-\rho_e$) [*stripe phase*]{}s (the ions are arranged as diagonal chessboard phases separated by fully occupied striped regions with a slope of one, or equivalently, Ch phases separated by diagonal antiphase boundaries) denoted [**DNS**]{}; (v) [*diagonal non-neutral*]{} ($\rho_i\neq 1-\rho_e$) [*stripe phases*]{} (the ions are arranged as diagonal chessboard phases but separated by empty striped regions with a slope of one) denoted [**DS**]{}; (vi) [*axial non-neutral stripes*]{} ($\rho_i\neq 1-\rho_e$ and ions arranged in stripes parallel to the y-axis and translationally invariant along the axis) denoted [**AS**]{}; (vii) [*axial non-neutral chessboard stripes*]{} ($\rho_i\neq 1-\rho_e$ and ions arranged in stripes of the chessboard phase oriented parallel to the y-axis) denoted [**AChS**]{}; (viii) [*other neutral phase*]{}s ($\rho_i=1-\rho_e$ but the arrangement is not in any simple stripe-like phase) denoted [**N**]{}; (ix) non-neutral [*four-molecule phases*]{} (where $\rho_i\neq 1-\rho_e$ and empty sites are arranged out of “bound” four-molecule squares) denoted [**4M**]{}; and (x) truly two-dimensional non-neutral arrangements of ions (where $\rho_i\neq 1-\rho_e$ and the ions are arranged in a fashion that is not stripe-like, but rather requires a two-dimensional unit cell to describe it) denoted [**2D**]{}. Generically, the phase diagram includes mixtures of two or three of the periodic phases (iii-x), or of one or two periodic phases and the empty lattice (i). The empty lattice is usually needed in the phase mixtures to ensure that the average electron and ion fillings are equal for the mixtures. For occasional values of the filling, we do find single periodic phases to be stable, but this feature is rare. When the filling is sufficiently far from half filling, the system is in the segregated phase, which is a mixture of the empty lattice ($\rho_i=0$, $\rho_e\ne 0$) and of the full lattice ($\rho_i=1$, $\rho_e=0$).
The number of phases stable or appearing in mixtures tends to grow as $U$ is decreased in magnitude. For $U=8$ there are 25 phases: E (1); F(1); Ch (1); DNS (6); and N (16). For $U=6$ there are 30 phases: E (1); F (1); Ch (1); AS (20); N (6); and 2D (1). For $U=4$ there are 42 phases: E (1); F (1); Ch (1); AS (35); N (1); and 2D (3). For $U=2$ there are 38 phases: E (1); F (1); Ch (1); AS (14); DNS (4); 4M (2); and 2D (15). For $U=1$ there are 50 phases: E (1); F (1); Ch (1); DS (1); AS (9); AChS (6); 4M (3); and 2D (28).
=8.0cm
The empty lattice, the full lattice and the chessboard phase are present in the phase diagram for all $U$; the diagonal neutral stripes generally for large $U$ ($U> 7$) (occasionally they can appear for moderate $U$ as well—as occurs for $U=2$); the axial stripes for moderate and small $U$ ($U< 7$); the axial chessboard stripes for small $U$ $(U<3$); the other neutral phases for large $U$ ($U>4$); the four-molecule phases for small $U$ ($U<3$); and the two-dimensional phases for moderate and small $U$ ($U<7$) (growing significantly in number as $U$ decreases). The total number of phases appearing in the phase diagram are too large to illustrate here. Instead, we choose a number of illustrative examples of each of the different types.
The empty lattice ([**E**]{}) corresponds to a lattice with no ions and the full lattice ([**F**]{}) corresponds to a lattice fully occupied by ions. The chessboard phase ([**Ch**]{}) corresponds to the case where ions (large dots) occupy the A sublattice and empty sites (small dots) occupy the B sublattice as shown in Fig. 1(a). A diagonal neutral stripe phase ([**DNS**]{}) is shown in Fig. 1(b). It is typical of the phases we see with regions of chessboard phase separated by antiphase boundaries. This configuration has $\rho_i=5/9$ and $\rho_e=4/9$ and every ninth diagonal is an antiphase boundary. An example of a nonneutral diagonal stripe phase ([**DS**]{}) which has $\rho_i=7/15$ and $\rho_e=7/15$ is shown in Fig. 1(c). Like the neutral stripes, these have antiferromagnetic regions but they are separated by diagonal empty (and not full ) lattice stripes; the empty lattice stripes are width two now. An axial stripe phase ([**AS**]{}) is shown in Fig. 1(d). It is typical of these phases with fully occupied (ferromagentic) stripes separated by the empty lattice. This configuration has $\rho_i=2/3$ and $0.189 < \rho_e < 0.283$; other stable phases have wider bands of occupied stripes, which are always separated by an empty lattice stripe of width one. An example of an axial chessboard stripe phase ([**AChS**]{}) is shown in Fig. 1(e). These phases consist of regions of the chessboard phase separated by width one empty lattice stripes. The width of the chessboard phase ranges all the way down to two. This particular phase has $\rho_i=3/7$ and $\rho_e=3/7$. An example of an other neutral phase ([**N**]{}) is depicted in Fig. 1(f). These phases can be viewed as striped phases, alternating occupied (ferromagnetic) and empty lattice stripes, with the stripes having slope different from 0, 1, or $\infty$. In this example, $\rho_i=7/9$ and $\rho_e=2/9$; the slope of the empty lattice stripe is 1/2. A four-molecule phase ([**4M**]{}) is shown in Fig. 1(g). These phases are two-dimensional tilings of four-molecule empty-site squares inside an occupied “latticework”. This phase has $\rho_i=11/15$ and $\rho_e=1/15$. The truly two-dimensional phases ([**2D**]{}) are more difficult to classify—some, like in Fig. 1(h), have no stripe-like character at all ($\rho_i=4/9$ and $\rho_e=4/9$), others can be described with a stripe-like picture such as in Fig. 1(i) ($\rho_i=1/6$ and $0.32 < \rho_e < 0.34$) which can be viewed either as slope 2/3 ferromagnetic stripes in an empty lattice, or as antiferromagnetic axial stripes, etc.; in the end we classify these phases as two-dimensional. The summary of all of the stable phases will appear in a longer publication[@lemanski_freericks_long].
=7.5cm
[-90]{}
The phase diagram is shown in Fig. 2 and its simplified, schematic version, in Fig. 3. The phase boundary between the segregated phase and mixtures with periodic phases, approaches half filling as $U$ gets large, as expected. When $U=8$, we find the mixtures, when doped just away from half filling, occur between the chessboard phase, the empty lattice and diagonal neutral stripe phases. This picture is similar to those that propose the phase separation scenario, but there is no requirement of the long-range Coulomb interaction to generate the stripes—they also occur as part of the periodic phases that compose the different stable mixtures. As the system is doped further away from half filling, mixtures with other neutral phases occur, before the system fully phase separates.
As $U$ is reduced, the phase diagram becomes more complicated. Near half filling, the chessboard phase is always one of the phases in the stable mixtures, but we find the empty lattice and diagonal neutral phases disappear and are replaced by other neutral or 2D phases in the mixtures. Then as $U$ is reduced further, the diagonal neutral stripe phases occasionally re-enter into the mix, replacing the N or 2D phases, as can be seen for $U=2$. Finally, for smaller $U$, the mixtures are between the diagonal non-neutral stripes and the chessboard phase only. Farther away from half filling, the behavior is even more complex, with axial non-neutral stripes first entering near the segregation boundary, and then the 4M phases appearing as $U$ is reduced further. The axial neutral chessboard phases also appear for small $U$. It is in this moderate-to-small $U$ region where we see many stripe phases form due to a delicate balance between kinetic-energy and potential-energy effects. This is the alternate scenario for stripe formation, that does not require phase separation or the long-range Coulomb interaction.
=7.5cm
In summary, we have calculated the restricted phase diagram of the two-dimensional Falicov-Kimball model. We constrained the system to have the same number of localized and itinerant particles, which is the analog of the $S_z=0$ state of the Hubbard model. We find that, in addition to the phase separation of the segregated phase, the system generically forms a number of different stripe phases. For large $U$, we find the stripes to be diagonal stripes and appearing only close to half filling. As $U$ is reduced, we find diagonal stripes changing into axial chessboard stripes and then axial stripes as the system is doped further away from half filling. In addition, we find a number of truly two-dimensional phases present as well. While we cannot say anything about what happens in the Hubbard model itself, our results suggest that one should expect a complex phase diagram when stripe phases are present and see a competition between the stability of the stripes and other, more two-dimensional, structures. Of course, we can only speculate on the behavior of the Hubbard model, but this exact solution of the Falicov-Kimball model shows that stripe formation is generically a complicated occurrence, that can have a number of competing states close in energy. We do expect, however, that the phase diagram simplifies for the Hubbard model, since the system can quantum-mechanically fluctuate between different low-energy “ionic” configurations.
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} R.L. and G.B. acknowledge support from the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) under Grant No. 2P03B 131 19 and J.K.F. acknowledges support from the NSF under grant No. DMR-9973225. We also acknowledge support from Georgetown University for a travel grant in the fall of 2001.
[99]{}
C.H. Chen, S.-W. Cheong, and A.S. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. -[**71**]{}, 2461 (1993); J.M. Tranquada, et al., ibid. [**73**]{}, 1003 (1994); Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 3581 (1995); V. Sachan, et al., ibid. [**51**]{}, 12742 (1995).
J.M. Tranquada, et al., Nature (London), [**375**]{}, 561 (1995); Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 7489 (1996); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 338 (1997); H.A. Mook, P. Dai, and F. Doǧan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 097004 (2002).
V.J. Emery, S.A. Kivelson, and H.Q. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 475 (1990); E.W. Carlson, et al., Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 14704 (1998); L.P. Pryadko, S.A. Kivelson, and D.W. Hone, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 5651 (1998); L.P. Pryadko, et al., Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 7541 (1999).
S.R. White and D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1272 (1998); ibid., [**81**]{}, 3227 (1998); Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, R753 (1999); ibid., [**61**]{}, 6320 (2000).
W.O. Putikka, M.U. Luchini, and T.M. Rice, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 538 (1992); W.O. Putikka and M.U. Luchini, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 1684 (2000).
A.C. Cosentini, et al. Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, R14685 (1998); M. Calandra, F. Becca, and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5185 (1998); C.S. Hellberg and E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 11787 (2000).
E. Dagotto, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 763 (1994); C.S. Hellberg and E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 132 (1999).
J. Zaanen and A.M. Oleś, Ann. Physik [**5**]{}, 224 (1996); D. Góra, K. Rosciszewski and A.M. Oleś, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 7429 (1999).
L.M. Falicov and J.C. Kimball, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**22**]{}, 997 (1969).
J.K. Freericks and L.M. Falicov, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 2163 (1990).
P. Lemberger, J. Phys. A [**25**]{}, 715 (1992).
J.K. Freericks, Ch. Gruber, and N. Macris, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 1617 (1999).
J.K. Freericks, E.H. Lieb, and D. Ueltschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 106401 (2002); Commun. Math. Phys. (to appear) (2002).
T. Kennedy and E.H. Lieb, Physica [**138A**]{}, 320 (1986); [*ibid*]{} [**140A**]{}, 240 (1986).
U. Brandt and R. Schmidt, Z. Phys. B [**63**]{}, 45 (1986); [*ibid.*]{} [**67**]{}, 43 (1987).
T. Kennedy, Rev. Math. Phys. [**6**]{}, 901 (1994); T. Kennedy, J. Stat. Phys. [**91**]{}, 829 (1998); K. Haller, PhD dissertation, Univ. of Arizona (1998); K. Haller, Commun. Math. Phys [**210**]{}, 703 (2000); K. Haller and T. Kennedy, J. Stat. Phys. [**102**]{}, 15 (2001).
R. Łyżwa, Phys. Lett. A [**164**]{}, 323 (1992); Physica A [**192**]{}, 231 (1993).
G. I. Watson and R. Lemański, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**7**]{}, 9521 (1995).
Z. Gajek, J. Jȩdrzejewski and R. Lemański, Physica A [**223**]{}, 175 (1996).
R. Lemański and J.K. Freericks, unpublished.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Anatomical and biophysical modeling of left atrium (LA) and proximal pulmonary veins (PPVs) is important for clinical management of several cardiac diseases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows qualitative assessment of LA and PPVs through visualization. However, there is a strong need for an advanced image segmentation method to be applied to cardiac MRI for quantitative analysis of LA and PPVs. In this study, we address this unmet clinical need by exploring a new deep learning-based segmentation strategy for quantification of LA and PPVs with high accuracy and heightened efficiency. Our approach is based on a multi-view convolutional neural network (CNN) with an adaptive fusion strategy and a new loss function that allows fast and more accurate convergence of the backpropagation based optimization. After training our network from scratch by using more than 60K 2D MRI images (slices), we have evaluated our segmentation strategy to the STACOM 2013 cardiac segmentation challenge benchmark. Qualitative and quantitative evaluations, obtained from the segmentation challenge, indicate that the proposed method achieved the state-of-the-art sensitivity (90%), specificity (99%), precision (94%), and efficiency levels (10 seconds in GPU, and 7.5 minutes in CPU).'
author:
- |
Aliasghar Mortazi$^{1}$,Rashed Karim$^{2}$, Kawal Rhode$^{2}$,\
Jeremy Burt$^{3}$, Ulas Bagci$^{1}$
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: '*CardiacNET*: Segmentation of Left Atrium and Proximal Pulmonary Veins from MRI Using Multi-View CNN'
---
Introduction
============
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a cardiac arrhythmia caused by abnormal electrical discharges in the atrium, often beginning with hemodynamic and/or structural changes in the left atrium (LA) [@Kuppahally-circulation]. AF is clinically associated with LA strain, and MRI is shown to be a promising imaging method for assessing the disease state and predicting adverse clinical outcomes. The LA also has an important role in patients with ventricular dysfunction as a booster pump to augment ventricular volume [@daoudi]. Computed tomography (CT) imaging of the heart is frequently performed when managing AF and prior to pulmonary vein ablation (isolation) therapy due to its rapid processing time. In recent years, there is an increasing interest in shifting towards cardiac MRI due to its excellent soft tissue contrast properties and lack of radiation exposure. For pulmonary vein ablation therapy planning in AF, precise segmentation of the LA and PPVs is essential. However, this task is non-trivial because of multiple anatomical variations of LA and PPV.
Historically, statistical shape and atlas-based methods have been the state-of-the-art cardiac segmentation approaches due to their ability to handle large shape/appearance variations. One significant challenge for such approaches is their limited efficiency: an average of 50 minutes processing time per volume [@Karim]. Statistical shape models are faster than atlas-based methods, and a high degree uncertainties in the accuracy of such models is inevitable [@Stender]. To alleviate this problem and accomplish the segmentation of LA and PPVs from 3D cardiac MRI with high *accuracy* and *efficiency*, we propose to a new deep CNN. Our proposed method is fully automated, and largely different from previous methods of LA and PPVs segmentation. The summary of these differences and key novelties of the proposed method, named as *CardiacNET*, are listed as follows:
- Training CNN from scratch for 3D cardiac MRI is not feasible with insufficient 3D training data (with ground truth) and limited computer memory. Instead, we parsed 3D data into 2D components (axial (A), sagittal (S), and coronal (C)), and utilized a separate deep learning architecture for each component. The proposed *CardiacNET* was trained using more than 60K 2D slices of cardiac MR images without relying on a pre-training network of non-medical data.
- We have combined three CNN networks through an adaptive fusion mechanism where complementary information of each CNN was utilized to improve segmentation results. The proposed adaptive fusion mechanism is based on a new strategy; called *robust region*, which measures (roughly) the reliability of segmentation results without the need for ground truth.
- We devised a new loss function in the proposed network, based on a modified z-loss, to provide fast convergence of network parameters. This not only improved segmentation results due to fast and reliable allocation of network parameters, but it also provided a significant acceleration of the segmentation process. The overall segmentation process for a given 3D cardiac MRI takes at most 10 seconds in GPU, and 7.5 minutes in CPU on a normal workstation.
{height="4cm" width="100.00000%"}
Proposed Multi-View Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Architecture
===================================================================
The proposed pipeline for deep learning based segmentation of the LA and PPVs is summarized in Fig.1. We used the same CNN architecture for each view of the 3D cardiac MRI after parsing them into axial, sagittal, and coronal views. The rationale behind this decision is based on the limitation of computer memory and insufficient 3D data for training on 3D cardiac MRI from scratch. Instead, we reduced the computational burden of the CNN training by constraining the problem into a 2D domain. The resulting pixel-wise segmentations from each CNN are combined through an adaptive fusion strategy. The fusion operation was designed to maximize the information content from different views. The details of the pipeline are given in the following subsections.\
**Encoder-Decoder CNN:** We constructed an encoder-decoder CNN architecture, similar to that of Noh et al. [@Noh]. The network includes 23 layers (11 in encoder, 12 in decoder units). Two max-pooling layers in encoder units reduce the image dimensions by half, and a total of 19 convolutional (9 in encoder, 10 in decoder), 18 batch normalization, and 18 ReLU (rectified linear unit) layers are used. Specific to the decoder unit, two upsampling layers are used to convert the images back into original sizes. Also, the kernel size of all filters are considered as $3\times3$. The final layer of the network includes a softmax function (logistic) for generating a probability score for each pixel. Details of these layers, and associated filter size and numbers are given in Fig.2.\
**Loss Function:** We used a new loss function that can estimate the parameters of the proposed network at a much faster rate. We trained end-to-end mapping with a loss function $L(\mathbf{o},c)=$softplus$(a(b-z_c))/a$, called z-loss [@z-loss], where $\mathbf{o}$ denotes output of the network, $c$ denotes the ground truth label, and $z_c$ indicate z-normalized label, obtained as $z_c=(o_c-\mu)/\sigma$ where mean ($\mu$) and standard deviation $\sigma$ are obtained from $\mathbf{o}$. z-loss is simply obtained with the reparametrization of *soft-plus* (SP) function (i.e., $SP(x)=ln(1+e^x)$) through two hyperparameters: $a$ and $b$. Herein, we kept these hyperparameters fixed, and trained the network with a reduced z-loss function. The rationale behind this choice is the following: the z-loss function provides an efficient training performance as it belongs to spherical loss family, and it is invariant to scale and shift changes in the output, avoiding output parameters to deviate from extreme values.\
**Training *CardiacNET* from scratch:** 3D cardiac MRI images along with its corresponding expert annotated ground truths were used to train the CNN after the images are parsed into three views (A, S, C). Data augmentation has been conducted on the training dataset with translation and rotation operation as indicated in Table 1. Obtained 3D images were parsed into A, S, and C views, and more than 60K 2D images were obtained to feed training of the CNN (approximately 30K for A and C views, around 11K for S view). As a preprocessing step, all images have undergone anisotropic smoothing filtering and histogram matching.\
[0]{} {width="100.00000%"}
[r]{}[0.49]{}
[max width=0.5]{} \[my-label\]
[lllllccclll]{} & & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
**Multi-View Information Fusion.** Since cardiac MRI is often not reconstructed with isotropic resolution, we expected varying segmentation accuracy in different views. In order to alleviate potential adverse effects caused by non-isotropic spatial resolutions of a particular view, it is desirable to reduce the contribution of that view into final segmentation. We have achieved this with the adaptive fusion strategy as described next. For a given MRI volume **I**, and its corresponding segmentation $\mathbf{o}$, we proposed a new strategy, called *robust region*, that roughly determined the reliability of the output segmentation $\mathbf{o}$ by assessing its object distribution. To achieve this, we hypothesized that the output should include only one connected object when the segmentation is successful, and if there was more than a single connected object available, these can be considered as false positives. Accordingly, respective performance of segmentation performance in A, S, and C views can be compared and weighted. To this end, we utilized connected component analysis (CCA) to rank output segmentations and reduced the contribution of CNN for a particular view when false positive findings (non-trusted objects/components) were large and true positive findings (trusted object/component) were small. Fig.3 describes the adaptive fusion strategy as $CCA (\mathbf{o})=\{o_{1},\ldots,o_{n} | \cup o_{i} = \mathbf{o}, \text{ and } \cap o_i=\phi\}$. Thus, the contribution of each view’s CNN was computed based on a weighting $ w= {max_{i} \{|o_{i}| \}}/ \sum_{i} |o_{i}| $, indicating that higher weights were assigned when the component with largest volume dominated the whole output volume. Note that this block has been used only in the test phase. Complementary to this strategy, we also used simple linear fusion of each views for comparison (See Experimental Results section).
{width="100.00000%"}
Experimental Results
====================
**Data sets:** Thirty cardiac MRI data sets were provided by the STACOM 2013 challenge organizers [@Karim]. Ten training data were provided with ground truth labels, and the remaining twenty were provided as a test set. It is important to note that not the complete PVs are considered in the segmentation challenge, but only the proximal segments of the PVs up to the first branching vessel or after 10 mm from the vein ostium were included in the segmentation. MR images were obtained from a 1.5T Achieva (Philips Healtcare, The Neatherlands) scanner with an ECG-gated 3D balanced steady-state free precession acquisition [@Karim] with TR/TE$=4.4/2.4$ ms, and Flip-angle=$90^o$. Typical acquisition time for the cardiac volume imaging was 10 minutes. In-plane resolution was recorded as 1.25 $\times$ 1.25 mm$^2$, slice thickness was measured as 2.7 mm. Further details on the data acquisition, and image properties can be found in [@Karim].\
**Evaluations.** For evaluation and comparison with other state-of-the-art method, we have used the same evaluation metrics, provided by the STACOM 2013 challenge: Dice index and surface-to-surface (S2S) metrics. In addition, we calculated Dice index and S2S for the LA and PPVs separately. To provide a comprehensive evaluation and comparisons, sensitivity (true positive rate), specificity (true negative rate), precision (positive prediction value), and Dice index values for the combined LA and PPVs were included too. Table 2 summarizes all these evaluation metrics along with efficiency comparisons where we tested our algorithm both in GPU and CPU. LTSI-VRG, UCL-1C, and UCL-4C are three atlas-based method which their output were published publicly as a part of STACOM 2013 challenge. Also, OBS-2 is the result from human observer which its output was available as a part of STACOM 2013 challenge. Using leave-one-out cross-validation strategy on training dataset, we achieved high sensitivity (0.92) and Dice value (0.93). Similarly, in almost all evaluation metrics in the test set, the proposed method out-performed the state-of-the-art approaches by large margins. Table 2 indicates the results of varying combinations using *CardiacNET* such as single CNN in particular view (i.e,. $S_CNN$), with simple linear fusion F-CNN, adaptive fusion AF-CNN, and with the new loss function AF-CNN-SP. In AF-CNN, the loss function was cross-entropy. The best method in the challenge data set was reported to have a Dice index of 0.94 for LA and 0.65 for PPVs (combined LA and PPVs was less than 0.9). In our proposed method, the Dice index for combined LA and PPVs was well above 0.90. For efficiency comparison, our approach only takes at most 10 seconds on a Nvidia TitanX GPU and 7.5 minutes in a CPU with Octa-core processor (2.4 GHz) configuration. The method in [@UCL] required 30-45 minutes of processing times (with Quad-core processor (2.13 GHz)). For qualitative evaluation, we have used surface rendering of output segmentations compared to ground truth in Fig.4. Sample axial, sagittal, and coronal MRI slices are given in the same figure with ground truth annotations overlaid with the segmented LA and PPVs.
{height="2.5" width="70.00000%"}\
$\:$ {height="2" width="70.00000%"} {height="2" width="70.00000%"} {height="2" width="70.00000%"} {height="2" width="70.00000%"}
[max height=14 cm,max width=1]{}
**Methods** **LTSI\_VRG** **UCL\_1C** **UCL\_4C** **OBS\_2** **A\_CNN** **C\_CNN** **S\_CNN** **F-CNN** **AF-CNN** **AF-CNN-SP**
--------------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
**Dice(LA)** 0.910 0.938 0.859 0.908 0.903 0.804 0.787 0.873 0.928 **0.951**
**Dice(PPVs)** 0.653 0.609 0.646 0.751 0.561 0.478 0.398 0.506 0.616 **0.685**
**S2S(LA) in mm** 1.640 1.086 2.136 1.538 1.592 2.679 2.853 1.771 1.359 **1.045**
**S2S(PPVs) in mm** 1.994 1.623 2.375 1.594 1.928 2.878 3.581 2.121 1.718 **1.427**
**Sensitivity** **0.926** 0.828 0.832 0.894 0.806 0.658 0.663 0.743 0.883 0.895
**Specificity** 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.996 0.994 0.997 0.997 0.999 **0.999**
**Precision** 0.815 **0.957** 0.814 0.936 0.905 0.774 0.880 0.953 0.936 0.938
**Dice (all)** 0.862 0.886 0.819 0.911 0.845 0.695 0.734 0.820 0.887 **0.905**
**Running** 3100$^{**}$ 1200$^{**}$ 1200$^{**}$ - $170^{**}$ $170^{**}$ $155^{**}$ **450**$^{**}$ **450**$^{**}$ **450**$^{**}$
**Time (sec)** - - - - $3.5^{*}$ $3.5^{*}$ $3^{*}$ **10$^{*}$** **10$^{*}$** **10$^{*}$**
: \[tab:table-name\] The evaluation metrics for state-of-the-art and proposed methods. $^{**}$: the running time on CPU $^*$: the running time on NVIDIA TitanX GPU
[0]{} {width="100.00000%"}
Discussions and Concluding Remarks
==================================
The advantage of *CardiacNET* is accurate and efficient method for both LA and PPVs segmentation in atrial fibrillation patients: combined segmentation of the LA and PPVs. Precise segmentation of the LA and PPVs is needed for ablation therapy planning and clinical guidance in AF patients. PPVs have a greater number of anatomical variations than the LA-body, leading to challenges with accurate segmentation. Joint segmentation the LA and PPVs is even more challenging compared to sole LA-body segmentation. Nevertheless, with all available quantitative metrics, the proposed method has been shown to greatly improve the segmentation accuracy on the existing benchmark for LA and PPVs segmentation. The benchmark evaluation has also allowed the method and its variations to be cross-compared on the same dataset with other existing methods in literature.
Despite the efficacy of the proposed method, there are several possibilities that our work can be extended in future studies. Firstly, the new method will be tested, evaluated, and validated our in more diverse data sets from several independent cohorts, and at the different imaging resolution and noise levels, and even across different scanner vendors. Secondly, extending our framework into 4D (i.e motion) analysis of cardiac images can be possible by extending our parsing strategy. Thirdly, we aim to explore the feasibility of training completely 3D cardiac MRI based on the availability of multiple GPUs, or developing sparse CNNs to alleviate the segmentation problem. Fourthly, with low-dose cardiac CT technology on the rise; it is desirable to have similar network structure trained on CT scans. This notable efficacy of the deep learning strategies presented in this work promises a similar performance on CT scans.
In conclusion, the proposed method has utilized the strength of deeply trained CNN to segment LA and PPVs from cardiac MRI. We have shown combining information from different views of MRI by using an adaptive fusion strategy and a new loss function improves segmentation accuracy and efficiency significantly.\
**Acknowledgment:** Thanks to Nvidia for donating a GPU for deep learning experiments. The experiments have been conducted using Tensorflow.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We construct for every half-translation surface satisfying the topological Veech dichotomy a tessellation of the Poincaré upper half plane. This construction can be viewed as a generalization of the Farey tessellation for a flat torus. As a consequence, we get a bound on the volume of the corresponding Teichmüller curve for a lattice surface (Veech surface). There is a natural graph underlying this tessellation on which the affine group acts by automorphisms. We provide algorithms to determine a “coarse” fundamental domain and a generating set for the Veech group based on this graph. We also show that this graph has infinite diameter and is Gromov hyperbolic.'
address: 'IMB Bordeaux,CNRS UMR 5251Université de Bordeaux 351, Cours de la Libération 33405 Talence FRANCE'
author:
- 'Duc-Manh Nguyen'
title: Veech dichotomy and tessellations of the hyperbolic plane
---
Introduction
============
Veech surface and Veech dichotomy
---------------------------------
[*Half-translation surfaces*]{} are flat surfaces defined by meromorphic quadratic differentials with at most simple poles on compact Riemann surfaces. If the quadratic differential is the square of an Abelian differential (holomorphic one-form) then we have a [*translation surface*]{}. Otherwise, there is a canonical (ramified) double covering of the Riemann surface such that the pullback of this quadratic differential is the square of a holomorphic $1$-form, we will call this the orienting double cover. For a thorough introduction to the subject we refer to [@MaTa02; @Zorich:survey; @Lan04].
Let $M$ be a half-translation surface, and ${\Sigma}$ be a finite subset of $M$ that contains all the conical singularities of the flat metric. We will call the pair $(M,{\Sigma})$ a half-translation surface with marked points. For such a pair, by a slight abuse of notation, we will call ${\Sigma}$ the set of singularities of $M$.
An [*affine automorphism*]{} of $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a orientation preserving homeomorphism $f :M {\rightarrow}M$ such that $f({\Sigma})={\Sigma}$, and there is a matrix $A \in {{\rm SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that on the local charts defining the flat metric on $M\setminus {\Sigma}$, $f$ is given by maps of the form $v \mapsto \pm A\cdot v+ c$, where $c \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is constant. The group of affine automorphisms of $(M,{\Sigma})$ will be denoted by ${\mathrm{Aff}}^+(M,{\Sigma})$.
By definition, to each element of ${\mathrm{Aff}}^+(M,{\Sigma})$, we have a corresponding element of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ by the derivative mapping $D: {\mathrm{Aff}}^+(M,{\Sigma}) {\rightarrow}{\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$. The image of ${\mathrm{Aff}}^+(M,{\Sigma})$ under $D$ is called the [*Veech group*]{} of $(M,{\Sigma})$ and denoted by ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$.
If $M$ is a translation surface, $D$ factors through a map $\hat{D}: {\mathrm{Aff}}^+(M,{\Sigma}) {\rightarrow}{{\rm SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$. In this case we also call the image of ${\mathrm{Aff}}^+(M,{\Sigma})$ in ${{\rm SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ the Veech group of $(M,{\Sigma})$, and denote it by $\hat{{\Gamma}}(M,{\Sigma})$. The group ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ (resp. $\hat{{\Gamma}}(M,{\Sigma})$) can be also defined as the stabilizer of $(M,{\Sigma})$ under the action of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ (resp. ${{\rm SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$) in the moduli space of quadratic differentials (resp. of Abelian differentials). For a more detailed account on affine automorphisms and Veech groups, we refer to [@HS:intro:Veech]
A half-translation surface with marked points is called a [*Veech surface*]{} (or equivalently a [*lattice surface*]{}) if its Veech group is a lattice of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$. It is a well known fact that a quadratic differential is a Veech surface if and only if its orienting double cover is (for instance, see [@GJ00 Remark 2.2] or [@McM_prym Th. 2.5]).
There is a holomorphic map from ${\mathbb{H}}/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ into the moduli space $\mathfrak{M}_{g,n}$ of compact Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ with $n$ marked points, where $g$ is the genus of $M$, and $n=|{\Sigma}|$, which is an isometry with respect to the Teichmüller metric in $\mathfrak{M}_{g,n}$. In the case ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a lattice of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, the image of this map is called a [*Teichmüller curve*]{}.
On a half-translation surface with marked points $(M,{\Sigma})$, a [*saddle connection*]{} on $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a geodesic segment whose endpoints are in ${\Sigma}$ (the endpoints are not necessarily distinct) that contains no point in ${\Sigma}$ in its interior. A [*cylinder*]{} is an open subset of $M\setminus {\Sigma}$ which is isometric to $({\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}})\times(0; h)$ and not properly contained in another open subset isometric to $({\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}})\times(0;h')$ with $h<h'$. The parameters $h$ and $c$ are respectively the [*width*]{} and the [*circumference*]{} of the cylinder. Let $f: ({\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}})\times(0; h) {\rightarrow}M$ be an isometric embedding whose image is a cylinder $C$. We can extend $f$ by continuity to a map from $({\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}})\times [0,h]$ to $M$. The image of $({\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}})\times\{0\}$ and $({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})\times\{h\}$ under this extended map are called the boundary components of $C$. Each boundary component is a concatenation of some saddle connections that is freely homotopic to the core curves of $C$. Note that a saddle connection may be contained in both boundary components of $C$.
For any direction $\theta \in {\mathbb{RP}}^1$, we have an associated foliation $\xi_\theta$ of $M$ by geodesics in this direction. The foliation $\xi_\theta$ is said to be [*periodic*]{} if each of its leaves is either a saddle connection, or a closed geodesic. In this case, the surface is decomposed into a finite union of cylinders and saddle connections in the direction $\theta$. On the contrary, $\xi_\theta$ is said to be [*uniquely ergodic*]{} if it is minimal, and admits a unique transverse measure up to a scalar multiplication.
From the point of view of dynamics of the directional flows, Veech surfaces can be viewed as generalizations of flat tori as we have the following dichotomy due to Veech (see [@Vee89]): the foliation in any direction on a Veech surface is either periodic, or uniquely ergodic.
Weakening the Veech dichotomy, we say that a half-translation surface satisfies the [*topological Veech dichotomy*]{} if for every $\theta \in {\mathbb{RP}}^1$, the foliation $\xi_\theta$ is either periodic, or minimal. This property can also be stated as follows: if there is a saddle connection in direction $\theta$ then the surface is decomposed into cylinders in this direction. It is shown in [@CHM08; @HS:inf:Veech; @LanNg:cp] that there exist surfaces that satisfy the topological Veech dichotomy without being Veech surfaces (see also [@SW:Veech]).
Embedded Euclidean triangles and hyperbolic ideal triangles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Veech groups is a central problem in Teichmüller dynamics. Various aspects of this problem has been addressed by several authors, see for instance [@HS01; @HS:inf:Veech; @HubLan06; @KS00; @McM_hilbert; @McM_flux; @SW10; @SW:Veech; @Bow10; @Sch04; @WSch15; @Mu13]. The goal of this paper is to contribute to the investigation of Veech groups by using the properties of the flat metric, especially for surfaces satisfying the topological Veech dichotomy.
Let $(M,{\Sigma})$ be a half-translation surface with marked points, where $M$ is defined by a quadratic differential $(X,q)$.
\[def:emb:tri\] An [*embedded triangle*]{} of $M$ with vertices in ${\Sigma}$, or an embedded triangle in $(M,{\Sigma})$ for short, is the image of a map $\varphi: {\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M$, where ${\mathrm{T}}$ is a triangle in the plane ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, such that
- $\varphi$ maps the vertices ${\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ of ${\mathrm{T}}$ to ${\Sigma}$,
- the restriction of $\varphi$ to ${\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ is an embedding with image in $M{\setminus}{\Sigma}$, and
- $\varphi^*q=dz^2$.
We denote the set of embedded triangles in $M$ with vertices in ${\Sigma}$ by ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
\[rk:def:emb:tri\] Our definition is slightly different from the definition in [@SW:Veech] in that we do not allow a point in the interior of a side of ${\mathrm{T}}$ to get mapped to a point in ${\Sigma}$.
In what follows, we will sometimes use the same notation for a triangle in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and its image by a map $\varphi$ as above.
Consider now the canonical orienting double cover $\pi: \hat{M} {\rightarrow}M$, where $\hat{M}$ is a translation surface defined by a holomorphic $1$-form $\hat{\omega}$. By convention, if $M$ is itself a translation surface then we take $\hat{M}=M$, and $\pi= {\mathrm{id}}$. Let $\hat{{\Sigma}}=\pi^{-1}({\Sigma})$. Note that the pre-image of a saddle connection $a$ in $(M,{\Sigma})$ consists of two geodesic segments in $\hat{M}$ with endpoints in $\hat{{\Sigma}}$. For any directed arc on $\hat{M}$ with endpoints in $\hat{{\Sigma}}$, the integral of $\hat{\omega}$ along this arc is called its [*period*]{}. We will call the period of either segment in the pre-image of $a$ the “period” of $a$. This is a complex number determined up to sign. If $\pm(a_x+\imath a_y), \; a_x,a_y \in {\mathbb{R}}$, is the period of $a$, we define the slope of $a$ to be $$k_a:=\frac{a_x}{a_y} \in {\mathbb{R}}\cup \{\infty\}.$$ Let ${\mathbb{H}}$ denote the Poincaré upper half plane. Given an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}$ in ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$, let $k_1, k_2,k_3 \in {\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}$ be the slopes of the sides of ${\mathrm{T}}$. We denote by $\Delta_{\mathrm{T}}$ the hyperbolic ideal triangle in ${\mathbb{H}}$ whose vertices are $\{k_1,k_2,k_3\}$. Denote by ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ the set of all the ideal triangles arising from elements of ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Let ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ denote the subset of ${\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}$ consisting of points that are vertices of some triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ the sets of hyperbolic geodesics that are sides of some elements of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
The Veech group ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ naturally acts upon the sets ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$. We denote the quotients $\allowbreak {\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma}), {\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma}),{\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ by $\allowbreak {\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma}), \; {\overline}{{\mathcal{L}}}(M,{\Sigma}), \; {\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ respectively. Our first result is a bound on the hyperbolic area of Teichmüller curves
\[thm:area:TC:bound\] Assume that $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a Veech surface. Then ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}$ is finite and we have $$\label{eq:lattice:vol:bound}
\mathrm{vol}({\mathbb{H}}/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})) \leq \pi\cdot \# {\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma}).$$
\[rm:bound:area\] In Section \[sec:fund:dom:n:gen:sets\], we will introduce an algorithm to determine the cardinality of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ in the case $(M,{\Sigma})$ is Veech surface (c.f. Remark \[rk:list:cusp:tri\]).
Recall that a [*tessellation*]{} of the upper half plane is a family of convex hyperbolic polygon of finite area (but not necessarily compact) that cover ${\mathbb{H}}$ such that two polygons in this family intersect in either a common vertex, or a common side. Elements of this family are called [*tiles*]{} of the tessellation (see [@Bow:thesis]). Our next result is the following
\[thm:ideal:tri:tess\] If $(M,{\Sigma})$ satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy, then ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ defines a tessellation $\Pi(M,{\Sigma})$ of ${\mathbb{H}}$, each tile of $\Pi(M,{\Sigma})$ has finitely many sides and area at most $\pi$. The tessellation $\Pi(M,{\Sigma})$ is invariant with respect to half-translation coverings, that is, if $(M',{\Sigma}')$ is a half-translation covering of $(M,{\Sigma})$, then $\Pi(M',{\Sigma}')=\Pi(M,{\Sigma})$.
\[rk:compare:Farey\]
- We refer to Section \[sec:trans:cover\] for a detailed discussion on (half-)translation coverings.
- If $M={\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ is the standard torus and ${\Sigma}=\{0\}$, then $\Pi(M,{\Sigma})$ is the Farey tessellation. Indeed, consider an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}$ in $({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2, \{0\})$ with the slopes of its sides being $k_i=p_i/q_i, i=1,2,3, \; p_i,q_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}, \gcd(p_i,q_i)=1$. If we cut $M$ along two sides of ${\mathrm{T}}$, we then get a parallelogram with the third side being a diagonal. Since the area of this parallelogram must be equal to the area of $M$, we have $$\left| \det \left(\begin{array}{cc} p_i & p_{i+1} \\ q_i & q_{i+1} \end{array} \right) \right|=|p_iq_{i+1}-p_{i+1}q_i|=1.$$ for $i=1,2,3$ with the convention $(p_4,q_4)=(p_1,q_1)$. Thus $\Pi({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$ is the Farey tessellation.
Theorem \[thm:ideal:tri:tess\] implies that one can associate to any tree ${\mathcal{T}}$ of (half-)translation coverings (c.f. Subsection \[subsec:tree:trans:cover\]) of Veech surfaces a unique tessellation $\Pi$ of ${\mathbb{H}}$. By definition, the Veech group of any surface representing a vertex of this tree is contained in the group ${{\rm Aut}}(\Pi)$ of elements of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ that stabilize $\Pi$. Note that ${{\rm Aut}}(\Pi)$ must be a lattice of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$. If the vertices of ${\mathcal{T}}$ are not torus covers, then ${\mathcal{T}}$ admits a root (see [@Mo_invent06]). In this case, it would be interesting to compare the hyperbolic surface ${\mathbb{H}}/{{\rm Aut}}(\Pi)$ with the Teichmüller curve generated by the root of ${\mathcal{T}}$.
It is shown by Gutkin and Judge [@GJ00] that if $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a translation surface such that ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})={\mathbb{Q}}\cup\{\infty\}$, then there is a (ramified) covering map from $M$ to the standard torus ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ that sends ${\Sigma}$ to $0$. Note that $(M,{\Sigma})$ is not necessarily a (half-) translation covering of $({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$, since ${\Sigma}$ may be a proper subset of the pre-image of $\{0\}$. The tessellation $\Pi(M,{\Sigma})$ can be used to distinguish different trees of (half-) translation coverings among such surfaces. For example, the square-tiled surfaces composed by 3 unit squares in $\mathcal{H}(2)$ is a translation covering of the standard torus $({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$ since the pre-image of $\{0\}$ is the unique singularity. Consequently, the corresponding tessellation is exactly the Farey tessellation. However, if $M$ is a square-tiled surface composed by 4 unit squares in $\mathcal{H}(2)$, and $p$ is the unique singularity of $M$, then $(M,\{p\})$ is not a translation covering of $({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$. The tessellation corresponding to such a surface is shown in Figure \[fig:tess:D16:H2\]. Since this tessellation is clearly not isomorphic to the Farey tessellation, this surface and the one composed by $3$ unit squares cannot belong to the same tree of translation coverings.
![Tessellation associated with a square-tiled surface in $\mathcal{H}(2)$ composed by $4$ squares, the horizontal direction (which corresponds to $\infty \in \partial{\mathbb{H}}$) is periodic with one cylinder.[]{data-label="fig:tess:D16:H2"}](tessellationW16.eps){width="6cm"}
The graph of periodic directions
--------------------------------
We now construct a graph ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ from ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ as follows:
- the vertex set of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma}) \sqcup {\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$,
- for any pair $(k,\Delta) \in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})\times{\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$, there is an edge connecting $k$ and $\Delta$ if and only if $k$ is a vertex of $\Delta$,
- there is no edge between two elements of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ nor two elements of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
We set the length of every edge of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ to be $1/2$. We will call ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ the [*graph of periodic directions*]{} of $(M,{\Sigma})$.
By construction, we have a natural action of ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ on ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ by automorphisms. We denote by ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ the quotient of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ by ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$. In the perspective of understanding the Veech group, we study of the geometry of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$. In particular, we will show
\[thm:G:per:dir:prop\] Let $(M,{\Sigma})$ be a half-translation surface satisfying the topological Veech dichotomy. Then the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ of periodic directions of $(M,{\Sigma})$ is connected, has infinite diameter, and is Gromov hyperbolic. The Veech group ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ acts freely on the set of edges of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Moreover, $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a Veech surface if and only if ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a finite graph.
[**Example:**]{} in the case $(M,{\Sigma})=({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$, we have ${\Gamma}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})={\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$, and each of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$ and ${\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$ contains a single element. Let $\Delta_0$ be the hyperbolic ideal triangle whose vertices are $\{0,1,\infty\}$. Since ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$ contains an element that fixes $\Delta_0$ and permutes cyclicly its vertices, namely $\pm \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$, one deduces that ${\overline}{{\mathcal{L}}}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$ contains also a unique element. Thus the graph ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2, \{0\})$ consists of one segment joining the unique element of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$ and the unique element of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$.
Since ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is invariant with respect to (half)-translation coverings and the group ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ acts freely on the set of edges of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$, we get
\[cor:sq:tiled:index:V:Gp\] If $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a translation cover of $({\mathbb{C}}/{\mathbb{Z}}^2,\{0\})$, then the number of edges of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ equals the index of ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ in ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$.
Generally, it would be interesting to determine to what extend the topology of the hyperbolic surface ${\mathbb{H}}/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ is encoded in ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$. We hope to return to this problem in a near future.
Fundamental domain and generators of the Veech group
----------------------------------------------------
Calculating the Veech group of a Veech surface and determining its fundamental domains in the hyperbolic upper half plane is a difficult problem, which has been tackled by various methods. Veech [@Vee11] and Bowman [@Bow10] construct a fundamental domain from a tessellation of ${\mathbb{H}}$ invariant by the Veech group using Delaunay triangulations. Smillie and Weiss [@SW:Veech] and Mukamel [@Mu13] construct partitions of the corresponding Teichmüller disk into convex domains bounded by geodesics by studying its [*spine*]{}. In [@McM_hilbert], McMullen proposes an algorithm to compute the fundamental domain of the Veech group when the corresponding Teichmüller curve has genus zero.
As application of Theorem \[thm:ideal:tri:tess\] and the connectedness of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$, we propose another method for the resolution of this problem. Specifically, in Section \[sec:algo:fund:dom\] we will provide an algorithm to determine a “coarse” fundamental domain of the Veech group. This is a finite area domain of ${\mathbb{H}}$ that is covered by finitely many hyperbolic ideal triangles, and contains a fundamental domain of ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$. We will also provide another algorithm to find a generating set of ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ in Section \[sec:gen:set:Veech:gp\]. The main tool of our algorithms is the geometry of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Those algorithms actually allow us to construct the graph ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ explicitly.
Acknowledgment: {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
---------------
The author warmly thanks Howie Masur for the helpful conversation. He thanks Vincent Delecroix, Samuel Lelièvre, and Huiping Pan for the helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Embedded triangles and coverings {#sec:trans:cover}
================================
Half-translation covering {#subsec:tree:trans:cover}
-------------------------
Let $(M',{\Sigma}')$ and $(M,{\Sigma})$ be two half-translation surfaces with marked points. Assume that $M'$ and $M$ are defined by two pairs (Riemann surface, quadratic differential) $(X',q')$ and $(X,q)$ respectively. Let ${\Sigma}$ (resp. ${\Sigma}'$) be a finite subset of $M$ (resp. of $M'$) that contains all the zeros and (simple) poles of $q$ (resp. of $q'$). A [*half-translation covering*]{} is a ramified covering of Riemann surfaces $f: X' {\rightarrow}X$ which is branched over ${\Sigma}$ such that ${\Sigma}'=f^{-1}({\Sigma})$ and $q'=f^*q$. In particular, an orienting double covering map is a half-translation covering. If both $M$ and $M'$ are translation surfaces then such a map is called a [*translation covering*]{}. Note that such coverings are also known as [*balanced coverings*]{} (see e.g. [@HS01]).
It is shown independently by Vorobets [@Vo96] and Gutkin-Judge [@GJ00] that if there exists a half-translation covering from $f: (M',{\Sigma}'){\rightarrow}(M,{\Sigma})$ then the Veech groups of the two surfaces are [*commensurable*]{}, that is they share a common finite index subgroup.
Two half-translation surfaces with marked points are said to be [*affine equivalent*]{} if they belong to the same ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$-orbit up to scaling. As suggested by Hubert and Schmidt [@HS01], we can define the notion of [*tree of half-translation coverings*]{} as follows: such a tree is a connected acyclic directed graph whose vertices are equivalence classes of half-translation surfaces with marked points, and two vertices, represented by $(M_1,{\Sigma}_1)$ and $(M_2,{\Sigma}_2)$, are connected by a directed edge from first to the second if there exists a half-translation covering map $f:(M_1,{\Sigma}_1) {\rightarrow}(M'_2,{\Sigma}'_2)$, where $(M'_2,{\Sigma}'_2)$ is a surface in the equivalence class of $(M_2,{\Sigma}_2)$. Note that any loop formed by oriented edges of this graph must be trivial (constant).
In [@Mo_invent06], Möller showed that every translation surface $(X,\omega)$ is a translation cover of a primitive translation surface $(X_{\rm prim},\omega_{\rm prim})$, and if the genus of $X_{\rm prim}$ is at least two then $(X_{\rm prim},\omega_{\rm prim})$ is unique. This implies that if a tree of translation coverings contains a surface which is not a torus cover then this tree has a root. In particular, a tree of translation coverings of Veech surfaces that are not square-tiled admits a root.
Invariance of the set of embedded triangles
-------------------------------------------
Throughout this section $(M,{\Sigma})$ will be a fixed half-translation surface with marked points, which is defined by a meromorphic quadratic differential $(X,q)$ whose poles are all simple. Recall that $(M,{\Sigma})$ satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy if and only if the foliation in the direction of any saddle connection is periodic. The following lemma readily follows from the definitions.
\[lm:h:trans:cov:V:dich\] Let $(M',{\Sigma}')$ be a half-translation covering of $(M,{\Sigma})$. Then $(M',{\Sigma}')$ satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy if and only if $(M,{\Sigma})$ does.
We now turn into embedded triangles in $(M,{\Sigma})$.
\[lm:loc:isom:embed\] Let $\varphi: {\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M$ be a map from an Euclidean triangle ${\mathrm{T}}$ to $M$ such that
- the vertices of ${\mathrm{T}}$ are mapped to points in ${\Sigma}$,
- $\varphi({\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}) \subset M{\setminus}{\Sigma}$, where ${\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ is the set of vertices of ${\mathrm{T}}$,
- the restriction of $\varphi$ to ${\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ is locally isometric.
Then the restriction of $\varphi$ to ${\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ is an embedding.
In what follows we identify ${\mathrm{T}}$ with a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Assume that there are two points $x_1,x_2 \in {\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ such that $\varphi(x_1)=\varphi(x_2)$. Since a triangle is a convex subset of the plane, the segment ${\overline}{x_1x_2}$ is contained in ${\mathrm{T}}$. Its image by $\varphi$ is a loop $\gamma$ in $M{\setminus}{\Sigma}$. Let $h \in \{\pm{\mathrm{Id}}\}\ltimes {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be the holonomy of $\gamma$.
If $h(v)=-v+c$, then we have $x_2=-x_1+c$. Let $x_0$ be the midpoint of ${\overline}{x_1x_2}$ then $x_0=c/2$. Thus $h(x_0)=x_0$, which means that $x_0$ is mapped to singular point with cone angle $\pi$ of $M$. By assumption ${\Sigma}$ contains all the singularities of $M$. Since $x_0\in {\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ we have a contradiction to the assumption that $\varphi({\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)})\subset M {\setminus}{\Sigma}$. Hence this case does not occur.
If $h(v)=v+c$ then $c=\overrightarrow{x_1x_2}$. Let ${\mathrm{T}}_c$ denote triangle ${\mathrm{T}}+c$. Let ${\mathrm{T}}^*$ (resp. ${\mathrm{T}}^*_c$) denote the triangles ${\mathrm{T}}$ (resp. ${\mathrm{T}}_c$) with its vertices removed. By assumption, we have ${\mathrm{T}}^*\cap {\mathrm{T}}^*_c \neq \varnothing$. One readily checks that this condition implies that either ${\mathrm{T}}^*_c$ contains a vertex of ${\mathrm{T}}$, or ${\mathrm{T}}^*$ contains a vertex of ${\mathrm{T}}_c$. It follows that there is a vertex $v_0$ of ${\mathrm{T}}$ such that either $v_0+c \in {\mathrm{T}}^*$ or $v_0-c \in {\mathrm{T}}^*$. Since $v_0$ and $v_0\pm c$ are mapped to the same point in $M$, we have again a contradiction to the assumption that $\varphi({\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)})\subset M{\setminus}{\Sigma}$. Thus the restriction of $\varphi$ to ${\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ is an embedding.
\[lm:blced:cov:same:tria\] Let $f: (M',{\Sigma}') {\rightarrow}(M,{\Sigma})$ be a half-translation covering of half-translation surfaces with marked points. Then we have ${\mathbb{T}}(M',{\Sigma}')={\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
Consider an embedded triangle $\varphi :{\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M'$ with $\varphi({\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}) \subset {\Sigma}'$. Composing with $f$, we get a map $\phi:=f\circ \varphi: {\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M$ with $\phi({\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}) \subset {\Sigma}$. Since $f$ is a half-translation covering, the map $\phi$ is a local isometry on ${\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$ and satisfies $\phi^*q=dz^2$ in the interior of ${\mathrm{T}}$ (where $q$ is the quadratic differential defining the flat metric of $M$). It follows from Lemma \[lm:loc:isom:embed\] that $f\circ\varphi({\mathrm{T}})$ is an embedded triangle in $(M,{\Sigma})$.
On the other hand, given an embedded triangle $\phi :{\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M$ with vertices in ${\Sigma}$, we can lift $\phi$ to a map $\hat{\phi}: {\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M'$ which is also a local isometry on ${\mathrm{T}}{\setminus}{\mathrm{T}}^{(0)}$. By Lemma \[lm:loc:isom:embed\], we have that $\hat{\phi}: {\mathrm{T}}{\rightarrow}M'$ is also an embedded triangle in $M'$ with vertices in ${\Sigma}'$. Thus the sets ${\mathbb{T}}(M',{\Sigma}')$ and ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ are equal.
As a direct consequence of Lemma \[lm:h:trans:cov:V:dich\] and Lemma \[lm:blced:cov:same:tria\], we get
\[cor:db:cover:triangles\]Let $\pi: (\hat{M},\hat{{\Sigma}}) {\rightarrow}(M,{\Sigma})$ be the orienting double covering. Then $(\hat{M},\hat{{\Sigma}})$ satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy if and only if $(M,{\Sigma})$ does, and ${\mathbb{T}}(\hat{M},\hat{{\Sigma}})={\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
Tessellation of the hyperbolic plane {#sec:tessellation}
====================================
Our goal now is to give the proofs of Theorem \[thm:area:TC:bound\] and Theorem \[thm:ideal:tri:tess\]. By Corollary \[cor:db:cover:triangles\], we can replace $(M,{\Sigma})$ by its orienting double cover. Therefore, in this section we will suppose that $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a translation surface with marked points which satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy.
Covering property of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$
------------------------------------------------
We first show
\[lm:ideal:tri:cover\] Let $z$ be a point in ${\mathbb{H}}$. Then either there is an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ such that $z$ is contained in the interior of the ideal triangle $\Delta_{\mathrm{T}}$ associated with ${\mathrm{T}}$, or there exist two embedded triangles ${\mathrm{T}}_1,{\mathrm{T}}_2 \in {\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ such that $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}_1}\cup\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}_2}$ is an ideal quadrilateral that contains $z$ in one of its diagonals.
Let $A$ be a matrix in ${{\rm SL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $z=A^{-1}(\imath)$. Consider the surface $(M',{\Sigma}'):=A\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$. Let ${\varrho}(M',{\Sigma}')$ denote the length of the shortest saddle connection on $M'$ (with endpoints in ${\Sigma}'$). Let $s_0$ be a saddle connection in $M'$ such that $|s_0|={\varrho}(M',{\Sigma}')$. Replacing $A$ by $RA$, where $R\in \mathrm{SO}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, if necessary (note that $(RA)^{-1}(\imath)=A^{-1}(\imath)=z$), we can assume that $s_0$ is horizontal.
Consider the vertical separatrices of $(M',{\Sigma}')$, that is the vertical geodesic rays emanating from the points in ${\Sigma}'$. We have two cases
- [Case (a):]{} ${\mathrm{int}}(s_0)$ intersects some vertical separatrices. For each vertical separatrix intersecting ${\mathrm{int}}(s_0)$, consider the subsegment from its origin to its first intersection with ${\mathrm{int}}(s_0)$. Pick a segment of minimal length $u_0$ in this family. Then there is an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}'$ containing this vertical segment which is bordered by $s_0$ and two other saddle connections denoted by $s_1,s_2$. This triangle can be constructed as follows: one can identify $s_0$ with a horizontal segment and $u_0$ with a vertical segment in the plane. Let $P_1,P_2$ denote the endpoints of the segment corresponding to $s_0$, and $P_0,Q_0$ denote the endpoints of the segment corresponding to $u_0$, where $Q_0 \in {\overline}{P_1P_2}$. Let ${\mathrm{T}}'$ be the triangle with vertices $P_0,P_1,P_2$. Since the length of $u_0$ is minimal among the vertical segments from a point in ${\Sigma}'$ to a point in ${\mathrm{int}}(s_0)$, the developing map induces a map $\varphi: {\mathrm{T}}' {\rightarrow}M'$ which is locally isometric. By Lemma \[lm:loc:isom:embed\], the image of $\varphi$ is an embedded triangle in $(M',{\Sigma}')$. By construction $s_i=\varphi({\overline}{P_0P_i}), \; i=1,2$.
Let $k_1,k_2$ be the slopes of $s_1$ and $s_2$ respectively. Note that we always have $k_1k_2<0$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $k_1 > 0 > k_2$ (equivalently, $P_1$ is the left endpoint of $s_0$). We now claim that $$\label{eq:bound:k2-k3}
k_1-k_2 \leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}.$$ Let $x_i$ be the length of the segment ${\overline}{P_iQ_0}, \; i=1,2$, and $y$ be the length of the segment ${\overline}{P_0Q_0}$. By definition, we have $k_1=x_1/y$ and $k_2=-x_2/y$. Hence $$k_1-k_2 =\frac{x_1+x_2}{y}=\frac{x}{y}$$ where $x=x_1+x_2=|s_0|$. By definition, we have $|s_0| \leq \min \{|s_1|,|s_2|\}$, therefore $x^2 \leq \min\{x_1^2+y^2, x_2^2+y^2\}$. But since $x=x_1+x_2$, we have $\min\{x_1,x_2\} \leq \frac{x}{2}$. Thus we have $$x^2 \leq \frac{x^2}{4} +y^2 \text{ which implies } \frac{x}{y} \leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}$$ which proves the claim.
Since we have $k_1 > 0 > k_2$ and $k_1-k_2 \leq 2/\sqrt{3} $, the radius of the half circle perpendicular to the real axis passing through $k_1$ and $k_2$ is at most $ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}<1$. Thus it cannot separate $\imath$ and $\infty$. It follows in particular that $\imath$ is contained in the ideal triangle $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'}$ with vertices $\{\infty, k_1,k_2\}$.
Since $(M,{\Sigma})=A^{-1}\cdot (M',{\Sigma}')$, ${\mathrm{T}}=A^{-1}({\mathrm{T}}')$ is an embedded triangle in ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Note that the slope of the sides of ${\mathrm{T}}$ are $\{A^{-1}(\infty),A^{-1}(k_1),A^{-1}(k_2)\}$ (here we consider the usual action of $A^{-1}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}=\partial{\mathbb{H}}$) which means that $\{A^{-1}(\infty),A^{-1}(k_1),A^{-1}(k_2)\}$ are the vertices of the ideal triangle $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}}$, or equivalently $\Delta_{\mathrm{T}}=A^{-1}(\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'})$. Since $\imath$ is contained in the interior of $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'}$ and $z=A^{-1}(\imath)$ by definition, we conclude that $z$ is contained in the interior of $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}}$.\
- [Case (b):]{} no-vertical saddle connection intersects ${\mathrm{int}}(s_0)$. In this case the vertical foliation is not minimal. Since $(M,{\Sigma})$ (hence $(M',{\Sigma}')$) satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy, this means that the vertical foliation is periodic and $s_0$ is contained in a vertical cylinder $C$ of $(M',{\Sigma}')$.
We can realize the cylinder $C$ as the image of a rectangle ${\mathrm{R}}$ in the plane under a locally isometric mapping $\varphi: {\mathrm{R}}{\rightarrow}M$ such that the restriction of $\varphi$ to ${\mathrm{int}}({\mathrm{R}})$ is an embbeding, and $\varphi$ maps both the bottom and top sides of ${\mathrm{R}}$ onto $s_0$.
Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ denote the left and right endpoints of the bottom side of ${\mathrm{R}}$ respectively. There is a subsegment of the left side of ${\mathrm{R}}$, with $P_1$ being an endpoint, that is mapped to a vertical saddle connection $r_1$ in the boundary of $C$. Similarly, there is a subsegment of the right side of ${\mathrm{R}}$, with $P_2$ being an endpoint, that is mapped to a vertical saddle connection $r_2$ in the boundary of $C$. Let $P'_1$ and $P'_2$ denote the upper endpoints of $r_1$ and $r_2$ respectively. Let $s_1$ (resp. $s_2$) denote the saddle connection that is the image of ${\overline}{P'_1P_2}$ (resp. of ${\overline}{P_1P'_2}$) under $\varphi$. Remark that $s_0,s_i,r_i$ bound an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}'_i$, which is entirely contained in $C$, for $i=1,2$.
Let $k_i$ be the slope of $s_i$, then $k_1< 0 < k_2<0$. The vertices of the hyperbolic ideal triangle $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'_i}$ are $\{\infty, 0,k_i\}$. Since $k_1k_2 <0$, the vertical line from $\infty$ to $0$ is the common side of the ideal triangles $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'_1}$ and $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'_2}$. Hence $\imath$ is contained in the interior of the ideal quadrilateral formed by $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'_1}$ and $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}'_2}$. By the same arguments as the previous case, we see that there exists two embedded triangles ${\mathrm{T}}_1,{\mathrm{T}}_2$ in ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ such that $z$ is contained in a diagonal of the quadrilateral formed by $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}_1}$ and $\Delta_{{\mathrm{T}}_2}$.
Locally finite property of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$
------------------------------------------------------
\[lm:finite:intersect\] Let $\gamma$ be a geodesic in ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Then the set $$\{\eta \in {\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma}): \; (\eta\cap \gamma) \neq {\varnothing}\}$$ is finite.
By definition, $\gamma$ is a side of an ideal triangle $\Delta_{\mathrm{T}}$ associated with an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Using ${{\rm GL}}^+(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, we can assume that the slopes of the sides of ${\mathrm{T}}$ are $\{0,1,\infty\}$ and $\gamma$ is the upper half of the imaginary axis. Moreover, we can normalize such that ${\mathrm{Area}}(M)=1$.
Since $M$ satisfies the topological Veech dichotomy, the horizontal and vertical directions are periodic. Let $\kappa_1$ (resp. $\kappa_2$) be the minimum of the widths of the horizontal (resp. vertical) cylinders.
Consider now a geodesic $\eta\in {\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that crosses $\gamma$. Observe that $\eta$ must join a point $k_1 \in {\mathbb{R}}_{<0}$ to a point $k_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$. By definition, there exists an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}'$ in ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ having two sides $s_1,s_2$ with slopes $k_1,k_2$ respectively. Let $(x_i,y_i) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \simeq {\mathbb{C}}$ be the period of $s_i, \; i=1,2$. We can always assume that $y_i>0$. By assumption, we must have $x_1 < 0 < x_2$. Since ${\mathrm{T}}'$ is an embedded triangle, we must have ${\mathrm{Area}}({\mathrm{T}}') \leq {\mathrm{Area}}(M)=1$. Hence $$\label{ineq:cross:geod:1}
\left| \det \left( \begin{array}{cc} x_1 & x_2 \\ y_1 & y_2 \end{array} \right) \right|=x_2y_1-x_1y_2 \leq 2$$ It follows $$\label{ineq:cross:geod:2}
-x_1y_2 \leq 2 \text{ and } x_2y_1 \leq 2.$$ Since $s_i$ are not horizontal ($k_i\neq \infty$), $s_i$ must cross at least one horizontal cylinder. Thus we have $y_i\geq \kappa_1$. Similarly, since $s_i$ are not vertical ($k_i \neq 0$), $s_i$ must cross some vertical cylinders, which implies $-x_1 \geq \kappa_2$ and $x_2 \geq \kappa_2$. From , we get $$\label{ineq:cross:geod:3}
0 < -x_1 \leq 2/\kappa_1, 0 < x_2 \leq 2/\kappa_1 \text{ and } 0< y_i \leq 2/\kappa_2, \; i=1,2.$$ Therefore, the lengths of $s_1$ and $s_2$ are bounded by some constants depending on $(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$. Since the set of saddle connections with length bounded by a constant is finite, the lemma follows.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:area:TC:bound\]
--------------------------------------
Inequality follows immediately from the fact that ${\mathbb{H}}/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ is covered by ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$. That ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})/{\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ is finite will be proved in Proposition \[prop:Vee:quot:finite\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:ideal:tri:tess\]
---------------------------------------
By Lemma \[lm:ideal:tri:cover\] we know that the union of the ideal triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ equals ${\mathbb{H}}$. It remains to show that every component of the set ${\mathbb{H}}{\setminus}\left(\cup_{{\gamma}\in {\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})} {\gamma}\right)$ is a hyperbolic polygon having finitely many sides and area at most $\pi$. Consider such a component $P$. By Lemma \[lm:ideal:tri:cover\], $P$ must be contained is an ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$, whose sides are denoted by ${\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2,{\gamma}_3$. It follows immediately that the area of $P$ is at most $\pi$. Any side $\delta$ of $P$ is a segment of a geodesic ${\gamma}\in {\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Note that if ${\gamma}\not\in \{{\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2,{\gamma}_3\}$ then ${\gamma}$ must cross at least one of them. But by Lemma \[lm:finite:intersect\], each of ${\gamma}_i, \; i=1,2,3$, can only be crossed by finitely many geodesics in ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Thus the number of sides of $P$ is finite. The last assertion is an immediate consequence of Lemma \[lm:blced:cov:same:tria\].
The graph of periodic directions {#sec:graph:per:dir}
================================
Throughout this section, to simplify the discussion, $(M,{\Sigma})$ will be translation surface satisfying the topological Veech dichotomy. By Corollary \[cor:db:cover:triangles\], the results in this section also hold in the case $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a half-translation surface. Recall that the vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ are elements of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma}) \sqcup {\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and every edge of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ must join an element $\Delta$ of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ to an element $k$ of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ which is a vertex of $\Delta$. The length of every edge is set to be $\frac{1}{2}$. Let ${\mathbf{d}}$ denote the distance metric on ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
By construction, the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ has the following properties:
- Every vertex representing a ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$-orbit in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is the common endpoint of exactly $3$ (distinct) edges.
- Every vertex representing a ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$-orbit in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is contained in infinitely many edges (this is because any saddle connection is contained in infinitely many embedded triangles).
- Let $k,k'$ be two elements of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Then ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k')=1$ if and only if there is an ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that contains $k$ and $k'$ as vertices. Equivalently, ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k')=1$ if and only if there is a geodesic in ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that joins $k$ and $k'$.
Connectedness {#sec:G:connect}
-------------
For each $k \in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, let us denote by ${\mathbf{S}}(M,{\Sigma},k)$ the set of saddle connections in the direction $k$. The union of the saddle connections in ${\mathbf{S}}(M,{\Sigma},k)$ will be denoted by $\hat{{\mathbf{S}}}(M,{\Sigma},k)$. Given $k,k'$ in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, we define the [*ordered intersection number*]{} of the pair $(k,k')$ by $${\mathbf{i}}(k,k')=\min\{\#\left({\mathrm{int}}(s)\cap\hat{{\mathbf{S}}}(M,{\Sigma}, k')\right), \; s \in {\mathbf{S}}(M,{\Sigma},k)\}.$$ Note that the function ${\mathbf{i}}$ is not symmetric, that is ${\mathbf{i}}(k,k')$ and ${\mathbf{i}}(k',k)$ might not be equal.
\[prop:G:dist:inters\] Let $k,k'$ be two directions in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then $$\label{eq:G:dist:inters}
{\mathbf{d}}(k,k')\leq \log_2(\min\{{\mathbf{i}}(k,k'),{\mathbf{i}}(k',k)\}+1)+1.$$ In particular, the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is connected.
We first show
\[lm:G:inters:zero\] If $\min\{{\mathbf{i}}(k,k'),{\mathbf{i}}(k',k)\}=0$ then ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k')=1$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume $k=0, k'=\infty$, and that ${\mathbf{i}}(k,k')=0$. This means that $k$ is the vertical direction, $k'$ is the horizontal direction, and there is a vertical saddle connection $s$ which is not crossed by any horizontal saddle connection. By assumption, the horizontal direction is periodic, this means that $s$ is contained in a horizontal cylinder $C$. There always exists an embedded triangle contained in $C$ whose boundary contains $s$ and a horizontal saddle connection in the boundary of $C$. Thus ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ contains an ideal hyperbolic triangle with vertices $(0,\infty,k'')$, which means that, as vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$, $0$ and $\infty$ are connected by a path of length one.
Proof of Proposition \[prop:G:dist:inters\] {#proof-of-propositionpropgdistinters .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
Again, without loss of generality, we can assume that $k=0,k'=\infty$, and ${\mathbf{i}}(k,k') \leq {\mathbf{i}}(k',k)$. Let $n={\mathbf{i}}(k,k')=\min\{{\mathbf{i}}(k,k'),{\mathbf{i}}(k',k)\}$. If $n=0$, then by Lemma \[lm:G:inters:zero\], we have ${\mathbf{d}}(0,\infty)=1$. Let us suppose that $n>0$.
Consider a vertical saddle connection $s$ such that $\#\{{\mathrm{int}}(s)\cap \hat{{\mathbf{S}}}(M,{\Sigma},\infty)\}=n$. Let us denote the horizontal saddle connections of $M$ by $a_1,\dots,a_m$. We choose the orientation of those saddle connections to be from the left to the right. For each $a_i$, let $r_i$ be the distance along $a_i$ from its left endpoint to its first intersection with ${\mathrm{int}}(s)$. If $a_i\cap{\mathrm{int}}(s)={\varnothing}$, we set $r_i=+\infty$.
Assume that $r_1=\min \{r_1,\dots,r_m\}$. Let $a'_1$ be the subsegment of $a_1$ between its left endpoint and its first intersection with ${\mathrm{int}}(s)$. Using the developing map of the flat metric structure, we see that $a'_1$ is contained in an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}$ bordered by $s$ and two other saddle connections $s_1,s_2$. Let $k_1,k_2$ be the directions of $s_1$ and $s_2$ respectively. By definition there is an ideal hyperbolic triangle with vertices $(0,k_1,k_2)$ in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Thus we have ${\mathbf{d}}(0,k_1)={\mathbf{d}}(0,k_2)=1$ as vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$. We now observe that $$\#\{{\mathrm{int}}(s)\cap\hat{{\mathbf{S}}}(M,{\Sigma},\infty)\}=\#\{{\mathrm{int}}(s_1)\cap\hat{{\mathbf{S}}}(M,{\Sigma},\infty)\}+\#\{{\mathrm{int}}(s_2)\cap\hat{{\mathbf{S}}}(M,{\Sigma},\infty)\}-1$$ Hence $\min\{{\mathbf{i}}(k_1,k'),{\mathbf{i}}(k_2,k')\} < {\mathbf{i}}(k,k')/2$. Replacing $k$ by either $k_1$ or $k_2$, by induction, we get the desired conclusion.
Action of the Veech group
-------------------------
Since an affine automorphism must send saddle connections to saddle connections and embedded triangles to embedded triangles, we have an action of the group ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ on ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ by automorphisms.
\[lm:Gam:act:freely\] The group ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ acts freely on the set of edges of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
Let $g$ be a an element of ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$. Assume that $g$ fixes an edge of $e$ of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Recall that by construction, one endpoint of $e$ corresponds to an ideal triangle $\Delta$ in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and the other endpoint corresponds to a vertex $k$ of $\Delta$. Since $g$ fixes $e$, it must fix $\Delta$ and $k$ (this is because $g$ preserves each of the sets ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ and ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$). In particular, $g$ permutes the vertices of $\Delta$. But since $g$ preserves the orientation of ${\mathbb{RP}}^1\simeq \partial {\mathbb{H}}$, if it fixes one vertex of $\Delta$, it must fix all of its vertices. Therefore we must have $g=\pm {\mathrm{Id}}$.
Recall that ${\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\overline}{{\mathcal{L}}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ are the quotients of $\allowbreak{{\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma}),{\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})}$ by ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ respectively.
\[prop:Vee:quot:finite\] If $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a Veech surface then the quotients ${\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,{\Sigma})$, ${\overline}{{\mathcal{L}}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ are all finite. In particular, ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a finite graph.
Since every ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$-orbit in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a cusp of the corresponding Teichmüller curve, we draw that the quotient ${\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is finite.
Let us show that ${\overline}{{\mathcal{L}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is finite. Let $k$ be an element of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$. We can assume that $k=\infty$, that is $k$ is the horizontal direction. Since $M$ is a Veech surface, it is horizontally periodic. Moreover, there is a matrix $A = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & \pm c \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right) \in {\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ such that the stabilizer of $\infty$ in ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ equals $\{A^n, \, n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $c>0$.
Let $\delta$ be the length of the shortest horizontal saddle connections of $(M,{\Sigma})$. Consider a geodesic ${\gamma}\in {\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ joining $\infty$ to a point $k'\in {\mathbb{R}}$. By definition, there is an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ whose boundary contains a horizontal saddle connection $s$, and a saddle connection $s'$ in direction $k'$.
We first notice that $|s| \geq \delta$. Let $x'+\imath y'$, with $y'>0$, be the period of $s'$. Since ${\mathrm{Area}}({\mathrm{T}}) \leq {\mathrm{Area}}(M)=1$, we have $y' \leq 2/|s| \leq 2/\delta$. There exists $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $0\leq x'+ncy' \leq cy' \leq 2c/\delta$. Thus, up to the action of $\{A^n, \; n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$, we can assume that $0 \leq x' \leq 2c/\delta$. It follows that $|s'|$ is bounded by $\frac{2}{\delta}\sqrt{1+c^2} $, which implies that $s'$ belongs to a finite set. Hence, up to the action of $\{A^n, \; n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$, there are only finitely many geodesics in ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that contains $\infty$ as an endpoint. Since ${\overline}{{\mathcal{C}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is finite, we conclude that the set ${\overline}{{\mathcal{L}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is also finite.
We now claim that any geodesic ${\gamma}$ in ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is contained in finitely many ideal triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that ${\gamma}$ is the upper half of the imaginary axis. Let $\Delta$ be an ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that contains ${\gamma}$. By definition, $\Delta$ corresponds to an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ whose boundary contains a horizontal saddle connection $s$, and a vertical saddle connection $s'$. Note that the direction of the third side of ${\mathrm{T}}$ is determined up to sign by $|s|/|s'|$. Since there are only finitely many horizontal (resp. vertical) saddle connections, such a triangle belongs to a finite set. Therefore, there are only finitely many elements of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that contain ${\gamma}$.
Pick a representative for each ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$-orbit in ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and let ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})^*$ be the resulting finite family of geodesics in ${\mathbb{H}}$. By the previous claim, the sets of triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that contain at least one element of ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})^*$ is finite. Since every ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is mapped by an element of ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ to a triangle that contains a geodesic in the family ${\mathcal{L}}(M,{\Sigma})^*$, we conclude that ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is finite.
Geometry of the graph of periodic directions {#sec:hyperbolicity}
============================================
Our goal now is to give the proof of Theorem \[thm:G:per:dir:prop\]. Throughout this section $(M,{\Sigma})$ will be a half-translation surface satisfying the topological Veech dichotomy, which needs not to be a Veech surface.
Infinite diameter
-----------------
In this section we will show
\[prop:inf:diam\] The graph ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ has infinite diameter.
To prove Proposition \[prop:inf:diam\], we will make use of the connection between ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ and the arc and curve graph on a surface with marked points.
### Arc and curve graphs
Let $S$ be a topological surface homeomorphic to $M {\setminus}{\Sigma}$. We will consider $S$ as a compact surface $\hat{S}$ with a finite set $V$ removed, points in $V$ are called punctures. A simple closed curve in $S$ is [*non-essential*]{} if it is either homotopic to the constant loop, or bounds a disc that contains only one puncture. A simple arc in $S$ is a continuous map $\alpha : I {\rightarrow}\hat{S}$, where $I \subset {\mathbb{R}}$ is a compact interval, such that the restriction of $\alpha$ to ${\mathrm{int}}(I)$ is an embedding and $\alpha(I)\cap V=\alpha(\partial I)$. A simple arc is [*non-essential*]{} if it is homotopic relative to its endpoints to the constant map by a homotopy $H: I\times [0,1] {\rightarrow}S$ such that for all $(t,s)\in {\mathrm{int}}(I)\times[0,1)$, $H(t,s)\in S$. A simple closed curve or a simple arc is said to be [*essential*]{} if it is not non-essential.
Define the [*curve graph*]{} ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ to be the graph whose vertices are homotopy classes of essential simple closed curves in $S$, and there is an edge between two vertices if and only if the corresponding simple closed curves can be realized disjointly. Similarly, define the [*arc and curve graph*]{} ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ to be the graph whose vertices are homotopy classes of essential simple arcs and simple curves on $S$, and there is an edge between two vertices if and only if they can be realized disjointly in $S$. We define the length of every edge of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ and of ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ to be one. Denote by ${\mathrm{d}}_{\rm AC}$ and ${\mathrm{d}}_{\rm C}$ the distance in ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ and in ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ respectively. By construction, we have a natural embedding from ${\mathrm{Curv}}(C)$ into ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$.
Since the graph of periodic directions ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is unchanged if we replace $(M,{\Sigma})$ by a half-translation covering, we can suppose that genus of $M$ (and hence the genus of $S$) is at least two. We then have the following well known facts (see [@MasSch13])
- the graphs ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ and ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ are connected and have infinite diameter,
- the graphs ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ and ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ are quasi-isometric.
A geodesic metric space is said to be [*Gromov hyperbolic*]{} if there is a constant $\delta >0$ such that for any triple of points $(x,y,z)$ in this space, any geodesic from $x$ to $y$ is contained in the $\delta$-neighborhood of the union of a geodesic from $x$ to $z$ and a geodesic from $y$ to $z$. By celebrated result of Masur-Minsky [@MasMin99], we know that ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ (and hence ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$) is Gromov hyperbolic.
Recall that a measured foliation on $S$ is by definition a measured foliation on $\hat{S}$ which has $k$-pronged singularities with $k\geq 3$ in $S$, and $k$-pronged singularities with $k\geq 1$ at points in $V$ (see [@Mosher:preprint]). In other word, measured foliations on $S$ are measured foliations on $\hat{S}$ that are modeled by the foliations of meromorphic quadratic differentials with at most simple poles.
A measured foliation is [*minimal*]{} if all of its leaves are either dense in $\hat{S}$ or join two singularities, and there is no cycle of leaves. In [@Kla99], Klarreich shows that the boundary at infinity $\partial_\infty{\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ can be identified with the space of topological minimal foliations on $S$.
We now equip $S$ with a conformal structure such that every point in $V$ has a neighborhood biholomorphic to the punctured disk $\{z \in {\mathbb{C}}; 0 <|z| <1\}$. In the same conformal class, there is unique complete hyperbolic metric on $S$ of finite volume. Points in $V$ are cusps of this metric. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the space $\mathcal{ML}(S)$ of measured geodesic laminations of $S$ and the space $\mathcal{MF}(S)$ (of homotopy classes) of measured foliations on $S$. Using this identification, $\partial_\infty{\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ can be identified with the space of minimal laminations that fill up $S$ (see [@Ham06]).
We say that a sequence $(\lambda_i)$ of geodesic laminations [*converges in the coarse Hausdorff topology*]{} to a minimal lamination that fills up $S$ if every accumulation points of $(\lambda_i)$ with respect to the Hausdorff topology contains $\mu$ as sublamination.
Since any essential simple closed curve in $S$ is homotopic to a simple closed geodesic for the hyperbolic metric, vertices of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ can be viewed as geodesic laminations on $S$. In [@Ham06], Hamenstädt interprets the results of Klarreich in terms of geodesic laminations, and shows the following
\[thm:Ham:conv:seq:infty\] For any minimal lamination $\mu$ that fills up $S$, a sequence $(c_i) \subset {\mathrm{Curv}}(S)^{(0)}$ is admissible and defines the point in $\partial_\infty{\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ represented by $\mu$ if and only if $(c_i)$ converges in the coarse Hausdorff topology to $\mu$.
\[rk:converge:seq:MF:GL\] In terms of measured foliations, the sequence $(c_i)$ converges to $\mu$ if and only if for every accumulation point $\nu$ of $(c_i)$ in the space of projective measured foliations, $\nu$ is topologically equivalent to $\mu$ (see [@Kla99 Th. 1.4]).
Let $\iota$ denote the intersection number function on the spaces $\mathcal{MF}(S)$ and $\mathcal{ML}(S)$. The following result is proved in [@Rees81].
\[thm:min:fol\] If $\lambda$ is a minimal measured foliation on $S$, then a measured lamination $\mu$ is topologically equivalent (Whitehead equivalent) to $\lambda$ if and only if $\iota(\lambda,\mu)=0$.
For our purpose, we will also need the following result which is due to Smillie [@Smi00] (see also [@Vo05]).
\[thm:Smillie:Vorobets\] Given any stratum of translation surfaces, there is a constant $K>0$ such that on any surface of area one in this stratum, there exists a cylinder of width bounded below by $K$.
Note that in a surface of area one, the circumference of a cylinder whose width is bounded below by $K$ is at most $1/K$. As a consequence of Theorem \[thm:Ham:conv:seq:infty\], we get the following (see also [@Ham10 Prop. 2.4])
\[cor:short:curv:min:fol\] For $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, let $M_t$ denote the surface $a_t\cdot M$, where $a_t=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} e^t & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t} \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. For $n \in \{0,1,\dots\}$, let $c_n$ be a regular geodesic on $M_n$ of length at most $1/K$. The existence of such a geodesic is guaranteed by Theorem \[thm:Smillie:Vorobets\]. We consider $(c_n)$ as a sequence of vertices of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ via a homeomorphism $f: \hat{S} {\rightarrow}M$ sending $V$ onto ${\Sigma}$.
Assume that the vertical foliation $\mu$ on $M$ is minimal. Then the sequence $(c_n)$ defines a point in $\partial_\infty{\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$. In particular, $$\lim_{n {\rightarrow}\infty} {\mathrm{d}}_{\rm C}(c_0, c_n)=\infty.$$
We can consider $\mu$ as an element of $\mathcal{MF}(S)$. Since $\mu$ is minimal by assumption, it represents a point in the boundary at infinity of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$. Let $\mu_t$ denote the (measured) foliation in the vertical direction on $M_t$. By definition, we have $\mu_t=e^t\cdot\mu$. We have $$e^n\cdot \iota(c_n,\mu) = \iota(c_n,\mu_n) \leq |c_n| \leq 1/K, \text{ for all } n \in {\mathbb{N}}.$$ Thus $\lim_{n{\rightarrow}\infty}\iota(c_n,\mu) =0$. If $\nu$ is an element of $\mathcal{MF}(S)$ representing an accumulation point of $(c_n)$ in the space of projective measured foliations, then $\iota(\nu,\mu)=0$. Since $\mu$ is minimal, by Theorem \[thm:min:fol\], $\nu$ is topologically equivalent to $\mu$. It follows from Theorem \[thm:Ham:conv:seq:infty\] that $\mu$ is the limit of $(c_n)$ in $\partial_\infty{\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$, and the corollary follows.
### Maps to the curve complex and the arc and curve complex
Let us fix a homeomorphism $f: \hat{S} {\rightarrow}M$ such that $f^{-1}({\Sigma})=V$. Via the map $f$, we have two natural “coarse” mappings $\Psi: {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma}) {\rightarrow}{\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ and $\Psi': {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma}) {\rightarrow}{\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ defined as follows: for any $k \in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$,
- $\Psi(k)$ is the set of vertices of ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ representing the homotopy classes of the saddle connections and regular geodesics (cylinders) in the direction $k$, and
- $\Psi'(k)$ is the set vertices of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ representing the homotopy classes of the regular geodesics in the direction $k$.
By construction, ${\mathrm{diam}}(\Psi(k))={\mathrm{diam}}(\Psi'(k))=1$ for any $k \in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
\[lm:compare:leng:G:n:AC\] Let $p,q$ be two periodic directions in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ considered as vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}$. Then $$\label{eq:dist:G:n:AC}
{\mathbf{d}}(p,q) \geq \frac{1}{2} {\mathrm{d}}_{\rm AC}(\Psi(p),\Psi(q))$$ where ${\mathrm{d}}_{\rm AC}(\Psi(p),\Psi(q))$ is the length of the shortest paths joining a point in $\Psi(p)$ and a point in $\Psi(q)$.
Let $\beta$ be a path of minimal length from $p$ to $q$ in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Let $p=k_0,k_1,\dots,k_\ell=q$ be the elements of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that are contained in $\beta$, where ${\mathbf{d}}(p,k_i)=i$. By construction, for $i=0,\dots,\ell-1$, there are an element of $\Psi(k_i)$ and an element of $\Psi(k_{i+1})$ which are represented by two disjoint arcs in $S$. Therefore, there is an edge in ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ between a point in $\Psi(k_i)$ and a point in $\Psi(k_{i+1})$. Since ${\mathrm{diam}}(\Psi(k_i))=1$ for all $i$, it follows that there is a path from a point in $\Psi(p)$ to a point in $\Psi(q)$ of length at most $2\ell$, from which we get inequality .
### Proof of Proposition \[prop:inf:diam\]
By Lemma \[lm:compare:leng:G:n:AC\], it is enough to show that ${\mathrm{diam}}(\Psi({\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})))=\infty$, which is equivalent to ${\mathrm{diam}}(\Psi'({\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})))=\infty$ because the embedding of ${\mathrm{Curv}}(S)$ into ${\mathrm{ACurv}}(S)$ is a quasi-isometry. Since we can rotate $M$ such that the vertical foliation is minimal, this follows immediately from Corollary \[cor:short:curv:min:fol\].
Hyperbolicity
-------------
Our goal now is to show
\[prop:G:hyperbolic\] The graph ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is Gromov hyperbolic.
For this purpose, we will use the following criterion by Masur-Schleimer [@MasSch13].
\[thm:hyp:crit:Ma-Sc\] Suppose that $\mathcal{X}$ is a graph with all edge lengths equal to one. Then $\mathcal{X}$ is Gromov hyperbolic if there is a constant $R \geq 0$, and for all unordered pair of vertices $x,y$ in $\mathcal{X}^0$, there is a connected subgraph $g_{x,y}$ containing $x$ and $y$ with the following properties
- (Local) If $d_\mathcal{X}(x,y) \leq 1$ then $g_{x,y}$ has diameter at most $R$,
- (Slim triangle) For any $x,y,z \in \mathcal{X}^0$, the subgraph $g_{x,y}$ is contained in the $R$-neighborhood of $g_{x,z}\cup g_{z,y}$.
We will also need the following improvement of Proposition \[prop:G:dist:inters\].
\[lm:dist:G:inters:bound\] There exists a constant $\kappa_0$ depending on the stratum of $(M,{\Sigma})$ such that, for any pair of saddle connections $s_1$ and $s_2$ of $(M,{\Sigma})$ with directions $k_1$ and $k_2$ respectively, we have $$\label{eq:dist:G:inters:bound}
{\mathbf{d}}(k_1,k_2) \leq \log_2(\#({\mathrm{int}}(s_1)\cap{\mathrm{int}}(s_2))+1) +\kappa_0.$$
Assume first that $\#({\mathrm{int}}(s_1)\cap{\mathrm{int}}(s_2))=0$, which means that $s_1$ and $s_2$ are disjoint. We can then add other saddle connections to the family $\{s_1,s_2\}$ to obtain a triangulation of $(M,{\Sigma})$. Let $\kappa_0$ be the number of triangles in this triangulation. Note that this number only depends on the stratum of $(M,{\Sigma})$. Now, since each triangle in this triangulation represents a vertex in ${\mathcal{G}}$ that is connected to the vertices representing the directions of its three sides, we see that there is a path in ${\mathcal{G}}$ from $k_1$ to $k_2$ of length at most $\kappa_0$. Thus we have $${\mathbf{d}}(k_1,k_2) \leq \kappa_0.$$ For the case $\#({\mathrm{int}}(s_1)\cap{\mathrm{int}}(s_2))>0$, we us the same induction as in Proposition \[prop:G:dist:inters\] to conclude.
\[cor:cyls:width:bounded\] Let $C_1$ be a cylinder, and $s$ a saddle connection in $(M,{\Sigma})$. Let $w(C)$ denote the width of $C$ and $|s|$ the length of $s$. Then the distance in ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ between the direction of $C$ and the direction of $s$ is at most $\log_2(\frac{|s|}{w(C)}+1)+\kappa_0$.
Let $c$ be a core curve of $C$. Let $m$ be the number of intersections between $c$ and ${\mathrm{int}}(s)$. Obviously, we only need to consider the case $c$ and $s$ are not parallel. Since $|s| \geq mw(C)$, we have $m \leq |s|/w(C)$. If $s'$ is a saddle connection in the boundary of $C$, then we have $$\#({\mathrm{int}}(s),{\mathrm{int}}(s')) \leq m \leq \frac{|s|}{w(C)}.$$ We can then conclude by Lemma \[lm:dist:G:inters:bound\].
### Paths connecting pairs of points in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$
In view of Theorem \[thm:hyp:crit:Ma-Sc\], to simplify the arguments, we will consider another graph, denoted by ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$, closely related to ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$. The vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ are elements of ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, and two vertices are connected by an edge if and only if they are two vertices of an ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$. The length of every edge is set to be one.
There is a natural map $\Xi: {\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ defined as follows: $\Xi$ is identity on ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})\simeq {\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})^{(0)}$. For each edge $e\in {\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})^{(1)}$ whose endpoints are $k_1,k_2\in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, $\Xi(e)$ is the union of the two edges in ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that connect $k_1,k_2$ through a vertex representing an ideal triangle $\Delta\in {\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$. Recall that by construction, $k_1,k_2$ are two vertices of $\Delta$.
Note that $\Delta$ may not be unique, however the number of admissible $\Delta$ is bounded by a constant depending only on the stratum of $(M,{\Sigma})$. Indeed, by definition, $\Delta$ is an ideal hyperbolic triangle that contains $k_1,k_2$ as vertices. Let ${\mathrm{T}}$ be an embedded triangle associated with $\Delta$ whose sides are denoted by $s_1,s_2,s_3$. We assume that the directions of $s_1$ and $s_2$ are $k_1$ and $k_2$ respectively. We endow $s_1,s_2,s_3$ with the orientations induced by ${\mathrm{T}}$. Those oriented saddle connections correspond to a triple of vectors $\{v_1,v_2,v_3\} \in ({\mathbb{R}}^2)^3$ such that $v_1+v_2+v_3= \overrightarrow{0}$, where $v_i$ is the vector associated to $s_i$. It follows that $v_3$ is uniquely determined by $v_1$ and $v_2$. This means that each pair of oriented saddle connections $(s_1,s_2)$, where the directions of $s_i$ is $k_i, \; i=1,2$, correspond to at most one ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that contains $k_1$ and $k_2$ as vertices. Since the number of saddle connections in a given direction is determined by the stratum of $(M,{\Sigma})$, the number of element of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that are connected to both $k_1$ and $k_2$ by one edge is bounded by a universal constant.
Since every element of ${\mathcal{I}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is of distance $\frac{1}{2}$ from ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, we get
\[lm:GG:GGb:equiv\] For any pair $(k,k')$ of directions in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, the distances between $k$ and $k'$ in ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ and in ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ are the same. The map $\Xi$ is a quasi-isometry.
In what follows, we will show that ${\mathcal{G}}'(X,{\Sigma})$ is Gromov hyperbolic. Lemma \[lm:GG:GGb:equiv\] then implies that ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is also Gromov hyperbolic. By a slight abuse of notation, we will also denote by ${\mathbf{d}}$ the distance in ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$.
Our first task is to construct for every pair $(k,k')$ of directions in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ a path in ${\mathcal{G}}'(k,k')$ connecting them. Using ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, we can assume that $k$ is the horizontal direction and $k'$ is the vertical direction. We can further normalize $M$ by a matrix $a_t:=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} e^t & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t}\end{smallmatrix}\right), \; t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, such that the shortest horizontal saddle connection and the shortest vertical saddle connection have the same length.
For any $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, let $M_t:=a_t \cdot M$. If $c$ is a regular geodesic or a saddle connection on $M$, the length of $c$ on $M_t$ will be denoted by $|c|_t$. By Theorem \[thm:Smillie:Vorobets\], there is a cylinder $C_t$ on $M_t$ of width bounded below by $K$. The cylinder $C_t$ may be not unique, but we have
\[lm:2:cyl:bdd:width\] If $C'_t$ is another cylinder of width bounded below by $K$ in $M_t$, then the distance in ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ between the directions of $C_t$ and $C'_t$ is at most $(\log_2(K^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0)$.
Since ${\mathrm{Area}}(M_t)={\mathrm{Area}}(M)=1$, the circumference of $C_t$ is at most $K^{-1}$. In particular, a saddle connection $s$ in the boundary of $C_t$ has length at most $K^{-1}$. Let $k$ and $k'$ be the directions of $C_t$ and $C'_t$ respectively. Then Corollary \[cor:cyls:width:bounded\] implies $${\mathbf{d}}(k,k') \leq \log_2(\frac{|s|}{w(C'_t)}+1)+\kappa_0 \leq \log_2(K^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0.$$
In what follows, for any $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, we denote by $C^0_t$ a cylinder of width bounded below by $K$ in $M_t$ and by $k(t)$ the direction of $a_{-t}(C^0_t)$. Note that we have $k(t) \in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
\[lm:seq:cyls:bounded:w\]
- There exists $t_0>0$ such that if $t>t_0$, then $k(t)=0$, and if $t<-t_0$ then $k(t)=\infty$.
- For any $t_1,t_2\in {\mathbb{R}}$, ${\mathbf{d}}(k({t_1}),k({t_2})) \leq \log_2(K^{-2}+1)+\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\ln(2)}+\kappa_0$.
<!-- -->
- If $t>0$ is large enough then the width of any vertical cylinder in $M_t$ is at least $1/K$. Thus a non-vertical cylinder in $M_t$ has circumference at least $1/K$, hence its width must be smaller than $K$. Thus we must have $k(t)=0$. Similar arguments apply for $M_{-t}$.
- Observe that we have for any saddle connection or regular geodesic $c$ on $M$, $$\frac{|c|_{t_1}}{|c|_{t_2}} \leq e^{|t_1-t_2|}.$$ Since the length of a core curve of $C^0_{t_1}$ on $M_{t_1}$ is at most $K^{-1}$, its length in $M_{t_2}$ is at most $e^{|t_1-t_2|}K^{-1}$. Thus the conclusion follows from Corollary \[cor:cyls:width:bounded\].
Define $${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k'):=\{k(i), \; i \in {\mathbb{Z}}\} \subset {\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})^{(0)}.$$ By Lemma \[lm:seq:cyls:bounded:w\], the set ${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k')$ is finite. For any $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, let $\gamma_i$ be a path of minimal length in ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ from $k(i)$ and $k({i+1})$. We define $${\mathbf{g}}(k,k'):=\bigcup_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}} \gamma_i \subset {\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma}).$$ By construction, ${\mathbf{g}}(k,k')$ is obviously a connected finite subgraph of ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$. For any subset $\mathcal{A}$ of ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ and any $r>0$, let us denote by ${\mathcal{N}}(\mathcal{A},r)$ the $r$-neighborhood of $\mathcal{A}$ in ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$
\[lm:gg:prop\] There is a constant $R_1>0$, depending only on the stratum of $(M,{\Sigma})$, such that
- ${\mathbf{g}}(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k'),R_1)$, and
- for any $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $k(t) \in {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k'),R_1)$.
Set $R_1=\log_2(K^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0+1/\ln(2)$. From Lemma \[lm:seq:cyls:bounded:w\], we have ${\mathbf{d}}(k(i),k({i+1})) \leq R_1$. Thus every point in $\gamma_i$ is of distance at most $R_1/2$ from either $k(i)$ or $k({i+1})$, from which we get (a). Again, by Lemma \[lm:seq:cyls:bounded:w\], any $k(t)$ is of distance at most $R_1$ from a point $k(i)$, with $i\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, and (b) follows.
### Local property
\[lm:loc:prop:G\] There is a constant $R_2>0$ such that if ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k')=1$ then ${\mathrm{diam}}({\mathbf{g}}(k,k'))< R_2$.
We can suppose that $k$ is the horizontal direction, and $k'$ is the vertical direction. By assumption, there are a horizontal saddle connection $s$ and a vertical saddle connection $s'$ that are two sides of an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{T}}$ in $M=M_0$. Recall that $M$ is normalized so that the shortest horizontal saddle connection $s_0$, and the shortest vertical saddle connection $s'_0$ have the same length, say $\delta$. We first have $$\delta^2 \leq |s||s'| =2 {\mathrm{Area}}({\mathrm{T}}) < 2.$$ Thus $|s_0|=|s'_0| \leq \sqrt{2}$.
For any $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, the lengths of $s_0$ and $s'_0$ in $M_t$ are respectively $e^{t}\delta$ and $e^{-t}\delta$. If $i<0$, then the length of $s_0$ in $M_i$ is smaller than $\sqrt{2}$. It follows from Corollary \[cor:cyls:width:bounded\] that ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k(i)) \leq \log_2(\sqrt{2}K^{-1}+1)+\kappa_0$. Similarly, if $i>0$ then the length of $s'_0$ in $M_i$ is smaller than $\sqrt{2}$, thus ${\mathbf{d}}(k',k(i)) \leq \log_2(\sqrt{2}K^{-1}+1)+\kappa_0$. Therefore we have $${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}(\{k,k'\},\log_2(\sqrt{2}K^{-1}+1)+\kappa_0).$$ From Lemma \[lm:gg:prop\] (a), we get $${\mathrm{diam}}({\mathbf{g}}(k,k')) \leq R_2$$ with $R_2=2(R_1+\log_2(\sqrt{2}K^{-1}+1)+\kappa_0)+1$.
### Slim triangle property
Let $(k,k')$ be a pair of directions in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$. We use ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ to transform $k$ to the horizontal direction, $k'$ to the vertical direction, and such that the shortest horizontal and vertical saddle connections have the same length.
For any $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, and $R\in (0,+\infty)$, let ${\mathbf{L}}_t(k,k',R)\subset {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ denote the set of directions of the cylinders whose circumference in $M_t$ is at most $R$. Since $M_t$ always contains a cylinder of width bounded below by $K$ (hence its circumference is at most $K^{-1}$), for any $R> K^{-1}$, the set ${\mathbf{L}}_t(k,k',R)$ is non-empty. Define $$\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')=\bigcup_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}} {\mathbf{L}}_t(k,k',2K^{-1}).$$ By construction, $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')$ contains ${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k')$.
\[lm:enlarged:connect:path\] The set $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')$ is finite, and there exists a constant $R_3$ such that $$\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k'),R_3).$$
Observe that for any regular geodesic $c$ in $M$, and any $t_1,t_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}$, we have $|c|_{t_1}/|c|_{t_2} \leq e^{|t_1-t_2|}$. It follows that $$\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k') \subset \bigcup_{i\in {\mathbb{Z}}}{\mathbf{L}}_i(k,k',2eK^{-1}).$$ For $i>0$ large enough, we have ${\mathbf{L}}_i(k,k',2eK^{-1})=\{0\}$, and ${\mathbf{L}}_{-i}(k,k',2eK^{-1})=\{\infty\}$. Since for any fixed $i$, the set of cylinders with circumference at most $2eK^{-1}$ on $M_i$ is finite, we draw that $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')$ is a finite set.
Now, by Corollary \[cor:cyls:width:bounded\], the direction of a cylinder with circumference at most $2eK^{-1}$ on $M_i$ is of distance at most $\log_2(2eK^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0$ from $k(i)$. Therefore $$\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k'),R_3)$$ with $R_3=\log_2(2eK^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0$.
We now show
\[lm:slim:tria:coarse\] There is a constant $R_4>0$ such that for any triple $(k,k',k'')$ of directions in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, we have $$\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^{*}(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}(\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k'')\cup\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k',k''),R_4).$$
We can renormalize $M$ (using ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$) such that $(k,k',k'')=(\infty,0,1)$. Note that this normalization is not necessarily the same as the one we use to define the path ${\mathbf{g}}(k,k')$. In particular, ${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k')$ does not necessarily equal the set $\{k(i), \; i\in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$. Nevertheless, we obtain the same subset $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')\subset {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ by the same definition, that is $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')=\cup_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbf{L}}_t(k,k',2K^{-1})$.
Consider a direction $\hat{k}$ in $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')$. By definition, $\hat{k}$ is the direction of a cylinder $C$ whose circumference in $M_t:=a_t\cdot M$ is at most $2K^{-1}$ for some $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
[*Claim:*]{} if $t \leq 0$ then $\hat{k}$ is contained in the $(\log_2(4K^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0)$-neighborhood of $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k'')$.
Let $M':= U\cdot M$, where $U=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & -1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. Note that $U(k)=k=\infty$ and $U(k'')=0$. By definition, $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k'')$ is the set of directions $\hat{k}' \in {\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$ such that, for some $s \in {\mathbb{R}}$, the circumference of a cylinder in direction $\hat{k}'$ is at most $2K^{-1}$ in $a_s\cdot M'$.
We claim that, for $s=t$, the circumference of $C$ in $a_t\cdot M'$ is at most $4K^{-1}$. To see this, we observe that $$M'_t:=a_t\cdot M'= \left(a_t\cdot U \cdot a_{-t}\right) \cdot M_t.$$ Recall that the circumference of $C$ in $M_t$ is at most $2K^{-1}$. Since $a_t\cdot U \cdot a_{-t}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & -e^{2t} \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$, and $t \leq 0$, it follows that the circumference of $C$ in $M'_t$ is at most $4K^{-1}$.
Let $D^0_t$ be a cylinder of width bounded below by $K$ in $M'_t$ (whose existence is guaranteed by Theorem \[thm:Smillie:Vorobets\]). By definition, the direction of $D^0_t$ belongs to $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k'')$. From Corollary \[cor:cyls:width:bounded\], it follows that the distance between the directions of $C$ and $D^0_t$ is at most $\log_2(4K^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0$. The claim is then proved.
It follows immediately from the claim that ${\mathbf{L}}_t(k,k',2K^{-1})$ is contained in the $R_4$-neighborhood of $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k'')$ if $t \leq 0$, with $$R_4=\log_2(4K^{-2}+1)+\kappa_0.$$ By similar arguments, one can also show that ${\mathbf{L}}_t(k,k',2K^{-1})$ is contained in the $R_4$-neighborhood of $\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k',k'')$ if $t\geq 0$. The lemma is then proved.
\[cor:slim:tria\] Let $R_5=R_1+R_3+R_4$, where $R_1,R_3,R_4$ are the constants of Lemmas \[lm:gg:prop\],\[lm:enlarged:connect:path\],\[lm:slim:tria:coarse\] respectively. Then for any triple $(k,k',k'')$ of directions in ${\mathcal{C}}(M,{\Sigma})$, we have $${\mathbf{g}}(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}(k,k'')\cup{\mathbf{g}}(k',k''),R_5).$$
It follows from Lemma \[lm:slim:tria:coarse\] that we have $$\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^{*}(k,k')\subset {\mathcal{N}}(\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k'')\cup\hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k',k''),R_4).$$ Since ${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k') \subset \hat{{\mathbf{g}}}^*(k,k')$, Lemma \[lm:enlarged:connect:path\] implies $${\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}^*(k,k'')\cup{\mathbf{g}}^*(k',k''),R_3+R_4) \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}(k,k'')\cup{\mathbf{g}}(k',k''),R_3+R_4).$$ Finally, from Lemma \[lm:gg:prop\], we get $${\mathbf{g}}(k,k') \subset {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbf{g}}(k,k'')\cup{\mathbf{g}}(k',k''),R_1+R_3+R_4).$$
### Proof of Proposition \[prop:G:hyperbolic\]
By Theorem \[thm:hyp:crit:Ma-Sc\], Lemma \[lm:loc:prop:G\] and Corollary \[cor:slim:tria\] imply that ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ is Gromov hyperbolic. Since ${\mathcal{G}}'(M,{\Sigma})$ and ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ are quasi-isometric (c.f. Lemma \[lm:GG:GGb:equiv\]), this shows that ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is Gromov hyperbolic.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:G:per:dir:prop\]
---------------------------------------
The first part of Theorem \[thm:G:per:dir:prop\] follows from Propositions \[prop:G:dist:inters\],\[prop:inf:diam\],\[prop:G:hyperbolic\]. By Lemma \[lm:Gam:act:freely\], we know that ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ acts freely on the set of edges of ${\mathcal{G}}(M,{\Sigma})$.
Assume now that ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a lattice of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, then ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a finite graph by Proposition \[prop:Vee:quot:finite\]. Conversely, if ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a finite graph then in particular ${\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a finite set. Thus, ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ has finite covolume by , which means that ${\Gamma}(M,{\Sigma})$ is a lattice.
Fundamental domains and generating sets of the Veech group {#sec:fund:dom:n:gen:sets}
==========================================================
Throughout this section, we will suppose that $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a half-translation Veech surface and that ${\mathrm{Area}}(M)=1$. Our goal is to construct a “coarse” fundamental domain, and to determine a generating set of the Veech group of $(M,{\Sigma})$. To lighten the notation, we will omit $(M,{\Sigma})$ from the notation of the objects constructed from the pair $(M,{\Sigma})$.
Reference domain for a periodic direction. {#sec:dom:of:cusp}
------------------------------------------
Assume that $(M,{\Sigma})$ is a horizontally periodic, we then say that $(M,{\Sigma})$ is [*normalized*]{} if the shortest horizontal saddle connection of $M$ has length equal to $1$.
Let $k$ be a periodic direction of $(M,{\Sigma})$. There is an element $A \in {\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, determined up to the left action of $\{U_t=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & t \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right), t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$, such that $A(k)=\infty$, and $(M',{\Sigma}'):=A\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$ is normalized. Let ${\Gamma}'$ denote the Veech group of $(M',{\Sigma}')$. Note that we have ${\Gamma}'=A\cdot {\Gamma}\cdot A^{-1}$.
Since $(M',{\Sigma}')$ is a Veech surface, there exists $a\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ such that the stabilizer ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}'}(\infty)$ of $\infty$ in ${\Gamma}'$ equals $\{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & {\mathbb{Z}}a \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)\}$. We will call $a$ the [*period*]{} of the direction $k$. Note that $a$ stays unchanged if we replace $A$ by $U_t\cdot A$.
Let ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ denote the set of hyperbolic ideal triangles $\Delta \in {\mathcal{I}}(M',{\Sigma}')$ such that
- $\infty$ is a vertex of $\Delta$, and
- $\Delta$ intersects the vertical strip $(0,a)\times{\mathbb{R}}_+$.
\[lm:tria:in:ref:domain\] Let $\kappa$ denote the length of the longest horizontal saddle connection in $(M',{\Sigma}')$. Let $\Delta$ be an ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$, and ${\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}(M',{\Sigma}')$ an embedded triangle which gives rise to $\Delta$. Denote the sides of ${\mathrm{T}}$ by $s_0,s_1,s_2$, where $s_0$ is a horizontal saddle connection. Then $$\min\{|s_1|,|s_2|\} \leq \max\{2\sqrt{1+a^2},\sqrt{4+\kappa^2/4} \}.$$
For $i=1,2$, let $x_i+\imath y_i \in {\mathbb{C}}$ be the period of $s_i$, and $k_i=\frac{x_i}{y_i}$. We can always assume that $y_i>0$, and $k_1< k_2$. Note that we have $y_1=y_2$. Since ${\mathrm{T}}$ is an embedded triangle ${\mathrm{Area}}({\mathrm{T}})=\frac{1}{2}y_1|s_0| < 1$. As $(M',{\Sigma}')$ is normalized, $|s_0|\geq 1$, hence $y_1=y_2 < 2$.
By definition, $[k_1,k_2]$ intersects the interval $(0,a)$. We have two cases:
- If $(0,a) \not\subset [k_1,k_2]$, then at least one of the following holds: $k_1\in (0,a)$ or $k_2\in (0,a)$. Assume that $k_1 \in (0,a)$, then $0<x_1<ay_1 <2a$. It follows that $|s_1|<2\sqrt{1+a^2}$. By the same argument, if $k_2\in (0,a)$ then $|s_2| < 2\sqrt{1+a^2}$.
- If $(0,a) \subset [k_1,k_2]$ then $k_1\leq 0 < a \leq k_2$. Note that in this case $|s_0|=x_2-x_1$. Since $x_1\leq 0 \leq x_2$, it follows $\min\{-x_1,x_2\} \leq \frac{|s_0|}{2} \leq \frac{\kappa}{2}$. Since $0<y_1=y_2<2$, we have $\min\{|s_1|,|s_2|\}\leq \sqrt{4+\kappa^2/4}$.
\[cor:ref:tria:finite\] The set ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ is finite.
Remark that an embedded triangle is uniquely determined by two of its oriented sides (the sides of a triangle are naturally endowed with the induced orientation). Therefore the number of triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ is bounded by the number of pairs $(s,s')$ of oriented saddle connections, where $s$ is horizontal, and $s'$ is non-horizontal with length at most $\max\{2\sqrt{1+a^2}, \sqrt{4+\kappa^2/4}\}$. Since the set of saddle connections of length bounded by a constant is finite, it follows that the set ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ is finite.
Lemma \[lm:tria:in:ref:domain\] provides us with a criterion for the search of ideal triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$, namely, we only need to look for embedded triangles bounded by a horizontal saddle connections, and a non-horizontal saddle connection of length at most $\max\{2\sqrt{1+a^2},\sqrt{4+\kappa^2/4}\}$.
Let ${\mathbf{D}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ denote the union of the ideal triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$.
\[lm:ref:domain\]
- The domain ${\mathbf{D}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ is connected.
- For any hyperbolic ideal triangle $\Delta$ in ${\mathcal{I}}(M',{\Sigma}')$ that has $\infty$ as a vertex, the ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}'}(\infty)$-orbit of $\Delta$ intersects the set ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$.
<!-- -->
- To show that ${\mathbf{D}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ is connected, it suffices to show that its projection $J$ to the real axis is connected, which means that $J$ is an interval. By definition, the projection of any triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$ to the real axis is an interval that intersects $(0,a)$. Therefore, it is enough to show that $(0,a) \subset J$.
Let $k_0$ be any direction in $(0,a)$. Consider the surface $U_{-k_0}\cdot (M',{\Sigma}')$, where $U_{-k_0}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & -k_0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. Note that the action of $U_{-k_0}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\subset {\mathbb{RP}}^1$ is the translation by $-k_0$. Let $s$ be (one of) the longest horizontal saddle connection of $U_{-k_0}\cdot(M',{\Sigma}')$. This saddle connection is contained in the bottom border of a horizontal cylinder, say $C$. There is a singularity in the top border of $C$ such that the downward vertical ray emanating from this singularity hits $s$ before exiting $C$. Thus there is an embedded triangle in $C$ that contains $s$ as a side and the vertical segment above. Let $s_1,s_2$ be the other sides of this triangle, and $k_1,k_2$ be the directions of $s_1$ and $s_2$ respectively. We can assume that $k_1\leq 0 \leq k_2$. Applying $U_{k_0}=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & k_0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$, we get an embedded triangle in $(M',{\Sigma}')$ which corresponds to the hyperbolic ideal triangle $\Delta$ with vertices $\infty,k_1+k_0,k_2+k_0$. Since $k_0 \in [k_1+k_0,k_2+k_0]\cap (0,a)$, we have $\Delta \in {\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$. Thus $k_0\in [k_1,k_2] \subset J$, and we have $(0,a)\subset J$ as desired.
- Let ${\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}(M',{\Sigma}')$ be the embedded triangle corresponding to an ideal triangle $\Delta$ which has $\infty$ as a vertex. Let $s_0,s_1,s_2$ denote the sides of ${\mathrm{T}}$, and $k_i\in {\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\}$ the slope of $s_i$. By assumption, we can suppose that $s_0$ is a horizontal saddle connection, which means that $k_0=\infty$. We can assume further that $k_1 < k_2$. Since the action of $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & a \\ 0 & 1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ is given by $x \mapsto x+a$, there exists $U\in {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}'}(\infty)$ such that $U(k_1) \in [0,a)$, which implies that $U(\Delta) \in {\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty)$.
We will call ${\mathbf{D}}(k):=A^{-1}({\mathbf{D}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty))$ a [*reference domain*]{} for the direction $k$. It follows from Lemma \[lm:ref:domain\] that ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ is a polygon in ${\mathbb{H}}$ with geodesic boundary, which is not necessarily convex. Set ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)=A^{-1}({\mathcal{I}}^*(M',{\Sigma}',\infty))$. By definition, ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$ is the set of ideal triangles in ${\mathbb{T}}(M,{\Sigma})$ that compose ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$. Let ${\mathbf{N}}(k)$ denote the set $${\mathbf{N}}(k)=\{k' \in {\mathcal{C}}, \; k'\neq k, k' \text{ is a vertex of some triangle in } {\mathcal{I}}^*(k)\}.$$ In other words, ${\mathbf{N}}(k)$ is the set of vertices of ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ in $\partial{\mathbb{H}}\setminus\{k\}$. The following lemma is a reformulation of Lemma \[lm:ref:domain\].
\[lm:neigh:1\] Let ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{\Gamma}(k)$ denote the stabilizer of $k$ in ${\Gamma}$. We regard elements of ${\mathcal{C}}$ and ${\mathcal{I}}$ as vertices of ${\mathcal{G}}$.
- For any $k'\in{\mathbf{N}}(k)$, ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k')=1$.
- If $\Delta\in {\mathcal{I}}$ such that ${\mathbf{d}}(k,\Delta)=\frac{1}{2}$, then the domain ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ contains an ideal triangle in the ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{\Gamma}(k)$-orbit of $\Delta$.
- If $k'\in {\mathcal{C}}$ such that ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k')=1$, then ${\mathbf{N}}(k)$ intersects the ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{\Gamma}(k)$-orbit of $k'$.
Algorithm A: finding a “coarse” fundamental domain {#sec:algo:fund:dom}
--------------------------------------------------
We now provide an algorithm to construct a finite area domain in ${\mathbb{H}}$ that contains a fundamental domain of ${\Gamma}$. In what follows two elements of ${\mathcal{C}}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{L}}, {\mathcal{I}}$) are said to be [*equivalent*]{} if they belong to the same ${\Gamma}$-orbit.
\[rmk:equiv:dir\] To determine if two periodic directions $k$ and $k'$ are equivalent, one can proceed as follows: choose two matrices $A,A'$ such that $A(k)=A'(k')=\infty$, and the surfaces $A\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$ and $A'\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$ are normalized. Then $k$ and $k'$ are equivalent if and only if, up to the action of $\{U_t, \, t \in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ and Dehn twists in the horizontal cylinders, $A\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$ and $A'\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$ are represented by the same polygon in the plane.
Initialization: {#initialization .unnumbered}
---------------
Using the action of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, we can assume that $M$ is horizontally periodic and normalized. Construct the reference domain ${\mathbf{D}}(\infty)$ of $\infty$. Set ${\mathbf{C}}^0_0=\{\infty\}$. Let ${\mathbf{C}}_0^1$ be a subset of ${\mathbf{N}}(\infty)$ that satisfies
1. no element of ${\mathbf{C}}_0^1$ is equivalent to $\infty$,
2. every element of ${\mathbf{N}}(\infty)$ is equivalent to an element of ${\mathbf{C}}_0^1$ or $\infty$,
3. no pair of elements of ${\mathbf{C}}_0^1$ are equivalent.
Set $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_0:={\mathbf{D}}(\infty)$. The algorithm consists of exploring the graph ${\mathcal{G}}$ from the vertex representing $\infty$ until we get a representative for every element of ${\mathcal{C}}/{\Gamma}$. To each representative of a ${\Gamma}$-orbit in ${\mathcal{C}}$ we construct an associated reference domain. The union of all those reference domains must contain a fundamental domain of ${\Gamma}$.
Iteration: {#iteration .unnumbered}
----------
Suppose now that we have two finite subsets ${\mathbf{C}}_n^0$ and ${\mathbf{C}}^1_n$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$, and a connected domain $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n \subset {\mathbb{H}}$ which is a union of finitely many ideal triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}$ satisfying the following
1. ${\mathbf{C}}_n^0$ and ${\mathbf{C}}_n^1$ are disjoint,
2. no pair of directions in ${\mathbf{C}}_n^0\sqcup {\mathbf{C}}^1_n$ are equivalent,
3. ${\mathbf{C}}^0_n\sqcup {\mathbf{C}}^1_n$ is a subset of the set of vertices of $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n$ in $\partial {\mathbb{H}}$, and every vertex of $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n$ in $\partial {\mathbb{H}}$ is equivalent to an element of ${\mathbf{C}}^0_n\sqcup{\mathbf{C}}^1_n$,
4. for every element $k$ of ${\mathbf{C}}_n^0$, $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n$ contains a reference domain ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ of $k$ and we have $$\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n=\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbf{C}}^0_n}{\mathbf{D}}(k).$$
The algorithm stops when ${\mathbf{C}}_n^1={\varnothing}$.
If ${\mathbf{C}}_n^1\neq {\varnothing}$, for any $k \in {\mathbf{C}}_n^1$, pick an ideal triangle $\Delta$ included in $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n$ that contains $k$ as a vertex. Let $A$ be an element of ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $A(k)=\infty$, $A\cdot(M,{\Sigma})$ is normalized, and the vertices of $A(\Delta)$ are $\{\infty,0,k'\}$, with $k'\geq 0$. We determine the reference domain ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ of the direction $k$ by the construction described in Section \[sec:dom:of:cusp\]. Note that by the choice of $A$, $\Delta$ is contained in ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$.
Recall that ${\mathbf{N}}(k)$ is the set of vertices of ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ in $({\mathbb{R}}\cup\{\infty\})\setminus\{k\}$. Set $$\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}_{n+1}=\bigcup_{k \in {\mathbf{C}}_n^1}{\mathbf{N}}(k) \subset {\mathcal{C}}.$$ Pick a subset $\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}'_{n+1}$ of $\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}_{n+1}$ such that
1. no element of $\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}'_{n+1}$ is equivalent to an element of ${\mathbf{C}}_n^0\sqcup {\mathbf{C}}_n^1$,
2. every element of $\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}_{n+1}$ is either equivalent to an element of ${\mathbf{C}}_n^0\sqcup {\mathbf{C}}_n^1$, or to a unique element of $\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}'_{n+1}$.
We now set $${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}^0={\mathbf{C}}_n^0\sqcup{\mathbf{C}}_n^1, \quad {\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}^1:=\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}'_{n+1}, \text{ and } \hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_{n+1}:=\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n\cup\left(\cup_{k\in {\mathbf{C}}_n^1}{\mathbf{D}}(k)\right).$$
\[lm:dom:connect\] We have ${\mathbf{C}}^0_{n+1}=\{\infty\}\sqcup{\mathbf{C}}^1_0\sqcup\dots\sqcup {\mathbf{C}}^1_n$, and the domain $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_{n+1}$ is connected.
The first assertion follows immediately from the construction of the algorithm. For the second assertion, we remark that ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ is connected for any $k\in {\mathbf{C}}_n^1$ (by Lemma \[lm:ref:domain\]), and $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n$ is connected by the induction assumption. Since the intersection $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n\cap{\mathbf{D}}(k)$ contains an ideal triangle (hence is non-empty), it follows that $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_n\cup{\mathbf{D}}(k)$ is connected.
Consider now the graph ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$. By definition, ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ has two types of vertices, let us denote by ${\mathcal{V}}$ the set of vertices of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ representing the ${\Gamma}$-orbits in ${\mathcal{C}}$, and by ${\mathcal{W}}$ the set of vertices representing the ${\Gamma}$-orbits in ${\mathcal{I}}$. Recall that by construction, every edge of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ connects a vertex in ${\mathcal{V}}$ and a vertex in ${\mathcal{W}}$. We denote by ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}$ the distance in ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$.
Let $v_\infty$ denote the vertex of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ representing the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of $\infty$.
\[lm:algo:A:dist:quot:G\] Let $v$ be a vertex in ${\mathcal{V}}$. Then ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v_\infty,v)=n$ if and only if $v$ represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of a direction in ${\mathbf{C}}^1_{n-1}$.
It is clear from the construction that if $v$ represents a direction in ${\mathbf{C}}^1_0$ then ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v_\infty,v)=1$. Conversely, if ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v_\infty,v)=1$ then $v$ represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of a direction $k\in {\mathcal{C}}$ such that ${\mathbf{d}}(\infty,k)=1$. By Lemma \[lm:neigh:1\], $k$ is equivalent to a vertex of $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_0$. Since $k$ is not equivalent to $\infty$, we can choose $k$ to be an element of ${\mathbf{C}}^1_0$.
Assume now that the lemma is true for $n\leq\ell$, and that ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v_\infty,v)=\ell+1$. There exists $v'\in {\mathcal{V}}$ such that ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v_\infty,v')=\ell$ and ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v',v)=1$. By assumption, $v'$ represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of a direction in ${\mathbf{C}}^1_{\ell-1}$. Therefore, $v$ represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of a direction $k\in \hat{{\mathbf{N}}}_{\ell}$. Note that $k$ cannot be equivalent to a direction in ${\mathbf{C}}^0_{\ell-1}\sqcup{\mathbf{C}}^1_{\ell-1}$, since otherwise we would have ${\overline}{{\mathbf{d}}}(v_\infty,v)\leq \ell-1$ by the induction hypothesis. Thus $k$ must be equivalent to a direction in $\hat{{\mathbf{N}}}'_{\ell}={\mathbf{C}}^1_\ell$. The lemma is then proved.
\[prop:algo:1:finite:steps\] Let ${\mathrm{d}}_1$ be the maximal distance in ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ from $v_\infty$ to another vertex in ${\mathcal{V}}$. Then the algorithm stops after ${\mathrm{d}}_1$ iterations. The domain $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}$ obtained when this algorithm stops contains a fundamental domain of ${\Gamma}$.
It follows from Lemma \[lm:algo:A:dist:quot:G\] that ${\mathbf{C}}^1_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}={\varnothing}$, thus the algorithm stops after ${\mathrm{d}}_1$ iterations. Note that we have bijection between ${\mathcal{V}}\simeq {\mathcal{C}}/{\Gamma}$ and ${\mathbf{C}}^0_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}$.
Let $w$ be a vertex in ${\mathcal{W}}$. Then $w$ is adjacent to a vertex $v\in {\mathcal{V}}$. By Lemma \[lm:algo:A:dist:quot:G\], $v$ represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of a direction $k\in {\mathbf{C}}^0_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}$. Thus $w$ represents an the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of an ideal triangle in the reference domain ${\mathbf{D}}(k) \subset \hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}$. This means that the domain $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}$ contains at least one ideal triangle in each ${\Gamma}$-orbit in ${\mathcal{I}}$. Therefore $\hat{{\mathbf{D}}}_{{\mathrm{d}}_1}$ contains a fundamental domain of ${\Gamma}$.
\[rk:list:cusp:tri\] Proposition \[prop:algo:1:finite:steps\] means that the number of iterations that have been performed when the algorithm stops allows us to compute the diameter of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$. We actually get the complete list of elements of ${\mathcal{V}}$ and ${\mathcal{W}}$ after ${\mathrm{d}}_1$ iterations. Thus this algorithm allows us to compute a bound on the volume of the Teichmüllre curve generated by $(M,{\Sigma})$ by Theorem \[thm:ideal:tri:tess\] since we have ${\mathcal{W}}\simeq {\overline}{{\mathcal{I}}}$.
Algorithm B: finding a generating set of $\Gamma$ {#sec:gen:set:Veech:gp}
-------------------------------------------------
We now present an algorithm to obtain a generating set of ${\Gamma}$. In the literature, generating sets of a lattice in ${\mathrm{PSL}}(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ are often obtained from a fundamental domain of the lattice. In this algorithm, we will determine a generating set of ${\Gamma}$ without constructing explicitly a fundamental domain, our main tool is the graphs ${\mathcal{G}}$ and ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$.
In what follows we will use the same notation as in Section \[sec:algo:fund:dom\].
Initialization: {#initialization-1 .unnumbered}
---------------
Let $g_\infty$ be a generator of the stabilizer of $\infty$ in ${\Gamma}$. Let ${\mathcal{I}}^*(\infty)$ be the set of ideal triangles in ${\mathcal{I}}$ which compose a reference domain ${\mathbf{D}}(\infty)$ of $\infty$. We set $${\mathbf{C}}_0:=\{\infty\}, \quad {\mathbf{J}}_0:={\mathcal{I}}^*(\infty), \quad {\mathbf{F}}_0:=\{g_\infty\}.$$
Iteration: {#iteration-1 .unnumbered}
----------
assume now that we have a finite subset ${\mathbf{C}}_n$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$, a mapping $k\mapsto {\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$ from ${\mathbf{C}}_n$ to the set $\mathrm{Fin}({\mathcal{I}})$ of finite subsets of ${\mathcal{I}}$, and a mapping $k\mapsto g_k$ from ${\mathbf{C}}_n$ to ${\Gamma}$ satisfying the followings: for any $k\in {\mathbf{C}}_n$
- the elements of ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$ represent the ideal triangles which compose a reference domain for $k$ (in particular $k$ is a vertex of every ideal triangle in ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$),
- if $k$ is equivalent to $\infty$ then $g_k(\infty)=k$ and ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)=g_k({\mathcal{I}}^*(\infty))$, otherwise $g_k$ is a generator of ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}}(k)$.
We set $${\mathbf{J}}_n=\bigcup_{k\in {\mathbf{C}}_n}{\mathcal{I}}^*(k) \subset {\mathcal{I}}\text{ and } {\mathbf{F}}_n=\{g_k, \; k\in {\mathbf{C}}_n\} \subset {\Gamma}.$$ Define ${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$ to be the subset of ${\mathcal{C}}$ consisting of the vertices the ideal triangles in ${\mathbf{J}}_n$. Note that ${\mathbf{C}}_n$ is a subset of ${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$. We will associate to each $k\in {\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$ a finite subset ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$ of ${\mathcal{I}}$, and an element $g_k$ of ${\Gamma}$ as follows: if $k \in {\mathbf{C}}_n$, we keep the same ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$ and $g_k$ provided by the previous step. Let $k$ be an element of ${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}\setminus{\mathbf{C}}_{n}$. By definition, $k$ is a vertex of a triangle $\Delta\in {\mathbf{J}}_n$. We have two cases
- $k$ is equivalent to $\infty$. In this case, there is an element $g\in {\Gamma}$ such that $g(\infty)=k$ and $g^{-1}(\Delta) \in {\mathcal{I}}^*(\infty)$. We define ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)=g({\mathcal{I}}^*(\infty))$, and $g_k=g$.
- $k$ is not equivalent to $\infty$. In this case, we choose a reference domain ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$ such that $\Delta$ is one of the ideal triangles that make up ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$. We then define ${\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$ to be the family of triangles that compose ${\mathbf{D}}(k)$, and $g_k$ a generator of ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{\Gamma}(k)$.
Clearly, ${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$ and the mappings $k \mapsto {\mathcal{I}}^*(k)$, and $k\mapsto g_k$ satisfy the conditions (i) and (ii) above.
\[lm:algo:B:basic:prop\]For any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and any $k \in {\mathbf{C}}_n$, we have
- The subgroup generated by ${\mathbf{F}}_n$ contains the stabilizer of $k$ in ${\Gamma}$.
- As subsets of ${\mathcal{G}}$, ${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$ is contained in the $1$-neighborhood of ${\mathbf{C}}_n$.
- If $k \in {\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$, then the distance from $\infty$ to $k$ in ${\mathcal{G}}$ is at most $n$.
For a), we only need to consider the case $k$ is equivalent to $\infty$. But in this case, $g_k\cdot g_\infty\cdot g_k^{-1}$ is a generator of ${\mathrm{Stab}}_{\Gamma}(k)$. For b), observe that ${\mathbf{J}}_n$ is contained in the $\frac{1}{2}$-neighborhood of ${\mathbf{C}}_n$, and ${\mathbf{C}}_{n+1}$ is contained in the $\frac{1}{2}$-neighborhood of ${\mathbf{J}}_n$. Finally, c) is an immediate consequence of b).
Let ${\Gamma}_n$ denote the subgroup of ${\Gamma}$ that is generated by the elements of ${\mathbf{F}}_n$.
\[lem:gen:set:dist:n\] Let $A$ be an element of ${\Gamma}$ such that ${\mathbf{d}}(\infty,A(\infty)) \leq n$, where ${\mathbf{d}}$ is the distance on the graph ${\mathcal{G}}$. Then $A \in {\Gamma}_n$.
Let $\alpha$ be a path of minimal length from $\infty$ to $A(\infty)$ in ${\mathcal{G}}$. Let $m={\mathrm{leng}}(\alpha) \leq n$. Then $\alpha$ must contain $m+1$ vertices in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Let us label those vertices by $k_0,k_1,\dots,k_m$, where $k_0=\infty, k_m=A(\infty)$ and ${\mathbf{d}}(\infty,k_i)=i$.
For any $k\in {\mathbf{C}}_n$, define $${\mathbf{N}}(k)=\{k' \in {\mathcal{C}}, \, k'\neq k, k' \text{ is a vertex of some triangle in } {\mathcal{I}}^*(k)\}.$$ Since ${\mathbf{d}}(k_0,k_1)=1$, by Lemma \[lm:neigh:1\], there is an element $B_0\in {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}}(k_0)$ such that $k'_1:=B_0(k_1)\in {\mathbf{N}}(k_0)$. Note that $k'_1\in {\mathbf{C}}_1$ and $B_0\in {\Gamma}_0$.
Let $k'_2:=B_0(k_2)$. Since ${\mathbf{d}}(k'_1,k'_2)={\mathbf{d}}(k_1,k_2)=1$, there is an element $B_1\in {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}}(k'_1)$ such that $k''_2:=B_1(k'_2)=B_1\circ B_0(k_2) \in {\mathbf{N}}(k'_1)$. In particular, we have $k''_2\in {\mathbf{C}}_2$, and $B_1\in {\Gamma}_1$ by Lemma \[lm:algo:B:basic:prop\].
By induction, we can find a sequence $(B_0,B_1,\dots,B_{m-1})$ of elements of ${\Gamma}$ such that $B_i \in {\Gamma}_i$, and $B_{m-1}\circ\dots\circ B_0(k_m)=k^{(m)}_m \in {\mathbf{C}}_{m}$. Since $k_m$ is equivalent to $\infty$, by construction, there is an element $B_{m} \in {\mathbf{F}}_{m}$ such that $B_{m}(k^{(m)}_m)=\infty$. Hence $$B_m\circ B_{m-1}\circ\dots\circ B_0\circ A(\infty)=\infty.$$ which means that there exists $B\in {\mathrm{Stab}}_{{\Gamma}}(\infty)={\Gamma}_0$ such that $$A =B_0^{-1}\circ\dots\circ B^{-1}_{m}\circ B \in {\Gamma}_{m}.$$
Let $v_\infty$ be the vertex of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ that represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of $\infty$ in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Recall that we have defined ${\mathrm{d}}_1$ to be the maximal distance in ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ from $v_\infty$ to another vertex in ${\mathcal{V}}$ (that is the set of ${\Gamma}$-orbits in ${\mathcal{C}}$). Note that ${\mathrm{d}}_1$ can be computed by Algorithm A (c.f. Proposition \[prop:algo:1:finite:steps\]).
\[prop:generate:Gam\] We have ${\Gamma}_{2d_1+1}={\Gamma}$.
Let $A$ be an element of ${\Gamma}$. Let $m:={\mathbf{d}}(\infty,A(\infty))$. We will prove that $A \in {\Gamma}_{2d_1+1}$ by induction on $m$. For $m\leq 2d_1+1$, this follows from Lemma \[lem:gen:set:dist:n\]. Thus let us suppose that $m>2d_1+1$, and that the statement is true for any $A$ such that ${\mathbf{d}}(\infty,A(\infty))< m$.
Let $\alpha$ be any path of minimal length in ${\mathcal{G}}$ from $\infty$ to $A(\infty)$. This path contains $m+1$ vertices in ${\mathcal{C}}$ that are labeled by $k_0,\dots,k_m$, where $k_0=\infty, k_m=A(\infty)$, and ${\mathbf{d}}(k_0,k_i)=i$. Consider the vertex $k_{m-d_1-1}$. Since the vertex of ${\overline}{{\mathcal{G}}}$ that represents the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of $k_{m-d_1-1}$ is of distance at most $d_1$ from $v_\infty$, there is a vertex $k\in {\mathcal{C}}$ in the ${\Gamma}$-orbit of $\infty$ such that ${\mathbf{d}}(k_{m-d_1-1},k) \leq d_1$. Consequently, ${\mathbf{d}}(\infty,k) \leq (m-d_1-1)+d_1=m-1$, and ${\mathbf{d}}(k,k_m)\leq d_1+d_1+1=2d_1+1$.
By assumption, there is an element $A'\in {\Gamma}$ such that $A'(\infty)=k$. By the induction hypothesis, $A'\in {\Gamma}_{2d_1+1}$. Consider $k':={A'}^{-1}(A(\infty))$. Now, since $${\mathbf{d}}(\infty,k')={\mathbf{d}}(k,A(\infty))\leq 2d_1+1$$ the matrix ${A'}^{-1}\cdot A$ belongs to ${\Gamma}_{2d_1+1}$ by Lemma \[lem:gen:set:dist:n\]. Thus $A\in {\Gamma}_{2d_1+1}$, and the proposition is proved.
Proposition \[prop:generate:Gam\] implies that we obtain a generating set for the Veech group of $(M,{\Sigma})$ after $2d_1+1$ iterations of Algorithm B.
[ABC9]{}
J. Bowman: Flat structures and Complex structures in Teichmüller theory, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.
J. Bowman: Teichmüller geodesics, Delaunay triangulations, and Veech groups, in [*Teichmüller Theory and Moduli Problem*]{}, Ramanujan Math. Soc. Lect. Notes Ser. 10 (2010).
K. Calta: Veech surfaces and complete periodicity in genus two, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**17**]{} (2004), no. 4, 871-908.
Y. Cheung, P. Hubert, and H. Masur: Topological dichotomy and strict ergodicity for translation surfaces, [*Erg. Th. Dyn. Syst.*]{} [**28**]{} (2008), no.6, pp. 1729–1748.
A. Fathi, F. Laudenbach, V. Poenaru [*et al.*]{}: Travaux de Thurston sur les surfaces, [*Astérique*]{} [**66-67**]{} (1979).
E. Gutkin, P. Hubert, and T. Schmidt: Affine diffeomorphisms of translation surfaces: periodic points, Fuchsian groups, and arithmeticity, [*Ann. Sci. E.N.S.*]{} [**36**]{} (2003), no. 6 , p. 847–866.
E. Gutkin and C. Judge: The geometry and arithmetic of translation surfaces with applications to polygonal billiards, [*Math. Res. Lett.*]{} [**3**]{} (1996), pp. 391–403
E. Gutkin and C. Judge: Affine mappings of translation surfaces: geometry and arithmetics, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**103**]{} (2000) no. 2, pp. 191–213.
U. Hamenstädt: Train tracks and the Gromov boundary of the complex of curves. [*Spaces of Kleinian groups*]{}, 187-207, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., [**329**]{} (2006).
U. Hamenstädt: Geometry of the complex of curves and of Teichmüller space. [*Handbook of Teichmüller theory, Vol I*]{}, 447-467, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., [**11**]{} (2007).
U. Hamenstädt: Stability of quasi-geodesics in Teichmüller space, [*Geom. Dedicata*]{} [**146**]{} (2010), pp. 101–116.
S. Hensel, P. Przytycki, R. Webb: 1-slim triangles and uniform hyperbolicity for arc graphs and curve graphs, [*J. Eur. Math. Soc.*]{} [**17**]{} (2015), pp. 755–762.
P. Hubert and E. Lanneau: Veech groups without parabolic elements, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**133**]{} (2006) no. 2, 335–346.
P. Hubert and S. Lelièvre: Prime Arithmetic Teichmüller discs in $\mathcal{H}(2)$, [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**151**]{} (2006), pp. 281–321.
P. Hubert and T. Schmidt: Invariants of translation surfaces, [*Ann. Instit. Fourier*]{}, [**51**]{} (2001), no.2 , pp. 461–495.
P. Hubert and T. Schmidt: Infinitely generated Veech groups, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**123**]{} (2004), no. 1, pp. 49–69.
P. Hubert and T. Schmidt: An introduction to Veech surfaces, [*Handbook of dynamical systems*]{}, Vol. 1B, 501-526, Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, 2006.
E. Lanneau: Parity of the spin structure defined by a quadratic differential, [*Geomemtry $\&$ Topology*]{} [**8**]{} (2004), pp. 511–538.
E. Lanneau and D.-M. Nguyen: [Complete periodicity of Prym eigenforms]{}, [*Ann. Sci. E.N.S.*]{} [**49:1**]{} (2016), pp. 87–130.
R. Lehnert: On critical exponent of infinitely generated Veech groups, [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**368**]{} (2017), no.3-4, 1017–1058.
R. Kenyon and J. Smillie: Billiards on rational-angled triangles [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{} [**75** ]{} (2000) no.1, 65–108.
E. Klarreich: The boundary at infinity of the curve complex and the relative Teichmüller space, [*preprint*]{} (1999).
H. Masur and Y. Minsky: Geometry of the curve complex I: Hyperbolicity, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**138**]{} (1999), pp. 103-149.
H. Masur and S. Schleimer: The geometry of the disk complex, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**26**]{} (2013) pp. 1–62.
H. Masur and S. Tabachnikov: [Rational billiards and flat structures]{}, [*Handbook of dynamical systems, 1A*]{}, [North-Holland, Amsterdam]{} (2002), pp. 1015–1089.
C. McMullen: Billiards and [Teichmüller]{} curves on Hilbert modular surfaces, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**16**]{} (2003), no. 4, pp. 857–885.
C. McMullen: [Teichmüller]{} geodesics of infinite complexity, *Acta Math.* [**191**]{} (2003), no. 2, pp. 191–223.
C. McMullen: [[Teichmüller]{} curves in genus two: Discriminant and spin]{}, [*Math. Annalen*]{} [**333**]{} (2005), pp. 87–130.
C. McMullen: [Prym variety and Teichmuller curves]{}, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**133**]{}, 569-590 (2006).
Y. Minsky: A geometric approach to the complex of curves on a surface, in [*Topology and Teichmüller space (Katinkulta 1995)*]{}, 149-158, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ (1996).
M. Möller: Periodic points on Veech surfaces and the Mordell-Weil group over a Teichmueller curve, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**165**]{} No. 3 (2006), pp. 633-649.
L. Mosher: Traintrack expansions of measured foliations, [*preprint*]{}.
R. Mukamel: Fundamental domains and generators for lattice Veech groups, [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{} [**92**]{} (2017), no. 1, pp. 57-83.
D.-M. Nguyen: [Translation surfaces and the curve graph in genus two]{}, [*Algebraic and Geometric Topology*]{} [**17**]{}, no. 4 (2017), 2177-2237.
M. Rees: An alternative approach to the ergodic theory of measured foliations on surfaces, [*Erg. Th. and Dyn. Syst.*]{} [**1**]{}, no. 4 (1981), pp. 461–488.
G. Schmithüsen: An algorithm for finding the Veech group of an origami, [*Experiment. Math.*]{} [**13**]{} (2004), no.4, 459–472.
J. Smillie: The dynamics of billiards flows in rational polygons, [*Dynamical Systems, Ergodic Theory and Applications*]{}, [**Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences 100**]{}, Mathematical Physics I, 360-382, [*Springer Berlin*]{} (2000).
J. Smillie and B. Weiss: Veech dichotomy and the lattice property, [*Ergo. Th. Dyn. Syst. 28*]{} (2008), no. 6, pp. 1959–1972.
J. Smillie and B. Weiss: Finiteness results for flat surfaces: large cusps and short geodesics, [*Commet. Math. Helv. 85*]{} (2010), no.2, 313–336.
J. Smillie and B. Weiss: Characterizations of lattice surfaces, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**180**]{} (2010), no. 3, p. 535–557.
W.A. Veech: Teichmüller curves in moduli space, Eisenstein series, and an application to triangular billiards, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**97**]{} (1989), pp. 553–583.
W.A. Veech: Bicuspid F-structure and Heckke groups, [*Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.*]{} [**103**]{} (2011), no. 4, pp. 710–745.
Y. Vorobets: Plane structures and billiards in rational polygons: the Veech alternative, [*Russ. Math. Surv.*]{} [**51**]{} (1996), pp. 779–817.
Ya. Vorobets: Periodic geodesics on generic translation surfaces, [*“ Algebraic and Topological Dynamics”*]{}, 205-258, [**Contemp. Math. 385**]{}, [*Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI*]{} (2005).
G. Weitze-Schmithüsen: Deficiency of being a congruence group of for Veech groups of origamis, [*Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN*]{} [**2015**]{}, no.6, 1613–1637.
A. Zorich: [Flat surfaces]{}, [*Frontiers in number theory, physics, and geometry*]{}, Springer, Berlin (2006), pp. 437–583.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The privacy amplification term, of which the lower bound needs to be estimated with the decoy-state method, plays a positive role in the secure key rate formula for decoy-state quantum key distribution. In previous work, the yield and the bit error rate of single-photon state are estimated separately to gain this lower bound. In this work, we for the first time take the privacy amplification term as a whole to consider this lower bound. The mathematical description for the correlation between the yield and the bit error rate of single-photon state is given with just two unknown variables. Based on this, we obtain the global estimation of this lower bound for both BB84 protocol and measurement-device-independent protocol. The results of numerical simulation show that the global estimation can significantly improve the performance of quantum key distribution.
PACS numbers
: 03.67.Dd, 42.81.Gs, 03.67.Hk
author:
- Haodong Jiang
- Ming Gao
- Hong Wang
- Hongxin Li
- Zhi Ma
bibliography:
- 'globalestimation.bib'
title: 'A global estimation of the lower bound of the privacy amplification term for decoy-state quantum key distribution '
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
Quantum key distribution (QKD) based on the laws of quantum physics can theoretically present an unconditionally secure communication [@bennett1984quantum; @mayers2001unconditional; @ekert1991quantum]. However, there is a gap between its theory and practice due to the imperfection in real-life implementation. Particularly, the eavesdropper (Eve) can launch attacks aiming at the imperfect single-photon source and the limited detector efficiency in practical QKD system [@brassard2000limitations; @pns2002quantum; @zhao2008quantum; @xu2010experimental; @weier2011quantum; @jain2011device]. By utilizing the decoy-state method [@hwang2003quantum; @lo2005decoy; @wang2005beating], the practical QKD setups with an imperfect single-photon source can be still secure.
To deal with the threat coming from the detectors [@lydersen2010hacking], several approaches have been proposed. One is device-independent QKD (DI-QKD) [@acin2007device] of which the security is based on the violation of a Bell inequality. However, DI-QKD con not apply to existing practical system because a loophole-free Bell test at the moment is still unavailable. Another one is measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution (MDI-QKD) [@braunstein2012side; @lo2012measurement] based on the idea of entanglement swapping which can remove all detector side channel attacks.
The security of BB84 protocol with imperfect devices is analyzed in [@GLLP2004security; @inamori2007unconditional; @scarani2008quantum; @cai2009finite; @lim2014concise]. The security of MDI-QKD protocol is researched in [@lo2012measurement; @tomamichel2012tight; @curty2014finite]. Some useful formulas are given to calculate the secure key rate for practical BB84 protocol and MDI-QKD protocol. The privacy amplification term makes a positive contribution in these secure key rate formulas and it can not be measured in the experiment. In asymptotic case, the yield of single-photon state is basis independent [@wei2013decoy; @wang2013three; @yu2013decoy]. Then the privacy amplification term can be calculated in just one basis.
In previous work [^1], the lower bound of this term is obtained by estimating the lower bound of the yield $Y_1$ of single-photon state and the upper bound of the bit error rate $e_1$ of single-photon state separately. The lower bound of the yield $Y_1$ is estimated from the gain equations while the upper bound of the bit error rate $e_1$ is estimated from the quantum bit error rate (QBER) equations. The yield $Y_i$ of $i$-photon state existing in both the gain equations and the QBER equations is the link between the estimation of lower bound of $Y_1$ and that of upper bound of $e_1$. When $Y_i$ is one certain value, the minimum of $Y_1$ is reached. But the maximum of $e_1$ may be reached as $Y_i$ is another certain value. That is to say, the lower bound of $Y_1$ and the upper bound of $e_{1}$ may not be simultaneously reached. Thus, the separate estimation can just bring a lower bound of the privacy amplification term instead of the minimum.
Inspired by Wang’s method [@wang2005beating; @wang2013three; @yu2013three; @zhou2014tightened], we give a mathematical description of the correlation between $Y_1$ and $e_{1}$ with just two unknown variables. In particular, we will show that globally estimating the lower bound of the privacy amplification term is equal to finding the minimum of a bivariate continuous function in a closed area. Thus the minimum of the privacy amplification term can be attained with the global estimation and higher secure key rate can be achieved.
The article is organized as follows. Section \[sec:level2\] introduces the global estimation of the lower bound of the privacy amplification term for BB84 protocol. The global estimation for MDI-QKD protocol will be discussed in section \[sec:level3\]. We conclude our work in section \[sec:level4\].
\[sec:level2\] The global estimation of the lower bound of the privacy amplification term for BB84 protocol
===========================================================================================================
The privacy amplification term for BB84 protocol is given by ${Y_1}[1 - H({e_1})]$, where $Y_1$ and $e_1$ are, respectively, the yield and the bit error rate of single-photon state. Here in this section, firstly we mathematically characterize the correlation between $Y_1$ and $e_1$. Then the minimum of ${Y_1}[1 - H({e_1})]$ is given with the method of global estimation. Lastly, the numerical simulation is performed to make a comparison in performance of QKD protocol between the global estimation and the separated estimation.
\[sec:level2A\] The correlation between $Y_1$ and $e_1$
-------------------------------------------------------
Given a weak coherent state source which sends three different kinds of optical pulses with intensities $\omega$, $\upsilon$ and $\mu$ $(0 = \omega < \upsilon < \mu )$, the overall gains which mean the probability for Bob to obtain a detection event in one pulse are given by following three equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gains}
{Q_\mu } &&= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{e^{-\mu} }\frac{{{\mu ^i}}}{{i!}}{Y_i}}, \\
{Q_\upsilon } &&= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{e^{-\upsilon} }\frac{{{\upsilon ^i}}}{{i!}}{Y_i}}, \\
&&{Q_\omega } = {Y_0},\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_\nu$ and $Y_i$ are, respectively, the overall gain with intensity $\nu$ $(\nu \in \{ \omega ,\upsilon ,\mu \} )$ and the yield of $i$-photon state.
We denote $E_\nu$ to be the overall QBER with intensity $\nu$, $e_i$ to be the bit error rate of $i$-photon state. The overall QBER equations can be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QBERs}
{E_\mu}{Q_\mu } &&= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{e^{-\mu} }\frac{{{\mu ^i}}}{{i!}}{e_i}{Y_i}}, \\
{E_\upsilon}{Q_\upsilon } &&= \sum\limits_{i = 0}^\infty {{e^{-\upsilon} }\frac{{{\upsilon ^i}}}{{i!}}{e_i}{Y_i}}, \\
&&{E_\omega }{Q_\omega } ={e_0} {Y_0}.\end{aligned}$$ It is important to note that $Y_0$ is equal to the gain $Q_\omega$ when Alice does not send any optical pulse, which includes the detector dark count and other background contributions. As the background is random, we assume that ${E_\omega }={e_0}=0.5$.
As three equations can only fix three variables, we temporarily take $Y_i$ ($i\ge 3$) as known variables. Then three gain equations can be solved according to Cramer’s rule. $Y_1$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Y1old}
{Y_1} = &&\frac{\mu }{{\upsilon (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon } - {Y_0}) - \frac{\upsilon }{{\mu (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\mu }{Q_\mu } - {Y_0}) +\nonumber \\
&&\sum\limits_{i = 3}^\infty {\frac{{({\mu ^{i - 1}}\upsilon - {\upsilon ^{i - 1}}\mu )}}{{i!(\mu - \upsilon )}}} {Y_i}.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, ${e_1}{Y_1}$ can be gained by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:e1Y1old}
{e_1}{Y_1}&& = \frac{\mu }{{\upsilon (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\upsilon }{E_\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon } - {e_0}{Y_0}) - \frac{\upsilon }{{\mu (\mu - \upsilon )}}\nonumber \\
&&({e^\mu }{E_\mu }{Q_\mu } - {e_0}{Y_0}) +
\sum\limits_{i = 3}^\infty {\frac{{({\mu ^{i - 1}}\upsilon - {\upsilon ^{i - 1}}\mu )}}{{i!(\mu - \upsilon )}}{e_i}} {Y_i}.\end{aligned}$$
From equation (\[eq:Y1old\]) and equation(\[eq:e1Y1old\]), we can get that there are infinite variables $Y_i$ ($i\ge 3$) simultaneously influencing the values of $Y_1$ and ${e_1}{Y_1}$. Then the privacy amplification term is influenced by infinite variables. It is computationally infeasible to find the minimum of a function with infinite variables. Fortunately, we find a way to reduce the number of unknown variables to two inspired by Wang’s method [@wang2005beating; @wang2013three]. We define a state of which the density operator is $\rho = \sum\limits_{i = 3}^\infty {\frac{{({\mu ^{i - 1}}\upsilon - {\upsilon ^{i - 1}}\mu )}}{{\Omega i!(\mu - \upsilon )}}} \left| i \right\rangle \left\langle i \right|$ $(\Omega = \sum\limits_{i = 3}^\infty {\frac{{({\mu ^{i - 1}}\upsilon - {\upsilon ^{i - 1}}\mu )}}{{i!(\mu - \upsilon )}}} >0)$. The yield and the bit error rate of this state can be given by $$\begin{aligned}
{Y_\rho } &&= \sum\limits_{i = 3}^\infty {\frac{{({\mu ^{i - 1}}\upsilon - {\upsilon ^{i - 1}}\mu )}}{{i!(\mu - \upsilon )\Omega }}} {Y_i},\label{eq:YP}\\
{e_\rho }{Y_\rho } &&= \sum\limits_{i = 3}^\infty {\frac{{({\mu ^{i - 1}}\upsilon - {\upsilon ^{i - 1}}\mu )}}{{i!(\mu - \upsilon )\Omega }}} {e_i}{Y_i}.\label{eq:epYP}\end{aligned}$$ Then equation (\[eq:Y1old\]) and equation (\[eq:e1Y1old\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
{Y_1} = &&\frac{\mu }{{\upsilon (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon } - {Y_0}) - \frac{\upsilon }{{\mu (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\mu }{Q_\mu } - {Y_0}) +\nonumber \\
+{\Omega}{Y_\rho },\label{eq:Y1}\\
{e_1}{Y_1}&& = \frac{\mu }{{\upsilon (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\upsilon }{E_\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon } - {e_0}{Y_0}) - \frac{\upsilon }{{\mu (\mu - \upsilon )}}\nonumber \\
&&({e^\mu }{E_\mu }{Q_\mu } - {e_0}{Y_0}) +{\Omega}{e_\rho }{Y_\rho }.\label{eq:e1Y1}\end{aligned}$$
Thus ${Y_1}$ and ${e_1}{Y_1}$ is determined by the gains and the QBERs which can be measured in the experiment except the yield and the bit error rate of state $\rho$. State $\rho$ is the link between the calculations of ${Y_1}$ and ${e_1}{Y_1}$. The yield ${Y_\rho }$ of state $\rho$ as a unknown variable simultaneously influences the estimations of both ${Y_1}$ and ${e_1}$. In [@hayashi2007general], ${Y_\rho }$ is set to 0 to get the lower bound of ${Y_1}$ while ${e_\rho }$ and ${Y_\rho }$ are both set to 1 to get the upper bound of ${e_1}$. Thus the contradiction that ${Y_\rho }$ cannot be simultaneously 0 and 1 emerges.
The quantity of the privacy amplification term is ${Y_1}[1-H(e_1)]$, which is a bivariate continuous function of ${Y_\rho }$ and ${e_\rho }$. The minimum of the continuous function on the closed area can be attained. This is one reason why we should consider the global lower bound of ${Y_1}[1-H(e_1)]$ instead of calculating the lower bound of ${Y_1}$ and the upper bound of $e_1$ separately. In previous work [@lo2005decoy; @wang2005beating; @ma2005practical; @hayashi2007general], the lower bound of ${Y_1}$ is gained by utilizing the gain equations. In fact, ${Y_1}$ also exists in QBER equations where the information of ${Y_1}$ is not extracted. This is another motivation that the global lower bound of ${Y_1}[1-H(e_1)]$ should be considered.
\[sec:level2B\] The global lower bound of ${Y_1}[1-H(e_1)]$
-----------------------------------------------------------
According to previous work [@lo2005decoy; @wang2005beating; @ma2005practical; @hayashi2007general], the most accurate estimations of $Y_1$ and $e_1$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{Y_1}\ge{Y_1^L} = &&\frac{\mu }{{\upsilon (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon } -{Y_0})\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{\upsilon }{{\mu (\mu - \upsilon )}}({e^\mu }{Q_\mu } - {Y_0}) ,\label{eq:Y1L}\\
{e_1}\le{e_1^U} &&= \frac{({e^\upsilon }{E_\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon }- {e_0}{Y_0})}{{\upsilon}{Y_1^L}}.\label{eq:e1Y1U}\end{aligned}$$ According to the corollary in appendix, the global lower bound of ${Y_1}[1-H(e_1)]$ can be gained by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:globalLBB84}
{Y_1}(1-H&&(e_1))\ge{({Y_1^L}+\theta})[1-H(\frac{{e_1^U}{Y_1^L}}{Y_1^L+\theta})],\nonumber\\
\theta=&&\frac{1}{{\mu (\mu - \upsilon )}}[\upsilon ({e^\mu }{E_\mu }{Q_\mu } - {e_0}{Y_0})\nonumber\\
&&-\mu ({e^\upsilon }{E_\upsilon }{Q_\upsilon } - {e_0}{Y_0})]>0.\end{aligned}$$
To make a clear comparison, we denote $(Y_1^G,e_1^G)$ as the point where the minimum is achieved. Corresponding to equation (\[eq:Y1L\]) and equation (\[eq:e1Y1U\]), $Y_1^G$ and $e_1^G$ are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
{Y_1^G} = {Y_1^L}+\theta,\label{eq:Y1G}\\
{e_1^G} = \frac{{e_1^U}{Y_1^L}}{{Y_1^L}+\theta}.\label{eq:e1G}\end{aligned}$$
Here $\theta$ can be considered the information of $Y_1$ coming from the QBER equations, which is abandoned for the separate estimation. By globally considering the lower bound of the privacy amplification term, we successfully extract it.
\[sec:level2C\] Numerical simulation for BB84 protocol
------------------------------------------------------
With the observed gains and error rates, the final secure key rate can be calculated [@GLLP2004security] by $$\begin{aligned}
{R}\ge{p_1^{\mu}}Y_1[1-H(e_1)]-{Q_\mu}fH(E_\mu)\label{eq:key1},\end{aligned}$$ where $p_1^{\mu}$ is the probability that Alice sends a single-photon state pulse corresponding to signal state $\mu$; $f$ is the error correction inefficiency; $H(x)=- x{\log _2}(x) - (1 - x){\log _2}(1 - x)$ is the binary Shannon entropy function. For a fair comparison, we use the same parameters in [@yu2013three; @zhou2014tightened] summarized in table \[tab:table1\]. For simplicity, the detection efficiency is put to the overall channel transmission, hence we only need to assume the 100% detection efficiency at Bob’s side.
----- ------ -- --
0.5 1.16
----- ------ -- --
: \[tab:table1\]List of parameters for numerical simulation
The ratios of the estimations of $Y_1$ with two methods (equation (\[eq:Y1L\]) and equation (\[eq:Y1G\])) to the asymptotic limit calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method are shown in figure \[fig:Y1\]. The ratios of the asymptotic limit of $e_1$ to the estimations with two methods (equation (\[eq:e1Y1U\]) and equation (\[eq:e1G\])) are shown in figure \[fig:e1\]. The ratios of the secure key rates computed with two methods (separate estimation and global estimation) to the asymptotic limit are shown in figure \[fig:key1\]. From the results, we can see tighter estimations of $Y_1$ and $e_1$ are gained with the method of global estimation. Thus, higher secure key rates are achieved.
![\[fig:Y1\] (Color online) The ratio of the estimation of $Y_1$ to the asymptotic limit calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method vs the total channel transmission loss for three-intensity decoy-state BB84 protocol. We set $\upsilon=0.1$, $\mu=0.5$ for decoy state and signal state, respectively. ](Y1.eps){height="32.00000%" width="50.00000%"}
![\[fig:e1\] (Color online) The ratio of the asymptotic limit calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method to the estimation of $e_1$ vs the total channel transmission loss for three-intensity decoy-state BB84 protocol. We set $\upsilon=0.1$, $\mu=0.5$ for decoy state and signal state, respectively. ](e1.eps){height="32.00000%" width="50.00000%"}
![\[fig:key1\] (Color online) The ratio of the secure key rate calculated with the three-intensity decoy-state method to the asymptotic limit calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method vs the total channel transmission loss for decoy-state BB84 protocol. We set $\upsilon=0.1$, $\mu=0.5$ for decoy state and signal state, respectively. ](key1.eps){height="35.00000%" width="50.00000%"}
\[sec:level3\] The global estimation of the lower bound of the privacy amplification term for MDI-QKD protocol
==============================================================================================================
For MDI-QKD protocol, the secure key rate is gained [@lo2012measurement] by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MDIsecure key rate}
R \ge p_{11}^zY_{11}^z[1 - H(e_{11}^x)] - Q_{\mu_a \mu_b }^zfH(E_{\mu_a \mu_b }^z),\end{aligned}$$ where $p_{11}^z$ is the probability that Alice and Bob simultaneously send single-photon state pulses corresponding to signal state in $z$ basis; $Q_{\mu_a \mu_b }^z$ and $E_{\mu_a \mu_b }^z$ are the gain and QBER when Alice and Bob simultaneously send signal state pulses; $Y_{11}^z$ and $e_{11}^x$ are the yield in $Z$ basis and the bit error rate in $X$ basis when Alice and Bob simultaneously send single-photon state pulses.
The variable values in (\[eq:MDIsecure key rate\]) can be measured in the experiment except $Y_{11}^z$ and $e_{11}^x$. So the major task in the calculation of secure key rate is estimating the lower bound of $Y_{11}^z[1-H(e_{11}^x)]$. In previous work, to get the lower bound of $Y_{11}^z[1-H(e_{11}^x)]$, the lower bound of $Y_{11}^z$ and the upper bound of $e_{11}^x$ are calculated separately.
In fact, ${Y_{11}^z}$ is equal to $Y_{11}^x$ in asymptotic setting according to [@wang2013three]. As a result, we will not temporarily distinguish the basis of $Y_{11}$ and $e_{11}$. We will consider the lower bound of $Y_{11}[1-H(e_{11})]$ as a whole.
Similarly, in this section we will firstly introduce the mathematical description of the correlation between $Y_{11}$ and $e_{11}$. Then the global lower bound of ${Y_{11}}[1-H(e_{11})]$ is calculated. Lastly, the results of numerical simulation will be given. The following work is on basis of the three-intensity decoy-state MDI-QKD protocol [@yu2013three].
\[sec:level3A\] The correlation between $Y_{11}$ and $e_{11}$
-------------------------------------------------------------
For MDI-QKD protocol, the gain and QBER when Alice (Bob) sends a certain pulse with intensity $q_a$ ($q_b$) can be given by $$\begin{aligned}
{Q_{{q_a} {q_b} }} &&= \sum\limits_{i,j = 0}^\infty {{e^{ - ({q_a} + {q_b} )}}\frac{{{{q_a} ^i}{{q_b} ^j}}}{{i!j!}}} {Y_{ij}},\label{eq:Quv}\\
{E_{{q_a} {q_b} }}{Q_{{q_a} {q_b} }} &&= \sum\limits_{i,j = 0}^\infty {{e^{ - ({q_a} + {q_b})}}\frac{{{{q_a} ^i}{{q_b} ^j}}}{{i!j!}}} {e_{ij}}{Y_{ij}},\label{eq:EuvQuv}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_{ij}$ and $e_{ij}$ is the yield and the bit error rate when Alice (Bob) sends an $i$-photon ($j$-photon) state pulse.
Given two weak coherent state sources which send three different kinds of optical pulses with intensities $(0={\omega_a}<{\upsilon_a}<{\mu_a})$ and $(0={\omega_b}<{\upsilon_b}<{\mu_b})$, we eliminate the unknown variables $Y_{0i}$ and $Y_{j0}$, then get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Qu1v1}
{e^{(\mu_a + \mu_b )}}{{\tilde Q}_{\mu_a \mu_b }} = \sum\limits_{i,j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{{\mu_a ^i}{\mu_b ^j}}}{{i!j!}}} {Y_{ij}},\\
e^{(\mu_a + \upsilon_b )}}{{\tilde Q}_{\mu_a \upsilon_b }} = \sum\limits_{i,j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{{\mu_a ^i}{\upsilon_b ^j}}}{{i!j!}}} {Y_{ij},\label{eq:Quv1:2}\\
e^{(\upsilon_a + \mu_b )}}{{\tilde Q}_{\upsilon_a \mu_b }} = \sum\limits_{i,j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{{\upsilon_a ^i}{\mu_b ^j}}}{{i!j!}}} {Y_{ij},\label{eq:Quv1:3}\\
e^{(\upsilon_a + \upsilon_b )}}{{\tilde Q}_{\upsilon_a \upsilon_b }} = \sum\limits_{i,j = 1}^\infty {\frac{{{\upsilon_a ^i}{\upsilon_b ^j}}}{{i!j!}}} {Y_{ij},\label{eq:Quv1:4}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\tilde Q}_{{\mu _1},{\mu _2}}}({\mu _1} \in \{ \mu_a ,\upsilon_a \},{\mu _2}\in\{\mu_b ,\upsilon_b \} )$ is achieved by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Qu1v12}
{{\tilde Q}_{{\mu _1}{\mu _2}}} =&& {Q_{{\mu _1}{\mu _2}}} + {e^{ - ({\mu _1} + {\mu _2})}}{Q_{\omega_a \omega_b }} \nonumber\\
&&-{e^{ - {\mu _1}}}{Q_{\omega_a {\mu _2}}} - {e^{ - {\mu _2}}}{Q_{{\mu _1}\omega_b }}.\end{aligned}$$
According to [@yu2013three], $Y_{11}$ can be solved from equations (\[eq:Quv1:2\], \[eq:Quv1:3\] and \[eq:Quv1:4\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Y11}
&&{Y_{1,1}} ={Y_{11}^L}+ \sum\limits_{(i + j) \ge 4} {\frac{{{\Upsilon _{i,j}}{Y_{i,j}}}}{{i!j!({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a})({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b})}}},\\
&&{\Upsilon _{i,j}} = \upsilon _a^{i - 1}\mu _b^{j - 1}{\upsilon _b}({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a}) + \mu _a^{i - 1}\upsilon _b^{j - 1}{\upsilon _a}({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b}) \label{Y11}\nonumber\\
&&- \upsilon _a^{i - 1}\upsilon _b^{j - 1}({\mu _a}{\mu _b} - {\upsilon _a}{\upsilon _b})>0,\nonumber\\
&&{Y_{11}^L}=\frac{1}{{({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a})({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b})}}(\frac{{{e^{({\upsilon _a} + {\upsilon _b})}}({\mu _a}{\mu _b} - {\upsilon _a}{\upsilon _b})}}{{{\upsilon _a}{\upsilon _b}}}{\tilde Q_{{\upsilon _a}{\upsilon_b}}}- \nonumber\\
&& \frac{{{e^{({\mu _a} + {\upsilon _b})}}{\upsilon _a}({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b})}}{{{\mu _a}{\upsilon _b}}}{\tilde Q_{{\mu _a}{\upsilon _b}}}
- \frac{{{e^{({\upsilon _a} + {\mu _b})}}{\upsilon _b}({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a})}}{{{\upsilon _a}{\mu _b}}} {\tilde Q_{{\upsilon _a}{\mu _b}}}).\nonumber\\\label{Y11L}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, $e_{11}$ can be solved from the corresponding QBER equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:e11}
&&{e_{11}}{Y_{11}} = ({e_{11}}{Y_{11}})^L+ \sum\limits_{(i + j) \ge 4} {\frac{{{e_{i,j}}{\Upsilon _{i,j}}{Y_{i,j}}}}{{i!j!({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a})({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b})}}},\\
&&({e_{11}}{Y_{11}})^L=\frac{1}{{({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a})({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b})}}(\frac{{{e^{({\upsilon _a} + {\upsilon _b})}}({\mu _a}{\mu _b} - {\upsilon _a}{\upsilon _b})}}{{{\upsilon _a}{\upsilon _b}}}\nonumber\\
&&{\tilde Q_{{\upsilon _a}{\upsilon_b}}}{\tilde E_{{\upsilon _a}{\upsilon_b}}} - \frac{{{e^{({\mu _a} + {\upsilon _b})}}{\upsilon _a}({\mu _b} - {\upsilon _b})}}{{{\mu _a}{\upsilon _b}}}{\tilde E_{{\mu _a}{\upsilon _b}}}{\tilde Q_{{\mu _a}{\upsilon _b}}}
- \nonumber\\
&&\frac{{{e^{({\upsilon _a} + {\mu _b})}}{\upsilon _b}({\mu _a} - {\upsilon _a})}}{{{\upsilon _a}{\mu _b}}}{\tilde E_{{\upsilon _a}{\mu _b}}}{\tilde Q_{{\upsilon _a}{\mu _b}}}).\end{aligned}$$ ${{\tilde E}_{{\mu _1},{\mu _2}}}{{\tilde Q}_{{\mu _1},{\mu _2}}}({\mu _1} \in \{ \mu_a ,\upsilon_a \},{\mu _2}\in\{\mu_b ,\upsilon_b \} )$ is achieved by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EQu1v12}
{{\tilde E}_{{\mu _1}{\mu _2}}}{\tilde Q}_{{\mu _1}{\mu _2}}=&& {E_{{\mu _1}{\mu _2}}}{Q_{{\mu _1}{\mu _2}}} + {e^{ - ({\mu _1} + {\mu _2})}}{E_{\omega_a \omega_b }}{Q_{\omega_a \omega_b }}- \nonumber\\
{e^{ - {\mu _1}}}&&{E_{\omega_a {\mu _2}}}{Q_{\omega_a {\mu _2}}} - {e^{ - {\mu _2}}}{E_{{\mu _1}\omega_b }}{Q_{{\mu _1}\omega_b }}.\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to verify that ${\Upsilon _{i,j}}$ is positive when $(i + j) \ge 4$. So we can define a state of which the density operator is $\psi= \sum\limits_{\scriptstyle(i+j)\ge4\hfill} {\frac{{{\Upsilon _{i,j}}}}{{i!j!{{(\mu_a - \upsilon_a)(\mu_b - \upsilon_b)}}\Pi}}}{(\left| i \right\rangle \left\langle i \right| \otimes \left| j \right\rangle \left\langle j \right|)}$, where $\Pi$ is equal to $\sum\limits_{\scriptstyle(i+j)\ge4\hfill} {\frac{{{\Upsilon _{i,j}}}}{{i!j!{{(\mu_a - \upsilon_a )(\mu_b - \upsilon_b)}}}}}$.
Then equation (\[eq:Y11\]) and equation (\[eq:e11\]) can be rewritten $$\begin{aligned}
{Y_{11}} = &&{Y_{11}^L}+\Pi{Y_\psi},\label{eq:Y11our}\\
{e_{11}}{Y_{11}} = &&({e_{11}{Y_{11}^L}})^L+ \Pi{e_\psi}{Y_\psi},\label{eq:e11our}\end{aligned}$$ where ${Y_\psi}$ and ${e_\psi}$ is the yield and the bit error rate of state $\psi$.
Thus $Y_{11}$ and $e_{11}$ is linked by the state $\psi$. ${Y_{11}}(1-H(e_{11}))$ is a bivariate continuous function with two parameter variables ${Y_\psi}$ and ${e_\psi}$. The lower bound of $Y_{11}$ can be gained by setting ${Y_\psi}$ to 0 while the upper bound of $e_{11}$ can be gained by setting ${Y_\psi}$ and ${e_\psi}$ to 1. Thus the lower bound of ${Y_{11}}(1-H(e_{11}))$ can not be reached with the separate estimation. The minimum of ${Y_{11}}(1-H(e_{11}))$ can be attained with the global estimation.
\[sec:level3B\] The global lower bound of ${Y_{11}}(1-H(e_{11}))$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In [@yu2013three], the lower bound of ${Y_{11}}$ is given in equation (\[Y11L\]) by setting the last term in equation (\[eq:Y11\]) to 0. The upper bound of $e_{11}$ is given by setting the term ${e_{ij}}{Y_{ij}}$ $(i+j)\ge2$ of ${{\tilde E}_{{\upsilon_a}{\upsilon_b}}}{\tilde Q}_{{\upsilon_a}{\upsilon_b}}$ to 0, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e11U}
{e_{11}}\le{e_{11}^U} = \frac{{{e^{\upsilon_a+\upsilon_b }}{{\tilde E}_{\upsilon_a \upsilon_b }}{{\tilde Q}_{\upsilon_a \upsilon_b }}}}{{{\upsilon_a}{\upsilon_b}{Y_{11}^{L}}}}.\end{aligned}$$
According equations (\[eq:Y11our\], \[eq:e11our\] and \[e11U\]) and corollary in appendix, the global lower bound of ${Y_{11}}(1-H[e_{11}])$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Y11e11globallowerbound}
{Y_{11}}[1-H(e_{11})]&&\ge{({Y_{11}^L}+\delta)[1-H(\frac{{e_{11}^U}{Y_{11}^L}}{{Y_{11}^L+\delta}})]},\\
\delta&&={e_{11}^U}{Y_{11}^L}-({e_{11}{Y_{11}}})^L>0\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
To make a clear comparison, we denote $(Y_{11}^G,e_{11}^G)$ as the point where the minimum is attained. Corresponding to equation (\[Y11L\]) and equation (\[e11U\]), $Y_{11}^G$ and $e_{11}^G$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{Y_{11}^G} = {Y_{11}^L}+\delta,\label{eq:Y11G}\\
{e_{11}^G} = \frac{{e_{11}^U}{Y_{11}^L}}{{Y_{11}^L}+\delta}.\label{eq:e11G}\end{aligned}$$
\[sec:level3C\] Numerical simulation for MDI-QKD protocol
---------------------------------------------------------
Numerical simulations are performed with the parameters in table \[tab:table1\]. The ratios of the estimations of $Y_{11}$ with two methods (equation (\[Y11L\]) and equation (\[eq:Y11G\])) to the asymptotic limit obtained with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method are shown in figure \[fig:Y11\]. The ratios of the asymptotic limit of $e_{11}$ to the estimations with two methods (equation (\[e11U\]) and equation (\[eq:e11G\])) are shown in figure \[fig:e11\]. The ratios of the secure key rates calculated with two methods (separate estimation and global estimation) to the asymptotic limit are shown in figure \[fig:key2\]. From the results, we can see tighter estimations of $Y_{11}$ and $e_{11}$ are gained with global estimation. Thus, higher secure key rates are reached.
![\[fig:Y11\] (Color online) The ratio of the estimation of $Y_{11}$ to the asymptotic limit calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method vs the total channel transmission loss for three-intensity decoy-state MDI-QKD protocol. We set ${\upsilon}_a={\upsilon}_b=0.1$, ${\mu}_a={\mu}_b=0.5$ for decoy states and signal states, respectively. ](Y11.eps){height="32.00000%" width="50.00000%"}
![\[fig:e11\] (Color online) The ratio of the asymptotic limit of $e_{11}$ calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method to the estimation vs the total channel transmission loss for three-intensity decoy-state MDI-QKD protocol. We set ${\upsilon}_a={\upsilon}_b=0.1$, ${\mu}_a={\mu}_b=0.5$ for decoy states and signal states, respectively.](e11.eps){height="32.00000%" width="50.00000%"}
![\[fig:key2\] (Color online) The ratio of secure key rate calculated with the three-intensity decoy-state method to the asymptotic limit calculated with the infinite-intensity decoy-state method vs the total channel transmission loss for decoy-state MDI-QKD protocol. We set ${\upsilon}_a={\upsilon}_b=0.1$, ${\mu}_a={\mu}_b=0.5$ for decoy states and signal states, respectively. ](key2.eps){height="34.00000%" width="50.00000%"}
\[sec:level4\]Conclusion
========================
The global estimations of the privacy amplification term for both BB84 protocol and MDI-QKD protocol have been researched in this paper. Conventional separate estimation will abandon the information of the yield of single-photon state in QBER equations. With the global estimation of the privacy amplification term, this information has been extracted and the minimum of the privacy amplification term is achieved. Compared with separate consideration, more accurate estimations of the yield and the bit error rate of single-photon state are gained, which thus significantly improve the performance of the quantum key distribution for both BB84 protocol and MDI-QKD protocol. Additionally, more accurate separate estimation will contribute to more smaller domain of the bivariate function which thus can further help to obtain a tighter global estimation.
appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
***Theorem:*** For the bivariate continuous function $f(x,y) = (A + Cy)[1 - H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}})]$ $(A>0,C>0)$ with the definition domain $\{ (x,y):0 \le x \le 1,0 \le y \le 1,{\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}}<0.5}\} $, the minimum can be attained on the border.
***proof:*** Firstly, the partial derivatives of function $f(x,y)$ are given by $$\label{eq:fx}
{f_x} = - (A + Cy)H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{(A + Cy)}})'\frac{{Cy}}{{A + Cy}},$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fy}
{f_y} = &&C[1 - H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}})] - (A + Cy)H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}})'\nonumber\\
&&\frac{{(ACx - BC)}}{{{{(A + Cy)}^2}}}.\end{aligned}$$
If there is an extreme point $(x_0,y_0)$ $(0<x_0<1,0<y_0<1)$, then $H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}})'$ has to be 0 from the restrict ${f_x} =0$. Combine the restrict ${f_y} =0$, we can get $C[1 - H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}})]=0$. This is in contradiction with our initial assumption.
Function $f(x,y)$ for a fixed $y$ is a decreasing function with parameter variable $x$. So the minimum can be reached where $x$ is 1. So this problem is converted to searching the minimum of univariate continuous function $g(y) = (A + y)[1 - H(\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}})](0 \le y \le C)$. Calculating the derivative function of $g(y)$, we can find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gy}
{g_y}&& = 1 - H(\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}}) - (A + y)H(\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}})'\frac{{(A - B)}}{{{{(A + y)}^2}}}\nonumber\\
&&= 1 + (\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}})\log (\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}}) + (\frac{{A - B}}{{A + y}})\log (\frac{{A - B}}{{A + y}})\nonumber\\
&& - (\frac{{A - B}}{{A + y}})\log (\frac{{A - B}}{{B + y}})\nonumber\\
&&= 1 + \log (\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}}).\end{aligned}$$
As we assume $\frac{{B + y}}{{A + y}} < 1/2$, then ${g_y}<0$. That is to say, ${g_y}$ is a decreasing function with parameter variable $y$.
***Corollary:*** For the bivariate continuous function $f(x,y) = (A + Cy)[1 - H(\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}})]$ $(A>0,C>0)$ with the definition domain $\{ (x,y):0 \le x \le 1,0 \le y \le 1,{\frac{{B + Cxy}}{{A + Cy}}<0.5}, {(B + Cxy)}<D, {(A+Cy)}>E\}$, the nonzero minimum can be obtained in the following three cases.
case 1: when $(D-B)<C$ and $(D-B)>(E-A)$, the minimum is $f(1,\frac{{D - B}}{C})=(A+D-B)[1-H(\frac{D}{A+D-B})]$.
case 2: when $(D-B)<C$ and $(D-B)<(E-A)$, the minimum is $f(\frac{D-B}{E-A},\frac{{E- A}}{C})=E[1-H(\frac{D}{E})]$.
case 3: when $(D-B)>=C$, the minimum is $f(1,1)=(A + C)[1 - H(\frac{{B + C}}{{A + C}})]$.
***proof:*** If we set ${(B + Cxy)}=D$, the function $f(x,y)$ is converted to an univariate continuous increasing function $(A + Cy)[1 - H(\frac{D}{{A + Cy}})]$. Then it is easy to verify the correctness of corollary combining with the proof of theorem.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China Grant No.2011AA010803, the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants No.61472446 and No.U1204602 and the Open Project Program of the State Key Laboratory of Mathematical Engineering and Advanced Computing Grant No.2013A14.
[^1]: For simplicity, the analysis in Sec. \[sec:level1\] is for BB84 protocol. The same analysis for MDI-QKD protocol is presented in Sec. \[sec:level3\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'CLIC is a linear $e^+e^-$ ($\gamma\gamma$) collider project which uses a drive beam to accelerate the main beam. The drive beam provides RF power for each corresponding unit of the main linac through energy extracting RF structures. CLIC has a wide range of center-of-mass energy options from 150 GeV to 3 TeV. The present paper contains optimization of Free Electron Laser (FEL) using one bunch of CLIC drive beam in order to provide polarized light amplification using appropriate wiggler and luminosity spectrum of $\gamma\gamma$ collider for $E_{cm}$=0.5 TeV. Then amplified laser can be converted to a polarized high-energy $\gamma$ beam at the Conversion point (CP-prior to electron positron interaction point) in the process of Compton backscattering. At the CP a powerful laser pulse (FEL) focused to main linac electrons (positrons). Here this scheme described and it is show that CLIC drive beam parameters satisfy the requirement of FEL additionally essential undulator parameters has been defined. Achievable $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity is above $10^{34}$.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Ankara University, 06100 Tandogan, Ankara, Turkey'
- 'Department of Physics, Faculty of Art and Science, Nigde University, 51200 Nigde, Turkey'
author:
- Hüsnü Aksakal
title: '$2\times250$ GeV CLIC $\gamma\gamma$ Collider Based on it’s Drive Beam FEL'
---
Compton backscattering, FEL based $\gamma\gamma$ collider. 41.60-r;41.75.-i
Introduction
============
The idea of a $\gamma\gamma$ collider was proposed in the early 1980 [@telnov83]. It is well known that due to severe synchrotron radiation in storage rings, $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders in the TeV energy region will be linear. Unlike the situation in storage rings, in linear colliders each bunch is used only once. This makes possible the use of electrons for production of high-energy photons to obtain colliding $\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma{e}$ beams. The high energy gamma beam is produced by Compton backscattering of laser light off the electron beam. At about the same time, it was suggested that a free-electron laser could be used as the photon source of the $\gamma\gamma$ collider [@kondratenko]. In 1994, the use of single drive-beam bunches in a free-electron laser for a $\gamma\gamma$ collider based on an erlier version of CLIC, which accelerated single main bunches per pulse, was proposed by R. Corsini and A. Mikhailichenko [@corsini94]. The present paper describes to use a MOPA (Master Oscillator Power Amplifier) FEL instead of a conventional laser for Compton backscattering. MOPA FEL is studied for the case in which of radiation from a master oscillator is amplified in the FEL amplifier with tapered wiggler. But here we offer to use a solid state laser as a master laser instead of master oscillator radiation. FEL has many advantages compare to a conventional laser i.e: tunability, minimum divergence etc [@corsini94; @saldin95a]. The FEL produces the radiation to Terawatt level which is the required power for a laser with wavelength of 1 $\mu$m at a photon linear collider. Several physics opportunities for $\gamma{e}$ and $\gamma\gamma$ collisions at the CLIC are described below. Some examples are also described in [@NLC; @CLICtdr].
- A $\gamma\gamma$ collider offers a unique opportunity for measuring the two-photon decay width of the Higgs boson, providing a glimpse of the mass scale beyond the TeV range. Even in the case when the Higgs boson will be found at $e^{+}e^{-}$ linear colliders, its properties may be studied in detail only with CLIC photon collider.
- A $\gamma\gamma$ collider is well suited for searching new charged particles, such as SUSY particles, leptoquarks, excited state of electrons, etc. because photons generally couple more effectively to these particles than do electrons or positrons.
- A $\gamma\gamma$ or $\gamma{e}$ collider serving as a W-factory, producing $10^{6}-10^{7}$ Ws/year, allows for a precision study of gauge boson interactions and a search for their possible anomalies.
- At $\gamma{e}$ collider charged supersymetric particles with masses higher than the beam energy could be produced as well as the structure of photon could be measured.
A proposed scheme of CLIC $\gamma\gamma$ collider based on it’s drive beam FEL is shown in Fig \[fig:clicnma\].
Kinematic Background
====================
Conversion of FEL to high energy $\gamma$ beam at the conversion point can be scaled with dimensionless $x$ parameter [@telnov83]. $$\label{xparam}
x=4E_{b}\omega_{0}/m^2$$ where $m$, $E_{b}$ are electron rest mass and beam energy respectively, $\omega_{0}$ laser photon energy. The maximum energy of the backscattered photons $\omega_{max}=x E_{b}/(x+1)$ depends on the parameter $x$ but the backscattered photons can be lost for $x>>4.8$ due to $e^{+}e^{-}$ pair creation at the collisions of produced photons with un-scattered FEL photons (Breit-Wheeler process). Thus, the optimum value is $x=4.8$, giving the maximum photon energy $\omega_{max}=0.81 E_b$. Neglecting multiple scattering, and assuming that the laser profile seen by each electron is the same, the conversion probability of generating high energy gamma photons per individual electron can be written as [@NLC] $$\label{conversion}
p=1-e^{-q}$$ If the laser intensity along the axis is uniform the exponent q is $$q=\frac{A}{A_0}=\frac{\sigma_{c}A}{\omega_{0}\Sigma_{L}}=\frac{\sigma_{c}I\tau_{L}}{\omega_{0}}=\frac{\sigma_{c}P\tau_{L}}{\omega_{0}\Sigma_{L}}$$ where A/$\omega_0$ denotes total number of laser photons, $\sigma_c$ is the total Compton cross section is equal to 1.75 $10^{-25}cm^{2}$ for $x=4.8$, $I$ is the laser beam intensity and $\tau_{L}$ ($\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{L,z}(rms)/c$) is the laser pulse duration, $\Sigma_{L}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda Z_{R}$ the laser beam cross section at the focal point and $A$ is the laser pulse energy ($A=I\tau_{L}\Sigma_{L}$). The optimum conversion efficiency corresponds to q=1 which is reached for a laser pulse energy of $A=A_{0}=\omega_{0}\lambda Z_{R}/2\sigma_{c}$. In this case one has p=0.65. Required laser-beam parameters are listed in Table \[dbparam\]. It should be kept in mind that last laser spot size must be bigger than electron beam transverse size, therefore last laser beam spot size is defined by final optical system of laser system (before CP). After the conversion, energy spectrum of high-energy photons are given as [@Borden92; @telnov90]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sigma_{c}} \frac{d\sigma_{c}}{d\omega}&=& f(\omega) \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{\sigma_{c}E_{b}}\frac{2\pi\alpha^{2}}{xm_{e}^{2}}[\frac{1}{1-y}+1-y-4r(1-r)-\lambda_{e}\lambda_{\gamma}rx(2r-1)(2-y)]\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $y=\omega/E_{b}$, $r=y/[x(1-y)]$, $\lambda_{e}$, $\lambda_{\gamma}$ electron and laser beam helicities respectively and $\sigma_{c}$ is the Compton cross section of the laser and the e-beam, given as: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{c}=\sigma_{c}^{0}+\lambda_{e}\lambda_{\gamma}\sigma_{c}^{1} \\
\sigma_{c}^{0}=\frac{\pi\alpha^{2}}{xm_{e}^{2}}[(2-\frac{8}{x}-\frac{16}{x^{2}})ln(x+1)+1+\frac{16}{x}-\frac{1}{(x+1)^{2}}] \nonumber \\
\sigma_{c}^{1}=\frac{\pi\alpha^{2}}{xm_{e}^{2}}[(2+\frac{4}{x})ln(x+1)-5+\frac{2}{x}-\frac{1}{(x+1)^{2}}]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By varying the polarization of electron and FEL, the polarization of the high-energy gamma beam can be tailored to fit the needs of the gamma-gamma collision experiments. Controlling the polarization is also important for sharpening the spectral peak in the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity. Due to dependence of Compton scattering, the peak in the luminosity spectrum is significantly enhanced by choosing the helicity of laser photons to be of the opposite sign to helicity of the electrons [@telnov83; @NLC; @telnov90; @Borden92]. Required laser parameters for $p$=0.65 can be define using equation \[conversion\]. The FEL output radiation is totally polarized: circularly or linearly for the case of helical or planar undulator, respectively [@saldin95a; @saldin95b; @saldin2000]. To reduce the cost of the laser system only free electron laser can be used [@saldin93; @saldin95a; @saldin95b].
Luminosity Calculation
======================
The $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity is approximately proportional to $e^{+}e^{-}$ geometric luminosity. Luminosity of colliding beams is related with beam size, number of particle per bunch and repetition frequency. The transverse beam size of both laser and electron (positron) beams can be expressed as [@aksakalnimA]: $$\sigma_{i,j}(s)=\sigma_{i,j}^{\ast}\sqrt{1+\frac{(s-s_{j})^{2}}{{\beta^{\ast}}^{2}}}$$ where $j$ represent the beam kind ($e^{-}$, $e^{+}$, $l$) and $i$($x$,$y$) the transverse coordinate, $\beta^{\ast}$ is the betatron function at the waist and $s_{j}$ the waist position. The beam size at the waist is $\sigma_{i,j}^{\ast}$=$\sqrt{\beta\epsilon_{n}/\gamma}$ where $\epsilon_{n}$ is normalized beam emittance and $\beta$ is betatron function. For laser beam the beta function is equal to Rayleigh range ($Z_{R}$) and the diffraction limited emittance is $\lambda/4\pi$. After laser optical system the Rayleigh range is $Z_{R}=\frac{4}{\pi}\lambda F_{N}^{2}$ where $F_{N}$ is defined roughly as the ratio of focal length to the diameter of focusing mirror [@NLC]. For high reflective mirrors, the average power density damage threshold is 10 $MW/cm^2$ and peak power density damage threshold is 10 $GW/cm^2$ [@urakawa06]. The problem in both cases is discharge (breakdown of hydrocarbons on the mirror surface) on mirror surface. Average power of required FEL is 33 kW. Therefore FEL easily transport to CP with mirrors. In our case, desired value of Rayleigh length (0.263 mm) can be obtained by taking $F_{N}$ equal to 14 for change the FEL Rayleigh range (1.7 cm) at 1 J pulse energy. For calculation of spectral luminosity CAIN 2.35 simulation program used [@cain]. Nonlinear effect at the conversion point scaled with dimensionless $\xi^{2}$ parameter, which is related with photon density in the laser pulse, wavelength, pulse length, pulse energy. This $\xi^{2}$ parameter is of the form [@brinkmann97] $$\label{}
\xi^{2}=\frac{4 r_{e}\lambda A}{(2\pi)^{3/2}\sigma_{L,z}mc^{2}Z_{R}}$$ In the case of $\xi^{2}$$>>$1 multiphoton process occur at conversion point, for $\xi^{2}$$<<$1 Compton scattering occur. In our case $\xi^{2}$=0.3 and there is no problem with multiphoton process. The differential luminosity equation as a function of laser energy in a $\gamma\gamma$ collision is given below [@Borden92]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{L_{ee}}\frac{dL_{\gamma\gamma}}{dWd\eta} \nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{W}{2}f_{1}(\frac{We^{\eta}}{2})f_{2}(\frac{We^{-\eta}}{2})I_{0}(\frac{d_{1}d_{2}}{\sigma_{1}(s,s_{e})^{2}+\sigma_{2}(s,s_{e})^{2}})e^{-\frac{d_{1}^{2}+d_{2}^{2}}{2(\sigma_{1}(s,s_{e})^{2}+\sigma_{2}(s,s_{e})^{2})}}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $W=2\sqrt{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}$ is invariant mass, $I_{0}$ Bessel function of the order of zero, $\eta=Arctanh(\frac{\omega_{1}-\omega_{2}}{\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}})$ is $\gamma\gamma$ rapidity, $d_{1}=z_{1}\theta_{\gamma
1}(\frac{We^{\eta}}{2})$ and $d_{2}=z_{2}\theta_{\gamma
2}(\frac{We^{-\eta}}{2})$ where $\theta_{\gamma}$ is scattering angle of backscattered photons with respect to the direction of the incoming electron varies with photon energy as [@Borden92; @telnov90; @telnov95]: $$\theta_{\gamma}\left(\omega\right)\approx\frac{m_{e}}{E_{b}}\sqrt{\frac{E_{b}x}{\omega}-x+1}$$ The luminosity spectrum of CLIC $\gamma\gamma$ collider can be seen in Fig \[fig:lumi.eps\].
FEL System for $\gamma\gamma$ Collider
======================================
CLIC main linac, drive linac and master laser
---------------------------------------------
The time structure of the FEL pulses must follow the time structure of the electron (positron) bunches of the CLIC main linac at the conversion point. Using backscattered FEL, synchronization of $\gamma$ beam and main linac electron (positron) beam can be solved. The CLIC drive beam complex consist of 2 combiner rings and a delay loop. Each combiner ring compress to drive beam 4 times and the delay loop another factor of 2. In order to get the same time structure in the FEL and the main beam it is necessary to use additional drive beam bunches after the $1^{st}$ combiner ring. Drive beam bunch structure and it’s complex can be seen in Fig \[fig:clicnma\]. In this case both drive beam and main beam have the same bunch separation (0.267 ns). The number of main beam bunches per pulse is $220$ and the number of drive beam bunches per train after $1^{st}$ combiner ring is 262. When we take 2 more drive beam pulse from the drive linac gun, we would have 524 more bunches after the $1^{st}$ combiner ring to be used wigglers for both electron main linac and positron main linac. Before the wiggler it should be dumped 42 e-bunches for each drive linac section so the bunch number of taken drive beam after $1^{st}$ combiner ring would be decreased to 220. The example of scheme under consideration and the overall CLIC layout with updated beam parameters can be seen in Fig \[fig:clicnma\]. The power of master laser must be higher than FEL amplifier noise at entrance of the wiggler [@saldin2000]. Furthermore the master laser has to be synchronize with drive linac electron bunches after $1^{st}$ combiner ring.\
[*Luminosity increment method*]{}: CLIC at $E_{cm}$=3 TeV containment 21 drive beam decelerator units for each main linac section, but the $E_{cm}$=0.5 TeV option it has only 3 decelerator units. In this case the drive beam pulse length reduced by a factor of 7. To increase the luminosity, $7\times220$ main beam bunches can be accelerated by using full drive beam pulse length (93.7 $\mu s$). Consequently the repetition frequency of main linac increases by factor 7. CLIC main linac beam parameters are given in Table \[table1\], where proposed modification of repetition rate and Luminosity are given in parenthesis. In this case we need a kicker which is faster than $E_{cm}$=3 TeV option after the second combiner ring. The drive beam pulse structure can be seen in Fig \[fig:clicnma\]. Master laser and electron interaction in the wiggler will be explained in next subsection. The required parameters for the master laser are given in Table \[ml&lifier\] and related drive beam parameters are given in Table \[dbparam\].
FEL amplifier
-------------
Proposed scheme is a high-gain single pass FEL amplifier. The interaction between electrons and master laser leads to an exponential growth of the FEL while the electron beam expenses its kinetic energy. First of all the helical wiggler must satisfy resonant condition [@saldin95a]: $$\lambda=\frac{\lambda_{w}}{2\gamma^2}(1+K^{2})$$ where $K$=$0.934 B_{w}[T]\lambda_{w}[cm]$ is dimensionless wiggler parameter, $\lambda_{w}$ is the wiggler period, $B_{w}$ peak magnetic field inside wiggler and $\gamma$ the drive beam relativistic factor. The choose of the optimum $\lambda_{w}$, $B_{w}$ couple can be made by minimizing the gain length $l_{g}$ (e-folding length for the radiation growth). The fundamental FEL parameter, $\rho=\lambda_{w}/4\pi l_{g}$ corresponds roughly to the maximum efficiency that can be obtained in a non-tapered FEL; when this level of efficiency is reached, the loss in kinetic energy of the electron beam is no longer satisfied, and the output power saturates. Optimum value of both untapered efficiency and wiggler length is obtained by minimizing $\lambda_{w}$ and maximizing $B_{w}$. After saturation, further extraction of energy from the electron beam is possible by varying the $K$ parameter by changing wiggler peak field, wiggler period or both. While changing K and the electrons losses their energy it is possible to keep the electrons and FEL in resonant. In this case the radiation growth is anyway no more exponential. Different type of tapering techniques are possible. In the following we will refer to self-consistent tapering obtained by varying quadratically the peak wiggler field while keeping constant the wiggler period. This self-consistent tapering should be more efficient than the constant $K$. In order to provide high efficiency it is necessary to use tapered wiggler. FEL has always tunable and capable to generate powerful coherent radiation which always has minimal difraction (dispersion). To obtain a reasonable luminosity of the $\gamma\gamma$ collider at CLIC, the peak power in the radiation pulse for $p=0.65$ at the FEL amplifier exit should be $~$0.5 TW. In the case of axisymmetric electron beam the eigenvalue equation of the $TEM_{mn}$ mode is of the form [@saldin95a]: $$\label{eigenvalue}
\mu J_{n+1}(\mu)K_{n}(g)=g J_{n}(\mu)K_{n+1}(g)$$ where $J_{n}$ is the bessel function of the firs kind of order n, $K_{n}$ is modified Bessel function, n the azimuthal index of the mode, $g$ and $\mu$ dimensionless parameter as given $g$=-$2iB\hat{\Lambda}$ and $\mu$=$\frac{-2i\hat{D}}{1-i\hat{\Lambda}_{p}^{2}\hat{D}-g^{2}}$, where $\hat{\Lambda}=\Lambda/\Gamma$ is reduced eigenvalue. For Gaussian energy spread, the function $\hat{D}$ and reduced detuning $\hat{C}$ are defined with formulae $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{D}=i\int_{0}^{\infty}\xi exp[-\hat{\Lambda}_{T}^{2}\xi^{2}-(\Lambda+i\hat{C})\xi]d\xi\\
\hat{C}=\frac{C}{\Gamma}=(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda_{w}}-\frac{w(1+K^{2})}{2\gamma^{2}c})/{\Gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega=2\pi c/\lambda$ is frequency of radiation field. During the amplification physical effects are connected with the corresponding dimensionless parameters defining the power of the effects. These parameters are the diffraction parameter B, space charge parameter $\Lambda_{p}$, the energy spread parameter $\hat{\Lambda}_{T}$, and the efficiency parameter $\rho$ as given respectively below [@saldin2001]: $$\begin{aligned}
B=\frac{2\Gamma r_{b}^{2} \omega}{c}\\
\hat{\Lambda}^{2}_{p}=\frac{\Lambda^{2}_{p}}{\Gamma^{2}}=\frac{4c^{2}}{[\theta_{w} r_{b}\omega]^{2}}\\
\hat{\Lambda}^{2}_{T}=(\frac{\sigma_{E}^{2}}{E_{0}^{2}}+\frac{\gamma^{4}\sigma_{\theta}^{4}}{(1+K^{2})^{2}})/\rho^{2}\\
\rho=\frac{c\gamma^{2}\Gamma}{\omega(1+K^{2})}=[\frac{I}{I_{A}\gamma}\frac{K^{2}}{1+K^{2}}]^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega$ frequency of radiation field, $I_{A}$ is Alfven current which is $\approx$ 17 kA and $\theta_{w}=K/\gamma$ electron rotation angle. Amplification occur at real part of eigenvalue of the eigenvalue equation. Energy spread in the electron beam is assumed to be Gaussian with the rms deviation $\sigma_{E}$. RMS angle spread given by $\sigma_{\theta}=\sqrt{\epsilon_{n}/\beta\gamma}$. The gain parameter $\Gamma$ defines the scale of the field gain and it is defined as [@saldin2001]: $$\label{}
\Gamma=[\frac{I\omega^{2}{\theta_{w}}^{2}(1+K^{2})^{2}}{I_{A}c^{2}\gamma^{5}}]^{1/2}$$ The required laser parameter are given in table \[table1\]. Possible effects during the amplification are:\
1)[*Electron beam energy spread*]{}: If electron beam has an energy spread, the FEL gain can be depressed, essentially because not all the electrons are exactly resonant with radiation. If the energy spread is substantially smaller than the fundamental FEL parameter $\rho$, its effect negligible. By detuning initially the beam with respect to the exact resonance, one can minimize the effect of the energy spread on the FEL gain [@saldin93; @corsini94].\
2) [*Emittance effect*]{}: There are different ways in which the electron beam emittance can effect the FEL gain. First of all transverse motion of the electron in a finite emittance beam induces a spread in the longitudinal velocities that affects the coupling, exactly as does the energy spread. FEL gain loss as a function of energy spread, taking into emittance effects and for optimum detuning. $(0.005\leq(\gamma-\gamma_{r})/\gamma_{r}\leq 0.02)$ Values of energy spread as big as 1$\%$ can be still tolerated [@corsini94]. The FEL efficiency parameter $\rho$ and wiggler length given in table \[ml&lifier\] are all calculated consistently taking into account the values of emittance and energy spread reported therein.\
3) [*Diffraction losses*]{}: The electron beam emittance determines the electron beam size in the wiggler, once fixed $\lambda_{w}$ and $B_{w}$. The wiggler provides a focusing force in both planes, with a betatron wavelength $\lambda_{\beta}=\sqrt{2}\lambda_{w}/\theta_{w}$. A matched electron beam has therefore a constant radius along the wiggler: $r_{b}=\sqrt{{\epsilon_{r}^{n}\lambda_{\beta}}/(2\pi)}$. In order to obtain the maximum gain, the transverse section of the electron beam and the input radiation pulse should exactly overlap, but diffraction limits the distance over which the light beam have the same transverse section as the electron beam. This distance is roughly given by the Rayleigh range $Z_{R}$ of a Gaussian light beam with a waist of the same section of the electron beam : $Z_{R}=\pi
r_{b}^{2}/\lambda$. Fortunately it is not necessary for the Rayleigh range be equal or greater than wiggler length in order to preserve the gain. If $Z_{R}$ is lower or of the order of gain length, the loses in the effective radiation power seen by electron beam are compensated by gain (gain guiding effect). Furthermore, the refractive guiding effect, due to light phase shift in an FEL high-gain amplifier is dominant when the gain length is shorter than Rayleigh range, and compensate diffraction losses by confining the light in the proximity of the electron beam that act essentially like an optical fiber. The ratio between Rayleigh range and gain length should be so close to one to avoid gain deterioration by diffraction losses. Anyway, optical guiding (gain+diffraction guiding) effects depends on the electron beam radial density distribution and on the initial conditions for the light beam [@corsini94]. An exact evaluation of these phenomena done by GINGER 3D simulation code [@ginger].\
4) [*Slippage effect*]{}: The difference in longitudinal velocity between light pulse and electron beam pulse (slippage effect) can also effect the FEL instability in ways that may be undesirable, including lengthening of the amplified light pulse. Other means that group velocity of radiation in the electron beam is less than the velocity of light. For a FEL operating in the optical region, the difference in path length between the light an electron pulses at the end of wiggler is simply given by the relation $\bigtriangleup
l=\lambda N_{w}$, where $N_{w}$ is number of wiggler period. The main condition $\bigtriangleup l<<l_{b}$ is satisfy, where $l_{b}$ is drive beam electron pulse length. As mentioned before, to obtain the needed efficiency the use of a tapered wiggler section unavoidable. An evaluation have been made based on 3D calculations.\
Parameters of the FEL amplifier with included all effects to obtain 0.51 TeV power with tapered wiggler are presented in table \[ml&lifier\]. In Fig \[fig:clic-250bw.eps\] shows wiggler peak field variation along the wiggler length, it plotted for self-consistent tapering wiggler. The firs part of wiggler up to 18 m (slightly before saturation) has a constant magnetic field then the peak field start to decrease. In Fig \[fig:clic-250.eps\] FEL pulse power is plotted as a function of wiggler length, it can be seen from this figure 60 m wiggler is enough to get required 0.51 TW peak power of FEL. The initial exponential growth of radiation energy is evident until tapering is introduced. In this case the final value of the magnetic field is $~$1.67 T. Higher input power help to decrease wiggler length.\
Conclusion
==========
Present paper indicate that CLIC project can solve laser requirements for $\gamma\gamma$ collider itself. For $x$=4.8 required laser power is $~$0.51 TW and it can be obtained using 60 m wiggler. Required FEL can be obtain one extra drive beam pulse from the drive gun after last bunch of CLIC drive beam is deflected into a helical wiggler after $1^{st}$ combiner ring, which does not loose any energy at the end of drive linac. A master laser pulse ($\lambda
\sim 1\mu m$) from a solid state laser, synchronized with the drive beam, is also injected in the helical wiggler. Here the amplification of the radiation pulse by FEL interaction occurs. The amplified light (FEL) is directed with the help of proper mirros to the conversion point, where it interact with the incoming main electron beam. In this point high-energy gammas are obtained by Compton backscattering. The high energy gammas interact with the the gammas obtained in the same way in the other half of the linear collider. Circular polarize gamma can be obtain using by helical wiggler. Even including some effect on obtaining required peak power FEL, it is possible to construct $\gamma\gamma$ or $\gamma e$ collider based on CLIC drive beam FEL. Reachable luminosity of $\gamma\gamma$ collision is 1.44 $10^{34}$ $cm^{-2}s^{-1}$ and in the case of using increment method it is value 1.0 $10^{35}$ $cm^{-2}s^{-1}$.
Acknowlengment
==============
The author would like to thank Dr. Roberto Corsini, Dr. Frank Zimmermann, Dr. Daniel Schulte, Prof. Dr. Saleh Sultansoy, Prof. Dr. A Kenan Ciftci, CLIC working group and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gokhan Unel for useful discussions.\
This work supported in part by Turkish Atomic Energy Authority.
[00]{} I.Ginzburg, G.Kotkin, V.Serbo, V.Telnov, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. (1983) 205. A.M. Kondaratemnko, E.V. Pakhtusova, E.L. Saldin, Dokl. Akas.Nauk. 264 (1982) 849; Preprint INF 81-130 (1981) in Russian. NLC Zeroth Order Design Report Appendix B, LBNL-5424 (1996). E. Accomando et all. CLIC Physics Working Group. arXiv:hep-ph/0412251 (2004). J. Urakawa, workshop of POSIPOL 2006 CERN (2006). H. Aksakal, et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A (2007). V.Telnov, Nucl. Instr. and Meth.A 294 (1990) 72. D. L. Borden, D. A. Bauer and D. O. Caldwell, SLAC preprint SLAC-PUB 5715, Standford (1992). E.L. Saldin, E.A. Schneidmiller, M.V. Yurkov. Optics Commmunications 97 (1993) 272-290. R. Corsini, A.A. Mihailichenko. CLIC Note 254 (1994). V.Telnov, Nucl. Instr. and Meth.A 355 (1995) 3-18. E.L. Saldin, V.P. Sarantsev, E.A. Schneidmiller,M.V. Yurkov. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.A 355 (1995) 171-183. User’s Manual of CAIN 2.35 (2003)(KEK pub. 4/96). E.L. Saldin, V.P. Sarantsev, E.A. Schneidmiller, Y. N. Ulyanov, M.V. Yurkov. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.A 361 (1995) 101-110. R. Brinkmann et all. arXiv:hep-ex/9707017 (1997). E.L. Saldin, E.A. Schneidmiller, M.V. Yurkov. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.A 445 (2000) 320-323. E.L. Saldin, E.A. Schneidmiller, M.V. Yurkov. Nucl. Instr. and Meth.A 472 (2001) 94-99. H. Braun et all. CLIC Note 627 (2005). W. M. Fawley. LBNL-49625, (2004).
Tables {#tables .unnumbered}
======
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- --
$E_{b}$ (GeV) 250
No.particle per bunch($10^{9}$) 2.56
No. of bunch 220
Repetition frequency $f_{rep}$ (Hz) 150(1050)
$\beta_{x}$/$\beta_{y}$(mm) 2/0.02
Normalized Emittance ($\mu$m) $\gamma\epsilon_{x}$/$\gamma\epsilon_{y}$ 660/10
$\sigma_{z}$ ($\mu m$) 31
Total Luminosity $L_{\gamma\gamma}$ 1.44 $10^{34}$ (1.0 $10^{35}$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- --
: CLIC Main Linac Beam parameters[]{data-label="table1"}
---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --
$E_{db}$ (GeV) 2.37
Peak current (kA) 3.62
Bunch length (mm) 0.4
Bunch sep (ns) 0.267
Bunch charge (nC) 12.1
$\beta_{x}$ $/$ $\beta_{y}$ (mm) 2/0.2
No. of bunch/pulse after $1^{st}$ CR 262 (1834)
Repetition frequency $f_{rep}$ (Hz) 150
Normalized emittance, rms ($\mu$m rad) 150
Bunch separation (ns) 0.267
No. bunches $/$ train 262$/$24 (262$/$168)
Energy spread $\sigma_{E}/E_{db}$ 0.1$\%$
Pulse duration ($\mu$s) 13.22 (93.7)
---------------------------------------- ---------------------- --
: Drive beam parameters[]{data-label="dbparam"}
----------------------------- --------------- --
[*Master laser*]{}
Power (MW) 1
wavelength($\mu$m) 1.06
[*FEL amplifier*]{}
wiggler Type helical
Period(cm) 10
Length of wiggler (m) 60
FEL parameter $\rho$ 2.2 $10^{-2}$
Entrance magnetic field (T) 1.908
Rayleigh length (cm) 1.7
FEL Power (TW) 0.51
----------------------------- --------------- --
: Master laser, FEL and wiggler parameters[]{data-label="ml&lifier"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study, information theoretically, the impact of transmitter and or receiver cognition on the channel capacity. The cognition can be described by state information, dependent on the channel noise and or input. Specifically, as a new idea, we consider the receiver cognition as a state information dependent on the noise and we derive a capacity theorem based on the Gaussian version of the Cover-Chiang capacity theorem for two-sided state information channel. As intuitively expected, the receiver cognition increases the channel capacity and our theorem shows this increase quantitatively. Also, our capacity theorem includes the famous Costa theorem as its special cases.'
author:
- 'Nima S. Anzabi-Nezhad, Ghosheh Abed Hodtani, and Mohammad Molavi Kakhki [^1] [^2] [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'Capacitybiblio.bib'
title: 'Information Theoretic Exemplification of the Impact of Transmitter-Receiver Cognition on the Channel Capacity'
---
transmitter-receiver cognition, Gaussian channel capacity, correlated side information.
Introduction
============
Information theoretic study of the impact of transmitter and or receiver cognition on the channel capacity is a new idea and an important research issue. For example one channel from view points of two receivers with different cognition and information on the channel, may have different capacities. The cognition at the transmitter or receiver can be described by the usual concept of information theory i.e., side information.
Side information channels have been extensively studied since the initiation by Shannon [@shannon] and the subsequent study by Kusnetsov-Tsybakov [@kusnetsov]. The capacity of channel with side information (CSI) known causally only at the transmitter and only at the receiver has been determined by Gel’fand-Pinsker(GP) [@GP] and Heegard-El Gamal [@HG] respectively. Considering the GP theorem for the Gaussian channel, Costa [@costa] obtained an interesting result, i.e., the channel capacity in the presence of interference known at the transmitter is the same as the case without interference. Having extended the above results, Cover-Chiang [@coverchiang] established a general capacity theorem for the channel with two-sided state information. We have many other important researches in the literature, e.g.[@sajafar; @keshet2008; @merhav2007]. The results obtained for side information point to point channel have been extended, at least at special cases, to multiuser channels [@sigurjonsson2005; @kim2004; @khosravi2010; @philosof2009; @steinberg20052].
As mentioned above, our motivation was the fact that cognition of the transmitter and receiver can affect the channel capacity. In order to quantify this effect, we illustrate the cognition as state information dependent on the channel noise and or input. Then we derive a capacity theorem and prove that, as expected, the receiver cognition increases the channel capacity and our theorem shows this increase quantitatively. Our capacity theorem, while revealing the importance of Costa theorem, is a more general theorem and includes the Costa theorem as special cases.\
In the remainder of this section we briefly review the Cover-Chiang, the Gel’fand-Pinsker and the Costa theorems.
*Cover-Chiang Theorem:* Fig.\[figure1\] shows a channel with side information known at the transmitter and at the receiver. $ X^{n} $ and $ Y^{n} $ are the transmitted and received sequences respectively. The sequences $ S_{1}^{n} $ and $ S_{2}^{n} $ are the side information known non-causally at the transmitter and at the receiver respectively. The transition probability of the channel $ p\left( y\mid x,s_{1},s_{2}\right) $ depends on the input $ X $, the side information $ S_{1} $ and $ S_{2} $. If the channel is memoryless and the sequences $ \left(S_{1}^{n},S_{2}^{n}\right) $ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables under $ p\left(s_{1},s_{2} \right) $, then the capacity of the channel is [@coverchiang]: $$C=\max_{p\left(u,x\mid s_{1} \right) }\left[I\left(U;S_{2},Y \right)-I\left( U;S_{1}\right) \right] \label{eq.1}$$ where the maximum is over all distributions: $$p\left(y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right) =p\left(y\mid x,s_{1},s_{2} \right)p\left(u,x\mid s_{1} \right)p\left(s_{1},s_{2} \right) \label{eq.2}$$ and $ U $ is an auxiliary random variable for conveying the information of the known $ S_{1}^{n} $ into $ X^{n} $.
It is important to note that the Markov chain: $$S_{2}\longrightarrow S_{1}\longrightarrow UX \label{eq.3}$$ is satisfied for all above distributions.
![Channel with side information available non-causally at the transmitter and at the receiver.[]{data-label="figure1"}](figure1.pdf){width="3.5in"}
*Gel’fand-Pinsker Theorem:* The situation $ S_{2}=\phi $ (no side information at the receiver) leads to the Gel’fand-Pinsker theorem [@GP]:The memoryless channel with transition probability $ p\left(y \mid x,s_{1} \right) $ and the side information sequence $ S_{1}^{n} $ (which is i.i.d. $ \sim p\left(s_{1} \right) $) known non-causally at the transmitter (Fig.\[figure2\]) has the capacity $$C=\max_{p\left(u,x \mid s_{1} \right) } \left[I\left(U;Y \right) -I\left(U;S_{1} \right) \right] \label{eq.4}$$ for all distributions: $$p\left(y,x,u,s_{1}\right) =p\left(y\mid x,s_{1} \right)p\left(u,x\mid s_{1} \right)p\left(s_{1}\right) \label{eq.5}$$ where $ U $ is an auxiliary random variable.
![Channel with side information known at the transmitter.[]{data-label="figure2"}](figure2.pdf){width="3.5in"}
*Costa’s “Writing on Dirty Paper”:* Costa [@costa] examined the Gaussian version of the channel with side information known at the transmitter (Fig.\[figure3\]).
![Gaussian channel with additive interference known at the transmitter.[]{data-label="figure3"}](figure3.pdf){width="3.5in"}
It is seen that the side information is considered as an additive interference at the receiver. Costa derived the capacity by using the result of Gel’fand-Pinsker theorem extended to random variables with continuous alphabets. The sketch of proof is as follows: In Costa channel $ S_{1}^{n} $ is a sequence of Gaussian i.i.d. random variables with power $Q_{1}$. The transmitted sequence $ X^{n} $ is assumed to have the power constraint $ E\left\lbrace X^{2} \right\rbrace \leq P $. The output $ Y^{n}=X^{n}+S_{1}^{n}+Z^{n} $ where $Z^{n} $ is the sequence of white Gaussian noise with zero mean and power $ N $ ($ Z\sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,N \right) $) and independent of both $ X $ and $ S_{1} $.\
Costa established the capacity by obtaining a lower bound and an upper bound and proving the equality of these two bounds. Although there is no definite condition on correlation between the channel input $X$ and the known interference $S_{1}$ in Costa channel, the achievable rate of $\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{P}{N} \right)$ is obtained by taking $S_{1}$ and $X$ independent and the auxiliary random variable $U$ in (\[eq.5\]) as $ U=\alpha\ S_{1}+X $. On the other hand, it can be shown that: $$C\leq \max_{p\left (x\mid s_{1}\right )}\left[ I\left (X,Y\mid S_{1}\right )\right] \leq \frac{1}{2}\log\left( 1+\frac{P}{N}\right) \label{eq.6}$$ so $\frac{1}{2}\log\left(1+\frac{P}{N} \right)$ is an upper bound for the capacity of channel and then the capacity of channel. What is surprising is that the capacity is independent of $S_{1}$, and that the capacity is equal to the capacity of channel when there is no interference $S_{1}$.
A Capacity Theorem for Analyzing the Impact of Transmitter-Receiver Cognition on Channel Capacity
=================================================================================================
In this section we define and investigate a Gaussian channel in presence of two-sided information known non-causally at the transmitter and at the receiver. The side information at the transmitter and at the receiver is considered as additive interference at the receiver (Fig.\[figure4\]).
![Gaussian channel with correlated side information known at the transmitter and at the receiver. .[]{data-label="figure4"}](figure5.pdf){width="3.5in"}
In comparison with Costa channel, our channel has two major modifications: 1) In Costa channel there is no condition for the correlation between the channel input $X$ and the side information $S_{1}$. So $\frac{1}{2}\log \left (1+\frac{P}{N}\right )$ is the capacity of a channel in which the side information $S_{1}$ can be freely correlated to the channel input $X$; so this capacity can not be used for a channel with a specific correlation between $X$ and $S_{1}$. The correlation coefficient $\rho_{XS_{1}}$ between X and $S_{1}$ is specified in our channel. 2) We suppose that the Gaussian side information $S_{2}$ known at the receiver, exists and is correlated to the channel noise $Z$.
It is important to note that assuming the input random variable $X$ and $S_{1}$ correlated to each other with a specific correlation coefficient, does not impose any restriction on $X$’s own distribution and the distribution of $X$ is still free to choose.
**Definition of the Channel** {#definition-of-the-channel .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
Consider the Gaussian channel depicted in Fig.\[figure4\]. Our channel is defined with properties D.1-D.3 below:
#### **D.1** {#d.1 .unnumbered}
$\left( S_{1}^{n},S_{2}^{n}\right) $ are i.i.d. sequences with zero mean and jointly Gaussian distributions.
#### **D.2** {#d.2 .unnumbered}
Random variables $ \left(X,S_{1},S_{2} \right) $ have the covariance matrix $ \boldsymbol{K} $: $$\boldsymbol{K}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma_{X}^{2}&\sigma_{X}\sigma_{S_{1}}\rho_{XS_{1}}&\sigma_{X}\sigma_{S_{2}}\rho_{XS_{2}}\\
\sigma_{X}\sigma_{S_{1}}\rho_{XS_{1}}&\sigma_{S_{1}}^{2}&\sigma_{S_{1}}\sigma_{S_{2}}\rho_{S_{1}S_{2}}\\
\sigma_{X}\sigma_{S_{2}}\rho_{XS_{2}}&\sigma_{S_{1}}\sigma_{S_{2}}\rho_{S_{1}S_{2}}&\sigma_{S_{2}}^{2}
\end{bmatrix}. \label{eq.7}$$ We suppose that $S_{2}$ is independent of $X$ and $S_{1}$, so we have $\rho_{XS_{2}}=\rho_{S_{1}S_{2}}=0$. Moreover $ X^{n} $ is assumed to have the constraint $ E\left\lbrace X^{2}\right\rbrace=\sigma_{X}^{2}\leq P $. All values in $ \boldsymbol{K} $ except $ \sigma_{X} $, are fixed and must be considered as the definition of the channel.
#### **D.3** {#d.3 .unnumbered}
The output sequence $ Y^{n}=X^{n}+S_{1}^{n}+S_{2}^{n}+Z^{n} $, where $ Z^{n} $ is the sequence of white Gaussian noise with zero mean and power $\sigma_{Z}^{2}= N $ ($ Z\sim \mathcal{N}\left( 0,N\right) $) and independent of $ (X ,S_{1}) $ and *dependent on* $S_{2}$ with $\rho_{S_{2}Z}$. For simplicity, we define: $$L_{2}\triangleq E\left\lbrace S_{2}Z\right\rbrace =\sigma_{S_{2}}\sigma_{Z}\rho_{S_{2}Z}.\label{eq.115}$$
#### **D.4** {#d.4 .unnumbered}
$ \left( X,U,S_{1},S_{2}\right)$ form the Markov Chain $ S_{2}\rightarrow S_{1}\rightarrow UX $. (We note that as mentioned earlier, this Markov chain (\[eq.3\]) must be satisfied by all distributions $ p\left(y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right)$ in Cover-Chiang capacity theorem and is physically acceptable).
It is readily seen that all distributions $ p\left(y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right)$ specified with D.1-D.4 are in the form of (\[eq.2\]) and hence we can use the extended version of Cover-Chiang theorem to random variables with continuous alphabets about the capacity of this channel.
Comparing our channel (defined with D.1-D.4) with Costa channel , a question may arise: (if we ignore $S_{2}$,) what is the relationship between capacities of these channels? To answer this question let us consider a subset of all distributions (channels) $ p\left(y,x,u,s_{1}\right)$ (ignoring $S_{2}$) that satisfy D.1-D.4 and are similar but with different $\rho_{XS_{1}}$. Since Costa channel imposes no restriction on $\rho_{XS_{1}}$, these channels differ from the corresponding Costa channel on the restricted $\rho_{XS_{1}}$. It is clear that searching for the capacity of the Costa channel is led to the maximum capacity in this subset. So if $C_{D}$ be the capacity of the channel defined with D.1-D.4, and $C$ be the capacity of the Costa channel, we can write: $$C=\max_{\rho_{XS_{1}},\rho_{S_{2}Z}=0}C_{D}.\label{eq.34+1}$$
We will show that the situation that $(X,S_{1},S_{2})$ are jointly Gaussian and the auxiliary random variable $U$ is designed as linear combination of $X$ and $S_{1}$, is optimum and maximizes the transmitting rate. So we consider an important subset of the distributions $ p\left(y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right)$ defined in D.1-D.4, as the set of all $ p^{\ast}\left(y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right)$ that have the properties D.5 and D.6 below, in addition to D.1-D.4 (although the channel is defined only with D.1-D.4) :
#### D.5 {#d.5 .unnumbered}
Random variables $ \left( X,S_{1},S_{2}\right)$ are jointly Gaussian distributed. $ X $ is with zero mean and has the maximum power of $ P $ (so $ X\sim \mathcal{N}\left(0,P \right)$). Naming the covariance matrix in this special case as $ \boldsymbol{K^{\ast}} $, for simplicity, by defining $ A_{1}\triangleq E\left\lbrace XS_{1}\right\rbrace $ , $Q_{1}\triangleq \sigma_{S_{1}}^{2}$ and $Q_{2}\triangleq \sigma_{S_{2}}^2$, we rewrite: $$\boldsymbol{K^{\ast}}=\begin{bmatrix}
P&A_{1}&0\\
A_{1}&Q_{1}&0\\
0&0&Q_{2}
\end{bmatrix}\label{eq.35}$$
#### D.6 {#d.6 .unnumbered}
Following Costa, we consider $ U $ in the form of linear combination of $ X $ and $ S_{1} $ as $U=\alpha S_{1}+X$.
For summarizing expressions, we define two following symbols: $$\begin{aligned}
d_{Q_{2}} &\triangleq & PQ_{1}-A_{1}^{2}= \sigma_{X}^{2}\sigma_{S_{1}}^{2}\left (1-\rho_{XS_{1}}^{2}\right ) \label{eq.37} \\
d_{PQ_{1}}&\triangleq & Q_{2}N-L_{2}^{2}= \sigma_{S_{2}}^{2}\sigma_{Z}^{2}\left (1-\rho_{S_{2}Z}^{2}\right ). \label{eq.102} \end{aligned}$$
**Capacity of the Channel** {#capacity-of-the-channel .unnumbered}
---------------------------
#### Theorem 1 {#theorem-1 .unnumbered}
The Gaussian channel defined with properties D.1-D.4 has the capacity $$C_{D}=\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left (1+\dfrac{P\left (1-\rho_{XS_{1}}^{2}\right )}{N\left (1-\rho_{S_{2}Z}^{2}\right )}\right )\label{eq.116}$$
*Corollary 1:* As mentioned earlier, by (\[eq.34+1\]) we can obtain Costa capacity by assuming $\rho_{S_{2}Z}=0$ and maximizing $C_{D}$ with $\rho_{XS_{1}}=0$.
*Corollary 2:* It is seen that if the side information $S_{2}$ is independent of the channel noise $Z$ (and so $\rho_{S_{2}Z}=0$), the capacity of the channel is equal to the capacity when there is no interference $S_{2}$. In other words, in this case the receiver can subtract the known $S_{2}^{n}$ from the received $Y^{n}$ without losing any worthy information. But when the state information $S_{2}$ is correlated with additive noise $Z$, $S_{2}$ is containing worthy information that increases the capacity, and hence subtracting $S_{2}$ is a wrong decoding strategy.
*Corollary 3:* It is seen that while, as intuitively expected, correlation between $S_{2}$ and $Z$ increases the capacity, the correlation between $X$ and $S_{1}$ decreases it.\
#### Proof of Theorem 1 {#proof-of-theorem-1 .unnumbered}
To prove the theorem, we first show that $C_{D}$ (\[eq.116\]) is a lower bound for the capacity of the channel, then we show that $C_{D}$ is an upper bound for the capacity too, so $C_{D} $ is the capacity of the channel.
### Achievability part of the proof {#achievability-part-of-the-proof .unnumbered}
we use the extended version of Cover-Chiang capacity (\[eq.1\]) to obtain a lower bound for the capacity of the channel: For all distributions $ p\left (y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right ) $ (with properties D.1-D.4) and its subset $ p^{\ast}\left (y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right ) $ (defined with properties D.1-D.6), we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&\max_{p\left (u,x\mid s_{1}\right )}\left[ I\left (U;Y,S_{2}\right )-I\left (U;S_{1}\right )\right ]\label{eq.49}\\
&\geq &\max_{p^{\ast}\left (u\mid x,s_{1}\right )p^{\ast}\left (x\mid s_{1}\right )}\left[ I\left (U;Y,S_{2}\right )-I\left (U;S_{1}\right )\right ]\label{eq.51}\\
&=&\max_{\alpha}\left[ I\left (U;Y,S_{2}\right )-I\left (U;S_{1}\right )\right ]\label{eq.52}\\
&\triangleq &\max_{\alpha}R_{D}\left (\alpha\right )=R_{D}\left (\alpha^{\ast}\right ). \label{eq.53}\end{aligned}$$ So $R_{D}\left (\alpha^{\ast}\right )$ is a lower bound for the capacity of the channel. To compute $R_{D}\left (\alpha\right )$ we write (details of computations are omitted for the brevity): $$\begin{aligned}
I\left (U;Y,S_{2}\right )&=&H\left (U\right )+H\left (Y,S_{2}\right )-H\left (U,Y,S_{2}\right ),\label{eq.99}\\
I\left (U;S_{1}\right )&=&H\left (U\right )+H\left (S_{1}\right )-H\left (U,S_{1}\right ),\label{eq.100}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&H\left (Y,S_{2}\right)=\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left (\left (2\pi e\right )^{2}\det\left (cov\left (Y,S_{2}\right )\right )\right )\label{eq.101}\\
&& \quad=\dfrac{1}{2}\log\bigg( (2\pi e)^{2}\big(Q_{2}(P+Q_{1}+2A_{1})+d_{PQ_{1}}\big)\bigg),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H\left (U,Y,S_{2}\right )=\dfrac{1}{2}\log \bigg((2\pi e)^{3} &\big[& d_{PQ_{1}}(\alpha ^{2}Q_{1}+2\alpha A_{1}+P)\nonumber\\
&+&(\alpha -1)^{2}Q_{2}d_{Q_{2}}\big]\bigg),\label{eq.103} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H\left (S_{1}\right )&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left (\left (2\pi e\right )Q_{1}\right ),\label{eq.104}\\
H\left (U,S_{1}\right )&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log \left (\left (2\pi e\right )^{2}d_{Q_{2}}\right ).\label{eq.105}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[eq.101\])-(\[eq.105\]) in (\[eq.99\]) and (\[eq.100\]), we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&R_{D}\left(\alpha\right)=\label{eq.108}\\
&&\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left( \dfrac{d_{Q_{2} }\left(Q_{2}\left (P+Q_{1}+2A_{1}\right )+d_{PQ_{1}}\right )}{Q_{1}\left(\left(\alpha -1\right)^{2}Q_{2}d_{Q_{2}}+d_{PQ_{1}}\left(\alpha^{2}Q_{1}+2\alpha A_{1}+P\right) \right) }\right) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
and after maximizing it over $ \alpha $, we conclude: $$\alpha^{\ast}=\dfrac{Q_{2}d_{Q_{2}}-A_{1}d_{PQ_{1}}}{Q_{2}d_{Q_{2}}-Q_{1}d_{PQ_{1}}}.\label{eq.106}$$ Now, if we compute $R_{D}\left (\alpha^{\ast}\right )$ by putting (\[eq.106\]) into (\[eq.108\]) and then rewrite the resulted expression in terms of $\sigma_{X}$, $\sigma_{S_{1}}$, $\sigma_{S_{2}}$, $\rho_{XS_{1}}$, $\rho_{S_{2}Z}$ by (\[eq.115\]) and (\[eq.35\])-(\[eq.102\]) we finally conclude: $$R_{D}\left (\alpha^{\ast}\right )=\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left (1+\dfrac{P\left (1-\rho_{XS_{1}}^{2}\right )}{N\left (1-\rho_{S_{2}Z}^{2}\right )}\right ) \label{eq.120}$$
### Converse part of the proof {#converse-part-of-the-proof .unnumbered}
For all distributions $ p\left(y,x,u,s_{1},s_{2}\right)$ defined with properties D.1-D.4, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
I\left( U;Y,S_{2}\right)-I\left( U;S_{1}\right)&=&-H\left( U\mid Y,S_{2}\right) + H\left(U\mid S_{1} \right)\nonumber \\
&\leq &I\left (X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right )\label{eq.77}\end{aligned}$$ where (\[eq.77\]) follows from Markov chains $ S_{2}\rightarrow S_{1}\rightarrow UX $ and $ U\rightarrow XS_{1}S_{2}\rightarrow Y $, which are true for all distributions defined with properties D.1-D.4. Now from (\[eq.1\]) and (\[eq.77\]) we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
C&=&\max_{p\left ( u,x\mid s_{1}\right ) } \left [ I\left ( U;Y,S_{2}\right ) -I\left ( U;S_{1}\right )\right ]\label{eq.78}\\
&\leq & \max_{p\left ( x\mid s_{1}\right )}\left [I\left ( X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right ) \right ]\triangleq I^{\ast}\left (X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right ),\label{eq.79}\end{aligned}$$ hence $I^{\ast}\left (X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right )$ is an upper bound for the capacity of the channel. For computing it we write: $$\begin{aligned}
&&I\left ( X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right )\nonumber\\
&&=H\left (\left (X+Z\right ),S_{1},S_{2}\right )-H\left (S_{1},S_{2}\right )-H\left (Z\mid S_{2}\right ).\label{eq.83}\end{aligned}$$ So when (\[eq.79\]) reaches to its maximum, $ \left (X,S_{1},S_{2}\right )$ are jointly Gaussian and $ X $ has its maximum power of $ P $ and it means that $I^{\ast}\left (X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right ) $ is the value of (\[eq.83\]) which is computed for distributions $ p^{\ast}\left (y,x,s_{1},s_{2}\right ) $ defined with properties D.1-D.6. After computing we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
H\left (\left (X+Z\right ),S_{1},S_{2}\right )&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left( \left( 2\pi e\right) ^{3}\left(Q_{2}d_{Q_{2}}+Q_{1}d_{PQ_{1}}\right) \right) \label{eq.112} \\
H\left (S_{1},S_{2}\right )&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left (\left (2\pi e\right )^{2}Q_{1}Q_{2}\right )\label{eq.113} \\
H\left (Z,S_{2}\right )&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left (\left (2\pi e\right )^{2}d_{PQ_{1}}\right )\label{eq.114}
\setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.0em}\end{aligned}$$
so we obtain from (\[eq.83\])-(\[eq.114\]): $$\begin{aligned}
I^{\ast}\left (X;Y\mid S_{1},S_{2}\right )&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log \left (\dfrac{Q_{2}d_{Q_{2}}+Q_{1}d_{PQ_{1}}}{Q_{1}d_{PQ_{1}}}\right )\label{eq.110} \\
&=&\dfrac{1}{2}\log\left( 1+\dfrac{P\left( 1-\rho_{XS_{1}}^{2}\right)}{N\left( 1-\rho_{S_{2}Z}^{2}\right)} \right). \label{eq.111}\end{aligned}$$ where (\[eq.111\]) follows by rewriting (\[eq.110\]) in terms of $\sigma_{X}$, $\sigma_{S_{1}}$, $\sigma_{S_{2}}$, $\rho_{XS_{1}}$, $\rho_{S_{2}Z}$ by (\[eq.115\]) and (\[eq.35\])-(\[eq.102\]).
From (\[eq.120\]) and (\[eq.111\]), we conclude that $C_{D}$ (\[eq.116\]) is the capacity of the channel.
Numerical Results
=================
Fig.\[figure6\] illustrates the impact of the correlation of $S_{2}$ and the channel noise $Z$ on the channel capacity. Figure plotted for independent $X$ and $S_{1}$ (so $\rho_{XS_{1}}=0 $). It is seen that the more $S_{2}$ depends on the noise $Z$ , the greater capacity of channel is. On the condition of full dependency $\rho_{S_{2}Z}=\pm 1$ the capacity of channel is infinite.
![The impact of the correlation of state information $S_{2}$ and noise $Z$ on the capacity of the channel. Figure plotted with $\rho_{XS_{1}}=0$.[]{data-label="figure6"}](capacityfnoise.pdf){width="2.2in"}
Conclusion
==========
We investigated the Gaussian channel in the presence of two-sided state information with dependency on the input and the channel noise. Having established a capacity theorem for the channel, we illustrated the impact of the receiver cognition (the correlation between the channel noise and state information known at the receiver) and the correlation between the input and the side information known at the transmitter, on the capacity of the channel.
[^1]: N. S. Anzabi-Nezhad is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, email: [email protected]
[^2]: G. A. Hodtani is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, email: [email protected]
[^3]: M. Molavi Kakhki is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
-
- '[^1]'
-
-
-
- ' (JLQCD Collaboration)'
bibliography:
- 'all.bib'
- 'lattice2017.bib'
title: 'Topological Susceptibility in $N_f=2$ QCD at Finite Temperature '
---
KEK-CP-364, RBRC-1257
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Topological susceptibility in QCD at finite temperature has acquired much attention recently due to its phenomenological interest. Mass of the QCD axion, one of the candidates of dark matter, is given by the topological susceptibility, and its dependence on temperature determines the abundance of the axion in the universe. A quantitative estimate can in principle be provided by lattice QCD, and was one of the topics of the panel discussion of this year’s lattice conference [@Moore:2017ond; @Bonati:2017nhe; @Lat2017KovacsPanel; @Lat2017FukayaPanel]. This study is not meant to provide some quantitative results at phenomenologically important temperatures $500\lesssim T\lesssim 1000$ MeV [@Moore:2017ond], but rather to understand the nature of the phase transition in two-flavor QCD [@Lat2017FukayaPanel].
The fate of the $U_A(1)$ symmetry at and above the phase transition for vanishing $u$ and $d$ quark masses is one of the long standing and fundamental questions in QCD. While at any temperature the $U_A(1)$ chiral anomaly exists, manifestation of the $U_A(1)$ breaking is only possible if the gauge field configurations with non-trivial topology actually have non-vanishing contribution. The non-trivial QCD configurations also produce the topological susceptibility. Thus there is naturally a link in between these two physical quantities.
One powerful theoretical approach for these problems is to use the properties of the spectrum of the Dirac operator [@Cohen:1996ng; @Cohen:1997hz; @Lee:1996zy; @Evans:1996wf]. Along this line Aoki, Fukaya and Taniguchi (AFT) revisited the problem assuming the overlap fermions for the UV regulator for quarks [@Aoki:2012yj]. They claim that the $U_A(1)$ symmetry in two flavor ($N_f=2$) QCD is recovered in the chiral limit for temperatures at and above the critical one. Furthermore, the derivatives of the topological susceptibility with respect to the quark mass $m$ vanish at any order. It means that the susceptibility, which is zero at the chiral limit, stays zero in the vicinity of $m=0$. As the susceptibility is non-zero for infinitely heavy quarks, there must be a critical mass which divides the regions with zero and non-zero topological susceptibility.
The relation of the spectrum of the Dirac operator with $U_A(1)$ was also studied by Kanazawa and Yamamoto (KY) more recently [@Kanazawa:2015xna]. Assuming the $U_A(1)$ breaking they derived a relation between the $U_A(1)$ susceptibility, which is a measure of the $U_A(1)$ breaking, and the topological susceptibility through a low energy constant. According to their study, the topological susceptibility should be proportional to the squared quark mass, thus, should exhibit quite different mass dependence to that of AFT. Kanazawa-Yamamoto claims the assumption that the spectral density is analytic near the origin in AFT needs to be abandoned to have the $U_A(1)$ breaking. The analyticity, however, seems intact in the simulations with overlap fermions [@Cossu:2013uua] and domain wall fermions with overlap-reweighting [@Cossu:2015kfa; @Tomiya:2014mma; @Lat2017Suzuki], which have exact chiral symmetry.
Studying the topological susceptibility in depth would add another dimension for the understanding of the nature of the finite temperature transition in $N_f=2$ QCD, especially if it is done in conjunction with the direct measurement of the $U_A(1)$ breaking. Also, understanding the fate of the $U_A(1)$ breaking should be important for the computation of the topological susceptibility to a required precision necessary for phenomenology.
Chiral symmetry plays a crucial role for the study of $U_A(1)$ [@Cossu:2015kfa; @Tomiya:2014mma]. We use the Möbius domain wall fermion and reweighting method to the overlap fermion ensemble. In this report and the one for the $U_A(1)$ breaking [@Lat2017Suzuki], the main lattice spacing used is finer than we have used in [@Cossu:2015kfa; @Tomiya:2014mma]. This helps to reduce the residual chiral symmetry breaking of the domain wall fermions and to make the reweighting efficient.
The AFT scenario suggests a critical mass $m_c>0$ which divides the regions of topological charge zero and non-zero. If this is true it is consistent with the first-order phase transition [@Aoki:2012yj; @Aoki:2013zfa], which was suggested by Pisarski and Wilczek [@Pisarski:1984ms] for the case of the $U_A(1)$ restoration. This could, then, change the widely believed phase diagram, called the Columbia plot at the upper-left corner. If similar dynamics exists at the physical strange quark mass point, it would affect the nature of the transition of the physical point depending on the value of $m_c$.
This report is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:method\], the calculation set-up and methods are described. Starting with a discussion on the sampling of the topological charge, an elaborate estimate of the error for the topological susceptibility is explained in Sec. \[sec:results\], followed by our main results. Sec. \[sec:summary\] is devoted to summary and outlook. We use $a=1$ units throughout. All the results reported here are preliminary.
Methods and parameters {#sec:method}
======================
Our simulation is carried out using Möbius domain wall fermions for two dynamical quark flavors [@Cossu:2015kfa]. A particular focus is placed on $N_t=12$, $\beta=4.3$ ensembles with five different masses in this report. The corresponding temperature is $T\simeq 220$ MeV. At a fixed $\beta$ value, two different temperatures $N_t=8$ and 10 are examined and results are reported. As a check of finite lattice spacing effects, a coarser lattice at $\beta=4.1$ and $N_t=8$ corresponding to $T\simeq 220$ MeV is examined. For all lattices reported here the spatial site number is $L=32$.
The lattice cutoff as a function of $\beta$ for these lattices is obtained with the Wilson flow scale $t_0$ using the zero temperature results and an interpolation [@Tomiya:2016jwr].
Topological susceptibility is defined as $$\chi_t = \frac{1}{V}\langle Q_t^2\rangle,
\label{eq:chi_t}$$ where $V$ is the four dimensional volume and $Q_t$ is the topological charge.
We examine two definitions of the topological charge. One is the space-time sum of the gluonic topological charge density after the Symanzik flow at $t=5$. The other is the index of the overlap-Dirac operator [@Tomiya:2016jwr].
As pointed out in [@Cossu:2015kfa; @Tomiya:2016jwr], it is essential to reweight to overlap ensemble from domain wall $$\langle {\mathcal O}\rangle_{OV} =
\frac{\langle {\mathcal O}R\rangle_{DW}}{\langle R\rangle_{DW}},
\label{eq:reweighting}$$ where $R$ is the reweighting factor defined on each gauge field configuration, to correctly take into account the effect of (near) zero modes of the overlap-Dirac operator. Partial quenching by the use of valence overlap operators on dynamical domain wall ensembles leads to an artificial enhancement of low modes. The topological charge defined through the zero mode counting suffers from such artificial effects, which can be eliminated by the reweighting.
We investigate two definition of the topological charge on the original domain wall ensemble and on the overlap ensemble generated through the reweighting. Altogether, four values of topological susceptibility are obtained at each parameter point as shown in the next section.
We are aiming to acquire the data from 30,000 molecular dynamics time units with hybrid Monte-Carlo simulation for each ensemble. Some of the reported data here are still undergoing improvement of statistics.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Topological charge sampling and error estimate
----------------------------------------------
![Monte-Carlo time history of topological charge (left) and histogram for gluonic measurement at $m=0.00375$ ($\simeq 10$ MeV) (right).[]{data-label="fig:history"}]({figures/Q_history_b4.3_Nt12_m0.00375}.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Monte-Carlo time history of topological charge (left) and histogram for gluonic measurement at $m=0.00375$ ($\simeq 10$ MeV) (right).[]{data-label="fig:history"}]({figures/Q_hstg_glue_b4.3_Nt12_m0.00375}.pdf "fig:"){width="7cm"}
[ ![Histogram of topological charge measured by the overlap index before (OV-DW) and after (OV-OV) the reweighting to overlap ensemble.[]{data-label="fig:hstg_OV"}]({figures/OVindex_hstg_b4.3_Nt12_m0.00375}.pdf "fig:"){width="47.50000%"} ]{} [ ![Histogram of topological charge measured by the overlap index before (OV-DW) and after (OV-OV) the reweighting to overlap ensemble.[]{data-label="fig:hstg_OV"}]({figures/OVindex_hstg_b4.3_Nt12_m0.001}.pdf "fig:"){width="47.50000%"} ]{}
The left panel of Figure \[fig:history\] shows the Monte-Carlo time history of the topological charge for $\beta=4.3$ with $N_t=12$ ($T\simeq 220$ MeV) and bare mass $m=0.00375$ ($\simeq 10$ MeV) sampled every 20th trajectory. One trajectory amounts to a unit time molecular dynamics evolution followed by an accept-reject step. The red line corresponds to the charge measured with the gluonic definition (“GL”), while cyan represents that with the overlap index (“OV”). The legends also show the ensemble on which the calculations are based, which are domain wall (“DW”) for both. The right panel plots the histogram of the charge from “GL-DW” and that after the reweighting to the overlap ensemble “GL-OV”. The bin size used can be read from the combined size of a pair of neighboring red and yellow bars. It shows there is not much difference between the data before and after the reweighting. Figure \[fig:hstg\_OV\_00375\] shows the histogram of the topological charge measured through the overlap index before (OV-DW) and after (OV-OV) the reweighting. Here the width of the distribution shrinks significantly after the reweighting. This is due to the fact that the spurious zero modes on the domain wall ensemble gets suppressed. On the other hand, since such spurious zero modes are also suppressed by gauge field smearing, there appeared less difference between the gluonic measurements before and after the reweighting. From these data we calculate the topological susceptibility from Eq. (\[eq:chi\_t\]).
Special attention is required when there is no weight for the non-trivial topology, shown in Fig. \[fig:hstg\_OV\_001\] as an example. The OV-OV histogram shows that all samples fall in the $Q_t=0$ sector. There actually is a non-zero $|Q_t|=1$ sample, but far smaller than the minimum of the $y$ axis shown because of the small reweighting factor. As a result, the topological susceptibility is consistent with zero, with a jackknife error $\chi_t= 4.4(4.4)\times 10^{2}$ MeV$^4$. One should not take this as the sign of exact zero of $\chi_t$. This situation is similar to null measurements of rare processes in experiment. We estimate the upper bound of $\langle Q_t^2\rangle$ by imposing the condition that one measurement out of the full sample had $|Q_t|=1$ value. If the number of samples is $N$, then the upper bound of the topological susceptibility is $$\Delta'\chi_t = \frac{1}{N}\frac{1}{V}.$$ With a reweighting, the effective number of samples gets reduced. We use the following quantity for the number of samples after reweighting: $$N^{\rm eff} = \frac{\langle R\rangle_{DW}}{R_{max}},$$ where $R_{max}$ is the maximum value of the reweighting factor in the ensemble [@Tomiya:2016jwr]. As $\Delta'\chi_t$ can also be regarded as a resolution of the topological susceptibility given the number of samples – even if countable $|Q|>0$ sector exists as in the Fig. \[fig:hstg\_OV\_00375\] – we estimate the corrected statistical error of $\chi_t$ for all the cases as $$\Delta\chi_t = \max(\Delta^{JK}\chi_t,\Delta'\chi_t),$$ where $\Delta^{JK}\chi_t$ is the jackknife error of $\chi_t$. For the case of Fig. \[fig:hstg\_OV\_001\], $N^{\rm eff}=32$ out of a total of 1326 samples measured every 20th trajectory. Now the error after this correction reads $\Delta\chi_t=3.9\times 10^6$ MeV$^4$.
Topological susceptibility at $T\simeq 220$ MeV
-----------------------------------------------
![Topological susceptibility $\chi_t$ at $T\simeq 220$ MeV as function of quark mass (left) and $a^2$ dependence of $\chi_t$ at $m=6.6$ MeV ($ma=0.00375$ for finer lattice) (right).[]{data-label="fig:chit220"}](figures/chi-mf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Topological susceptibility $\chi_t$ at $T\simeq 220$ MeV as function of quark mass (left) and $a^2$ dependence of $\chi_t$ at $m=6.6$ MeV ($ma=0.00375$ for finer lattice) (right).[]{data-label="fig:chit220"}](figures/chi-a2_m7MeV "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
The left panel of Fig. \[fig:chit220\] shows the quark mass dependence of topological susceptibility for $N_t=12$ with $T\simeq 220$ MeV. The color coding used here is the same as in the history and histogram shown in Figs. \[fig:history\] and \[fig:hstg\_OV\]. As noted in the previous section, OV-DW can yield enhanced fictitious zero-modes. Indeed, the cyan points appear as outliers and the resulting $\chi_t$ gets fictitious enhancements. Also, as mentioned for $m\simeq 10$ MeV, the histograms of GL-DW and GL-OV are similar. Because of this, $\chi_t$ for GL-DW and GL-OV appear consistent. As the reweighting reduces the effective number of statistics, we use GL-DW in comparison with GL-OV.
The right panel of Fig. \[fig:chit220\] shows $\chi_t$ at $m\simeq 6.6$ MeV and $T\simeq 220$ MeV as a function of squared lattice spacing $a^2$, where the finer lattice results are on the measured point and the coarser lattice results are obtained by linear-interpolation from the nearest two points[^2]. The GL-DW result develops a large discretization error, and it gets close to OV-OV towards the continuum limit. The OV-OV result is more stable against lattice spacing. All results suggest $\chi_t$ is vanishing in the continuum limit.
Focusing on the OV-OV result in the left panel the mass dependence of the topological susceptibility indicates two regions for mass: one is $0<m\lesssim 10$ MeV where the observation of continuum scaling above strongly suggests $\chi_t=0$. Actually, $\chi_t$ with OV-OV is consistent with zero in this region. The other is $m\gtrsim 10$ MeV where $\chi_t$ is significantly non-zero. We note that the existence of the boundary at non-zero $m$ is also suggested from GL-DW. While $\chi_t>0$ for $0<m\lesssim 10$ MeV, it is almost constant. For $\chi_t\gtrsim 10$ MeV sudden development of $\chi_t$ is observed. Due to its better precision over OV-OV, GL-DW results may be useful to identify the location of the boundary. We note that a preliminary computation of the pion mass on the zero temperature configuration leads to an estimate of the physical $ud$ quark mass as $m=4$ MeV for the bare mass, which is well inside the region where $\chi_t=0$ is suggested.
![Topological susceptibility $\chi_t$ at $T\simeq 220$ MeV with possible scenarios based on Aoki-Fukaya-Taniguchi [@Aoki:2012yj] (orange) and Kanazawa-Yamamoto [@Kanazawa:2015xna] (brown). A zero-temperature result [@Aoki:2017paw] for $N_f=2+1$ is plotted as a reference (green).[]{data-label="fig:chit_scenario"}]({{figures/chi-mf_beta4.3+T=0_mag2++}}){width="47.50000%"}
Figure \[fig:chit\_scenario\] shows a magnified view of the left panel of Fig. \[fig:chit220\] without GL-OV and OV-DW. The newly added green line shows a zero temperature reference represented as a two-flavor ChPT fit with $N_f=2+1$ results [@Aoki:2017paw]. In this figure two scenarios are compared: one is Aoki-Fukaya-Taniguchi [@Aoki:2012yj] (AFT), where they claim that the derivatives of $\chi_t$ with respect to quark mass vanish. With $\chi_t=0$ at $m=0$ a natural solution would be $\chi_t=0$ for $m < m_c$. The OV-OV result is consistent with this picture with $10\lesssim m_c\lesssim 12$ MeV. The AFT result is based on the analyticity of Dirac eigenvalue spectral density $\rho(\lambda)$. On the other hand, Kanazawa-Yamamoto [@Kanazawa:2015xna] (KY) claims that $U_A(1)$ should be violated for $T>T_c$ due to its violation in the high enough temperature claimed in [@Laine:2003bd; @Dunne:2010gd]. They reported that the analyticity of $\rho(\lambda)$ needs to be abandoned for the $U_A(1)$ violation. There is a KY scenario of $\chi_t(m)$ given in [@Kanazawa:2015xna]. To evaluate $\chi_t(m)$, one needs to know the value of a low energy constant, which may be extracted from the $U_A(1)$ order parameter measured with fixed topology. At the lightest mass where the topological charge is practically fixed at $|Q_t|=0$ after the reweighting (see Fig. \[fig:hstg\_OV\_001\]), we take their proposal with our $U_A(1)$ breaking parameter $\Delta_{\pi-\delta}$ [@Lat2017Suzuki] and obtain the brown curve ($\propto m^2$) in the figure. This curve shows how $\chi_t(m)$ behaves if the $U_A(1)$ symmetry were violated in the thermodynamic limit. Comparing with our OV-OV result, it has a tension ($>2\sigma$) at $m\simeq 13$ MeV.
Topological susceptibility for $T\gtrsim 220$ MeV
-------------------------------------------------
To check whether the jump of the topological susceptibility observed at $T\simeq 220$ MeV persists at other temperatures, ensembles with different $N_t$ with fixed $\beta=4.3$ have been generated and analyzed. The additional lattices are $N_t=10$ and 8 with fixed $L=32$ as for $N_t=12$. The corresponding temperatures are $T\simeq 264$ and 330 MeV respectively. Figure \[fig:chit\_3Ts\] shows the topological susceptibility as a function of quark mass for three different temperatures, where only GL-DW data are shown. A similar jump of $\chi_t$ at finite quark mass is observed also for $T\simeq 264$ and 330 MeV. The position of the jump shifts toward larger mass as $T$ is increased.
![Topological susceptibility $\chi_t$ at $T\simeq 220$, 264, 330 is plotted as function of quark mass. Only results obtained with a gluonic operator without reweighting are shown. Gauge coupling is fixed and $a{-1}\simeq 2.64$ GeV for all.[]{data-label="fig:chit_3Ts"}]({{figures/chi_GLQ-DW-mf_beta4.3_3Ts_logy}}){width="47.50000%"}
Summary and outlook {#sec:summary}
===================
Topological susceptibility $\chi_t$ in $N_f=2$ QCD was examined at temperatures above the critical one with Möbius domain wall fermion ensembles reweighted to the overlap fermion ensembles. A special focus is put on the $T\simeq 220$ MeV ensembles with $N_t=12$. The preliminary results suggest that for the range of bare mass $0\le m\lesssim 10$ MeV (which includes physical $ud$ mass $m\simeq 4$ MeV) $\chi_t=0$ and for $m\gtrsim 10$ MeV a sudden development of $\chi_t$ starts. It is consistent with the prediction of Aoki-Fukaya-Taniguchi [@Aoki:2012yj] with $U_A(1)$ symmetry restoration in the chiral limit, thus consistent with the direct measurement of the order parameter of $U_A(1)$ [@Lat2017Suzuki]. If that were due to finite volume effects and eventually we were to see the breaking in the thermodynamic limit, then Kanazawa-Yamamoto [@Aoki:2012yj] explains how the $U_A(1)$ order parameter at finite volume is related to $\chi_t$. The result has a $>2 \sigma$ tension. We have examined the stability of the observation of the $\chi_t=0$ region with a comparison to the coarse lattice result at approximately the same temperature, which indeed suggests the result is robust in the continuum limit. However this comparison is done with the lattice site number in the spatial direction fixed, therefore the physical box sizes are different. We are now examining the volume dependence on the finer lattice used in this report to check this.
Higher temperatures $T\simeq$ 264 and 330 MeV are also studied with fixed lattice spacing $a^{-1}\simeq 2.64$ GeV. A sudden change of $\chi_t$ as a function of the quark mass is also observed for these temperatures. The point where the change occurs shifts towards larger mass for higher temperature. To get more insight for this observation, a systematic study for these high temperatures in conjunction with the $U_A(1)$ order parameter is planned.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the members of the JLQCD collaboration for their support on this work. Numerical calculations are performed on the Blue Gene/Q at KEK under its Large Scale Simulation Program (No. 16/17-14), Camphor 2 at the Institute for Information Management and Communication, Kyoto University, and Oakforest-PACS supercomputer operated by the Joint Center for Advanced High Performance Computing (JCAHPC). This work is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Nos. JP26247043, 16K05320 and by the Post-K supercomputer project through the Joint Institute for Computational Fundamental Science (JICFuS).
[^1]: Speaker,
[^2]: The matching here is done with a constant bare mass in units of MeV. The logarithmic correction to an ideal matching with the renormalized mass should be negligible for this qualitative study, given that the mass dependence of topological susceptibility is mild in the region in question.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The single-molecule magnet $\mathrm{\left[Ni(hmp)(MeOH)Cl\right]_4}$ is studied using both density functional theory (DFT) and the DFT+U method, and the results are compared. By incorporating a Hubbard-U like term for both the nickel and oxygen atoms, the experimentally determined ground state is successfully obtained, and the exchange coupling constants derived from the DFT+U calculation agree with experiment very well. The results show that the nickel 3d and oxygen 2p electrons in this molecule are strongly correlated, and thus the inclusion of on-site Coulomb energies is crucial to obtaining the correct results.'
author:
- Chao Cao
- Stephen Hill
- 'Hai-Ping Cheng'
bibliography:
- 'PRL.bib'
title: 'Strongly Correlated Electrons in the $\mathbf{\left[Ni(hmp)(ROH)X\right]_4}$ Single Molecule Magnet: A DFT+U Study'
---
Single-molecule magnets (SMMs) have drawn much attention since their discovery in 1991 [@SMM_GEN_0; @SMM_GEN_1; @SMM_GEN_2]. SMM crystals contain ordered arrays of molecular nanomagnets, each possessing a large spin ground state ($S=10$ for Mn$_{12}$-Ac) and a significant uniaxial magneto-anisotropy ($DS_z^2$, with $D<0$). These two ingredients give rise to a magnetic spectrum for an isolated molecule in which the lowest lying levels correspond to the ‘spin-up’ and ‘spin-down’ states ($m_s = \pm S$), separated by an energy barrier of order $DS^2$. This barrier results in magnetic bistability and hysteresis at low temperatures ($k_BT<<DS^2$). In contrast to bulk ferromagnets, however, this hysteresis is intrinsic to the individual molecules. There has, therefore, been much interest in the potential implementation of SMMs as the elementary memory units in both classical and quantum computers.
For most transition metal complexes (including Mn$_{12}$-Ac), the intramolecular superexchange between the constituent ions is predominantly antiferromagnetic (AFM). Nevertheless, due to spin frustration effects, uncompensated moments of many tens of $\mu_B$ are often realized. However, the ability to engineer pure ferromagnetic superexchange within a molecule is highly desirable [@Harris], because this ultimately removes one of the many challenges in designing new and better SMMs. A relatively new series which has attracted recent interest is $\mathrm{\left[Ni(hmp)(ROH)Cl\right]_4}$ [@Ex_Bias_Ni_SMM; @EPR_Ni_SMM; @SPP_SPIN_SMM; @MAG_TUN_Ni_SMM; @GSA_LIM_SMM] (hereon denoted $\mathrm{Ni_4}$), where hmp is the anion of 2-hydroxymethylpyridine, and $\mathrm{R}$ is an alkyl substituent such as methyl, ethyl, etc. Several experiments, including EPR studies [@EPR_Ni_SMM] and magnetic susceptibility measurements [@Ex_Bias_Ni_SMM] clearly show that the ground state of Ni$_4$ is ferromagnetic with total spin $S=4$. In this letter, we present the results of detailed density functional theory (DFT) calculations (including on-site Coulomb energies) which provide crucial insights into the origin of this ferromagnetic state.
While DFT [@DFT_KS] has successfully explained the properties of a variety of SMMs, including $\mathrm{Mn_{12}}$, $\mathrm{Mn_4}$, $\mathrm{Co_4}$, $\mathrm{Fe_4}$ [@MAG_ANI_PEDERSON; @Mn12_PARK; @Mn4_PARK; @Co4_BARUAH; @Fe4_KORTUS], and even some other nickel based SMMs [@Ni12_DFT], it has so far failed miserably for $\mathrm{Ni_4}$. Not only were the early theoretical attempts unable to reproduce the correct ground state, but the resulting coupling constants were also found to be antiferromagnetic, and orders of magnitude higher than the experimental values [@THEORY_Ni_SMM]. It was also found in the calculation that the spin density is not quite localized around the nickel atoms, as expected. Thus, it has been suggested that the discrepancy between theory and experiments might arise due to the small “spin density leakage" in this system, resulting in spin delocalization.
There is another possibility. Due to the localized nature of 3d electrons, transition metal dioxides, including nickel oxides, are known to be strongly correlated materials. The functioning core of $\mathrm{\left[Ni(hmp)(ROH)Cl\right]_4}$, on the other hand, is a cubic tetra-nickel oxide ($\mathrm{Ni_4O_4}$), which is structurally very close to the nickel oxide complex. Therefore, it is more probable that the lack of strong correlation in DFT is responsible for this failure, and the “spin density leakage" is just an artifact. To justify this speculation, we calculated the electronic structure of $\mathrm{\left[Ni(hmp)(MeOH)Cl\right]_4}$ using both the DFT and DFT+U methods. The latter was introduced by V. I. Anisimov et al. [@DFTU_ANISIMOV] and simplified by M. Cococcioni et al. [@DFTU_MATTEO].
All the reported calculations were done using the PWSCF package [@PWSCF], which utilizes PBE exchange-correlation functionals [@DFT_PBEXC], ultrasoft pseudopotentials [@VANDERBILT_PP], and a plane-wave basis-set. We respectively chose energy cut-offs for the wave functions and charge densities to be 40 Ry and 400 Ry to ensure total energy convergence. The structure of the molecule was optimized with a fixed total spin $S=4$ until the force on each atom was smaller than 0.01 eV/$\mathrm{\AA}$. The relaxed structure is in good agreement with experimental results. The same structure was then used for some of the AFM states ($S=0$) and $S=2$, as well as for all of the DFT+U calculations. Due to symmetry restrictions, we only simulated the $S=4$, $S=2$ and AFM ($S=0$) states. For the DFT+U calculations, a self-consistent Hubbard-U method [@DFTU_MATTEO] has been incorporated to determine the U value for Ni, which turns out to be 6.20 eV for this system. For oxygen, we took the well-established U value of 5.90 eV [@DFTUPD]. For the DOS and projected DOS, we used 0.1 eV gaussian smearing to smooth the results. The DFT calculations confirmed Park et al.’s findings. The optimized structure is shown in Figure \[FIG\_SMM\_GEO\]. In order to better display the geometry, we hide all hydrogen atoms. The four nickel atoms and four oxygen atoms on the hmp group (we call them O(1) from now on) define a slightly distorted cube. The AFM state ($S=0$) turns out to be the ground state, which is 14.8 meV lower than the $S=2$ state and 35.1 meV lower than the $S=4$ state (table \[TAB\_ETOT\], column DFT). Using L$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$wdin’s charge analysis, one can see that about a 1.48–1.50 $\mu_B$ magnetic moment is found on each nickel atom, and each of the four O(1) atoms contributes a 0.1–0.26 $\mu_B$ magnetic moment (table \[TAB\_MAGMOM\], column DFT). The Heisenberg Hamiltonian in general can be written as: $$H_{ex}=\sum_{i<j}J_{ij}\mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_j.$$ Considering the molecule’s $S_4$ symmetry (Figure \[FIG\_SMM\_XCC\]), the six $J_{ij}$s reduced to just two values, i.e.: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{ex}=J_1(\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_2+\mathbf{S}_2\cdot\mathbf{S}_3+\mathbf{S}_3\cdot\mathbf{S}_4+\mathbf{S}_4\cdot\mathbf{S}_1)
\cr
+J_2(\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_3+\mathbf{S}_2\cdot\mathbf{S}_4).
\label{EQ_HSB_HAM}\end{aligned}$$ We then determined these exchange coupling constants by fitting the expression of Eq. (2) to the obtained energies of the $S=4,2$ and 0 spin states, giving $J_1=3.54$ meV and $J_2=2.12$ meV. The positive sign for both numbers indicates AFM coupling. From the total electronic density of states (DOS), as well as the projected density of states (PDOS) onto Ni (Figure \[FIG\_PDOS\_DFT\]), it is clear that, in the DFT calculation, the nickel atom 3d orbitals dominate both the highest occupied (HOMO) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (LUMO), so that the HOMO-LUMO gap is of the d-d type.
The DFT+U calculations were performed in two stages. In the first stage (we call this $\mathrm{DFT+U^d}$), we turned on the Hubbard-U parameter for the nickel 3d orbitals only, like most current DFT+U calculations; in the second stage (we call this $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$), we turned on the U parameter for both the nickel 3d and O(1) 2p orbitals. In fact, it is known that Coulomb interactions between oxygen 2p electrons are comparable to those between d electrons [@PRB5; @PRB6], and should hence be taken into consideration as well. However, since oxygen usually bares a fully occupied p-shell, this correlation effect is often thought to be neglegible. Therefore, in most cases, $\mathrm{DFT+U^{d}}$ can already yield a satisfactory description of the ground-state without oxygen 2p-electron corrections. Nevertheless, DFT+U has to be taken into consideration explicitly here for both the 3d and oxygen 2p electrons in order to obtain the correct ground state for this molecule.
DFT $\mathrm{DFT+U^{d}}$ $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$
----------- -------- ---------------------- ------------------------
AFM (S=0) 0.0000 0.00000 0.000000
S=2 0.0011 0.00012 $-0.000069$
S=4 0.0026 0.00019 $-0.000368$
: Total energies in Rydbergs. All numbers are relative to the AFM state ($S=0$)[]{data-label="TAB_ETOT"}
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
AFM S=2 S=4 AFM S=2 S=4 AFM S=2 S=4
Ni 1.49 1.49 1.50 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.74 1.74 1.74
O(1) 0.11 0.13 0.26 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.11
Cl 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
N 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
O(2) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: Magnetic moments (in $\mu_B$) captured by Ni, O(1), Cl, N and O(2) atoms. AFM indicates the antiferromagnetic state ($S=0$). All numbers are averaged over the same species.[]{data-label="TAB_MAGMOM"}
The DFT+U energies are shown in table \[TAB\_ETOT\]. By turning on DFT+U for the nickel atoms only, the energy differences between different spin states were greatly reduced, hence giving much smaller numbers for the exchange coupling constants. However, the ground state here is still AFM ($S=0$), and the energies for the $S=4$ and $S=2$ states relative to the AFM state are 2.61 meV and 1.60 meV, respectively. But once we take into consideration the strong coulomb interactions for both the Ni and O(1) atoms, the order is reversed, yielding correctly a $S=4$ ground state. A spin-unrestricted calculation also confirmed this discovery. The $S=2$ state is now 0.94 meV lower than the AFM state, and the $S=4$ ground state is 5.00 meV lower. Using these values, we obtained ferromagnetic exchange-coupling constants for the $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$ calculation from a fit to equation 2, i.e. $J_1=-0.50$ meV and $J_2=-0.68$ meV \[EQ\_HSB\_HAM\]. These results match experiment reasonably well ($-0.68$ and $-2.28$ meV) [@Yang_INORG_CHEM].
To better understand the contribution of the Hubbard-U like term, we first performed L$\mathrm{\ddot{o}}$wdin’s charge analysis to calculate the magnetic moments captured by the Ni, O(1), Cl and N and O(2) atoms (table \[TAB\_MAGMOM\]). The results show that the spin density is more localized in the $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$ calculations (1.74 $\mu_B$) than in normal DFT (around 1.50 $\mu_B$), and that the magnetic moments found on the O(1) atoms are greatly reduced. This is because the strong on-site Coulomb interaction prevents the hybridization between the nickel 3d and oxygen 2p orbitals, thus preventing the unphysical “spin-leakage". The DFT calculations favor the AFM ground state because the lack of on-site energy tends to couple electrons with opposite spin projections, and thus lead to the incorrect ground state. The local magnetic moment on an individual atom is a measurable quantity using NMR, and thus can be used to validate these theoretical predictions.
Total DOS and PDOS in the $\mathrm{DFT+U^{d}}$ method (Figure \[FIG\_PDOS\_DFTUD\]) and $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$ method (Figure \[FIG\_PDOS\_DFTUPD\]) were also calculated [@EPAPS]. In contrast to the DFT results, the dominant contribution to the HOMO and LUMO states in both DFT+U calculations is now from the 2p (Cl and O) and 3d (Ni) orbitals, respectively (Figure \[FIG\_PDOS\_DFTUPD\]). We do not have direct experimental results to compare with this feature, however, for nickel oxide it is well known that DFT gives incorrect PDOS contributions. Early experiments and calculations [@GAP_OPT_NiO; @GAP_LSDAU; @XPS_NiO; @LDAU_APW; @LDAU_PAW] show that instead of a d-d gap given by DFT, nickel oxides actually have a p-d gap. The largest spin density contribution, of course, is still from the Ni 3d electrons. For the $S=4$ ground state, the $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$ calculation yields a LUMO-HOMO gap of 2.95 eV, which is from majority spin to minority spin; in the $\mathrm{DFT+U^{d}}$ and DFT calculations, these numbers are 2.56 eV and 1.09 eV, respectively. Since DFT has been known to underestimate energy gaps and excitation states, DFT+U calculations have proven necessary in order to obtain agreement with experiments such as resonant inelastic X-ray scattering (RIXS) and XPS [@Mn12_LDAU]. The present study also likely calls into question recent reports of HOMO-LUMO gaps of fractions of an eV in the Fe$_8$ SMM [@Baruah].
Finally, we have also repeated $\mathrm{DFT+U^d}$ and $\mathrm{DFT+U^{p+d}}$ calculations with $U^d$ for nickel ranging from 4.58 to 6.20 eV and $U^p$ for oxygen ranging from 1.0 to 8.0 eV. The energetic order of spin states remains the same, and the magnitudes of the energy differences between spin states are more-or-less insensitive to variations of $U^p$ from 3.0 to 8.0 eV, as seen in Figure \[FIG\_UJDEP\]. This clearly demonstrates the reliability and robustness of our results.
In conclusion, we have performed DFT and DFT+U calculations for $\mathrm{\left[Ni(hmp)(MeOH)Cl\right]_4}$. Because of the strong correlation effects in this system, the DFT calculation fails due to the fact that the lack of on-site energy unphysically encourages the hybridization of orbitals, leading to AFM coupling. The inclusion of a Hubbard-U like term for both the Ni 3d and O(1) 2p electrons greatly enhances the localization for both states, and is essential in order to obtain the correct ferromagnetic ground state and exchange-coupling constants. After taking both corrections into consideration, these properties were successfully reproduced by the calculations. We then analyzed the DOS and projected DOS of the system, and the calculation predicts that the optical transition from HOMO to LUMO is p-d like, and the gap is 2.95 eV.
This work is supported by DOE DE-FG02-02ER45995 (H.-P. Cheng and C. Cao), NSF/DMR/ITR-0218957 (H.-P. Cheng and C. Cao), NSF DMR0239481 (S. Hill), and NSF DMR0506946 (S. Hill). The authors want to thank NERSC, CNMS/ORNL and the University of Florida High Performance Computing Center for providing computational resources and support that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Three-dimensional Polarized Light Imaging (3D-PLI) is a promising technique to reconstruct the nerve fiber architecture of human post-mortem brains from birefringence measurements of histological brain sections with micrometer resolution. To better understand how the reconstructed fiber orientations are related to the underlying fiber structure, numerical simulations are employed. Here, we present two complementary simulation approaches that reproduce the entire 3D-PLI analysis: First, we give a short review on a simulation approach that uses the Jones matrix calculus to model the birefringent myelin sheaths. Afterwards, we introduce a more sophisticated simulation tool: a 3D Maxwell solver based on a Finite-Difference Time-Domain algorithm that simulates the propagation of the electromagnetic light wave through the brain tissue. We demonstrate that the Maxwell solver is a valuable tool to better understand the interaction of polarized light with brain tissue and to enhance the accuracy of the fiber orientations extracted by 3D-PLI.
light imaging $\cdot$ Nerve fiber architecture $\cdot$ Optics $\cdot$ Birefringence $\cdot$ Jones matrix calculus $\cdot$ Maxwell solver $\cdot$ Finite-Difference Time-Domain algorithm $\cdot$ Computer simulation
author:
- 'Miriam Menzel$^{1(}$[-1.7pt]{}$^)$'
- 'Markus Axer$^{1}$'
- 'Hans De Raedt$^{2}$'
- 'Kristel Michielsen$^{3}$'
title: |
Finite-Difference Time-Domain Simulation for\
Three-dimensional Polarized Light Imaging
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
One of the greatest challenges that neuroscientists are facing today is to decode the highly complex architecture and connectivity of nerve fibers in the human brain, the so-called *connectome* [@behrens12; @sporns05; @sporns09]. In recent years, the neuroimaging technique *Three-dimensional Polarized Light Imaging (3D-PLI)* has proven its potential to reconstruct the spatial fiber architecture of human post-mortem brains with a resolution of a few micrometers [@MAxer11_1; @MAxer11_2]. It enables not only to investigate the course of long-range fiber bundles but also of single fibers, which makes 3D-PLI a bridging technology between the macroscopic and the microscopic scale.
To validate the reconstructed fiber orientations, numerical simulations are used. By comparing the known underlying fiber architecture of the simulation model with the fiber orientations derived in a 3D-PLI measurement, possible misinterpretations in the fiber reconstruction process can be identified. The simulations also help to gain a better theoretical understanding of the interaction of polarized light with brain tissue and to improve the accuracy and reliability of the reconstructed fiber orientations.
Three-dimensional Polarized Light Imaging (3D-PLI) {#sec:3D-PLI}
==================================================
The measurement and signal analysis of 3D-PLI have been described in detail by Axer et al. [@MAxer11_1; @MAxer11_2]. Here, we describe only the basic principles that are needed for the presented simulation approaches.
Measurement
-----------
Post-mortem brains are fixated, frozen, and cut with a cryotome into histological sections with a thickness of about $d=70\,\upmu$m. The brain sections are embedded in a glycerin solution and placed in a polarimeter that measures the birefringence (optical anisotropy) of the brain tissue. Part of the birefringence arises from the highly ordered arrangement of lipid molecules in the myelin sheath – an insulating layer which surrounds most of the axons in white matter [@goethlin13; @bear71; @quarles06]. The polarimeter consists of a pair of crossed linear polarizers and a quarter-wave retarder which are rotated by angles $\rho \in$ {0$^{\circ}$, 10$^{\circ}$, $\dots$, 170$^{\circ}$} around the stationary brain section (see Fig. \[fig:3D-PLI\_MatrixCalculus\]a). The setup is illuminated by a light source with wavelength $\lambda = 525\,$nm and the transmitted light intensity is recorded by a CCD camera for each rotation angle.
Signal Analysis
---------------
#### ***Jones Matrix Calculus.***
For the analysis of the resulting light intensity profile $I(\rho)$, the *Jones matrix calculus* is used [@jones41; @jones42]: Each optical element of the polarimeter is represented by a $2 \times 2$ matrix (Jones matrix) and the electric field vector of the outgoing light $\vec{E}$ is computed by multiplying the associated Jones matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{E} = P_y \cdot M_{\text{tissue}} \cdot M_{\lambda/4} \cdot P_x \cdot \vec{E}_0\,.
\label{eq:E}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\vec{E}_0$ represents the electric field vector of the incident light. $P_x$, $P_y$, and $M_{\lambda/4}$ are the Jones matrices of the linear polarizers and the quarter-wave retarder, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:3D-PLI\_MatrixCalculus\]a for definition). The birefringent brain tissue is represented by the Jones matrix of an optical retarder ($M_{\text{tissue}}$) that introduces a phase shift $\delta$ between the polarization component along the retarder axis and the polarization component perpendicular to it. The retarder axis (optic axis) is considered to be oriented in direction of the nerve fibers (with in-plane direction angle $\phi$ and out-of-plane inclination angle $\alpha$, in the following referred to as *direction* and *inclination*). Relative to the axis of the rotating polarizers, the retarder axis describes an in-plane rotation with rotation angle $\beta = \phi - \rho$: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\text{tissue}}
&= R(\beta) \cdot M_{\delta} \cdot R(-\beta) \notag \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} \cos\beta & -\sin\beta \\
\sin\beta & \cos\beta
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix} e^{\operatorname{i} \delta/2} & 0 \\
0 & e^{-\operatorname{i} \delta/2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \cos\beta & \sin\beta \\
-\sin\beta & \cos\beta
\end{pmatrix} \,,
\label{eq:M_tissue} \\
\notag \\
\delta &\approx \frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\, d \, \Updelta n \, \cos^2\alpha \,,
\label{eq:delta}\end{aligned}$$ with $\lambda$ being the wavelength of the light source, $d$ the thickness of the measured brain section, and $\Updelta n$ the local birefringence of the brain tissue [@MAxer11_1; @MAxer11_2; @menzel15].
The transmitted light intensity per pixel can be computed using $I_{\text{theo}} \propto \vert \vec{E} \vert^2$ and Eqs. (\[eq:E\]) and (\[eq:M\_tissue\]): $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\text{theo}}(\rho) = \frac{I_T}{2}\left(1 + \sin\Big(2(\rho - \phi)\Big)\,\sin\delta \right)\,.
\label{eq:I_theo}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $I_T \propto \vert \vec{E}_0 \vert^2$ is twice the average transmitted light intensity per pixel (in the following referred to as *transmittance*) and $\vert\sin\delta\vert$ the *retardation* per pixel.
#### ***Fourier Analysis.***
To derive the spatial fiber orientation ($\phi$, $\alpha$) for each image pixel, the measured intensity profile $I(\rho)$ is analyzed by means of a discrete harmonic Fourier analysis.
Every set of $N$ data points can be represented by a Fourier series with at most $N$ coefficients ($N/2^{\text{th}}$ order): $$\begin{aligned}
I(\rho) &= a_{0} + \sum_{n=1}^{N/2} \Big(a_{n} \cos(n \rho) + b_{n} \sin(n \rho) \Big),
\label{eq:FourierSeries} \\
a_{0} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N I(\rho_i)\, , \,\,\,
a_{n} &= \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N I(\rho_i) \cos(n \rho_i)\, , \,\,\,
b_{n} = \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N I(\rho_i) \sin(n \rho_i)\,.
\label{eq:ExpFourierCoefficients}\end{aligned}$$
Using $\sin(x-y) = \sin x \, \cos y - \cos x \, \sin y$, Eq. (\[eq:I\_theo\]) can be written in terms of a Fourier series with Fourier coefficients of zeroth and second order [@MAxer11_1; @glazer96]: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\text{theo}}(\rho) &= \frac{I_T}{2} + \frac{I_T}{2}\,\sin\delta\,\cos(2\phi)\,\sin(2\rho)
- \frac{I_T}{2}\,\sin\delta\,\sin(2\phi)\,\cos(2\rho) \\
&\equiv a'_0 + a'_2\,\cos(2\rho) + b'_2\,\sin(2\rho)\,,
\label{eq:I_Fourier} \\
a'_0 &= \frac{I_T}{2}\, , \,\,\,
a'_2 = -\frac{I_T}{2}\,\sin\delta\,\sin(2\phi) \, , \,\,\,
b'_2 = \frac{I_T}{2}\,\sin\delta\,\cos(2\phi)\,.
\label{eq:FourierCoefficients}\end{aligned}$$
To determine the transmittance $I_T$, the direction angle $\phi$, and the retardation $\lvert \sin\delta \rvert$ from the light intensities $I(\rho_i)$ measured at rotation angles $\rho_i \in \{0, 10^{\circ}, ..., 170^{\circ}\}$ , we assume $a_0 = a'_0$, $a_2 = a'_2$, $b_2 = b'_2$, and $b_4 = b'_4$, whereby the Fourier coefficients $a_0$, $a_2$, and $b_2$ are computed using Eq. (\[eq:ExpFourierCoefficients\]), with $n=2$ and $N=18$. By rearranging Eq. (\[eq:FourierCoefficients\]), we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
I_T &= 2\,a_0 \,, \label{eq:I_0_transmittance}\\
\phi &= \frac{{\rm atan2} (-a_2, b_2)}{2} \,, \label{eq:phi_direction} \\
\vert \sin\delta \vert &= \frac{\sqrt{a_2^2 + b_2^2}}{a_0} \,, \label{eq:r_retardation}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm atan2}$ is the arctangent with two arguments.[^1] The inclination angle $\alpha$ can be calculated from the retardation $\vert \sin\delta \vert$ by rearranging Eq. (\[eq:delta\]).
The computed fiber orientations ($\phi$, $\alpha$) of the measured brain section are visualized in a so-called *fiber orientation map (FOM)* (cf. Fig. \[fig:OpticChiasm\]).
Simulation of 3D-PLI by means of the Jones Matrix Calculus {#sec:JonesMatrixCalculus}
==========================================================
One possibility to simulate the interaction of polarized light with brain tissue is by using the Jones matrix calculus. Instead of representing the whole brain tissue (per pixel) by a single retarder matrix (as in Eq. (\[eq:M\_tissue\])), the birefringence of the myelin sheaths is modeled by multiple optical retarder elements (Jones matrices). For more details, see Menzel et al. [@menzel15] and Dohmen et al. [@dohmen15].
Simulation Method
-----------------
For the simulation, the nerve fibers are replaced by hollow tubes representing the surrounding myelin sheaths. The simulation volume is discretized into small cubic volume elements (voxels, indicated by the gray mesh in Fig. \[fig:3D-PLI\_MatrixCalculus\]b) and each myelin voxel is represented by the Jones matrix of an optical retarder with the retarder axis oriented along the optic axis of the myelin sheath (indicated by the arrows in Fig. \[fig:3D-PLI\_MatrixCalculus\]b).
To generate a synthetic 3D-PLI image series, a modified version of the Jones matrix calculus described in Sec. \[sec:3D-PLI\] is used whereby $M_{\text{tissue}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:M\_tissue\]) is replaced by the product of $N$ retarder matrices that represent the myelin voxels along the optical path of one image pixel (indicated by the highlighted column in Fig. \[fig:3D-PLI\_MatrixCalculus\]b): $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{E} = P_y \cdot (M_{N}\cdot M_{N-1} \cdots M_1) \cdot M_{\lambda /4} \cdot P_x \cdot \vec{E}_0\,.
\label{eq:E_}\end{aligned}$$ The synthetic 3D-PLI image series is interpreted by applying the same Fourier analysis as for the experimental data (see Sec. \[sec:3D-PLI\]). The generated FOM can directly be compared to experimental results.
Results
-------
A comparison of a measured and a simulated FOM of the optic chiasm of a hooded seal (see Fig. \[fig:OpticChiasm\]) demonstrates that the simulation approach based on the simple Jones matrix calculus can be used to make hypotheses on the underlying fiber structure [@dohmen15]. Even though the employed model of crossing and non-crossing fibers is quite simple, the most dominant features of the measured FOM are reproduced.\
![Measured and simulated FOMs of the optic chiasm of a hooded seal, adapted from Dohmen et al. [@dohmen15][]{data-label="fig:OpticChiasm"}](Fig2_OpticChiasm){width="\textwidth"}
Simulation of 3D-PLI by means of a 3D Maxwell Solver {#sec:MaxwellSolver}
====================================================
Although the previous simulation approach is already quite successful in reproducing 3D-PLI measurements, it is limited by the assumptions made in the Jones matrix calculus and the fact that only the molecular birefringence of the myelin sheaths is considered. To account for scattering and interference, we use a more sophisticated simulation approach: The propagation of the polarized light wave through the brain tissue is simulated by a massively parallel 3D Maxwell solver based on an unconditionally stable *Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD)* algorithm [@taflove].
Simulation Method
-----------------
#### ***Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) Algorithm.***
The FDTD algorithm [@taflove] numerically computes the components of the electromagnetic field by discretizing space and time and approximating Maxwell’s curl equations by so-called *finite differences*: The Maxwell equations are discretized using the Yee cell [@yee66], see top panel Fig. \[fig:MaxwellSolver\]b, such that each component of the electric field $\vec{E}$ is surrounded by four components of the magnetic field $\vec{H}$ and vice versa. The propagation of the electromagnetic field in time is computed iteratively using a *leapfrog time-stepping scheme* (see lower Fig. \[fig:MaxwellSolver\]b): The components of the $\vec{E}$-field at a given time t are computed from the values of the $\vec{H}$-field at time $(t - \Updelta t/2)$ and from the values of the $\vec{E}$-field at time $(t - \Updelta t)$, where $\Updelta t$ is a globally defined time step. The components of the $\vec{H}$-field at time $(t + \Updelta t/2)$ are computed analogously from the values of the $\vec{E}$-field at time $t$ and from the values of the $\vec{H}$-field at time $(t - \Updelta t/2)$. The time-dependent electromagnetic fields are computed at every point in space using Maxwell’s curl equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \vec{E}}{\partial t} &= \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Big[ \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{H} - (\vec{J}_{\text{source}} + \sigma_{e} \vec{E} ) \Big]\,,
\label{eq:MaxwellCurl1} \\
\frac{\partial \vec{H}}{\partial t} &= - \frac{1}{\mu} \Big[ \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E} + (\vec{M}_{\text{source}} + \sigma_{m} \vec{H} ) \Big]\,,
\label{eq:MaxwellCurl2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability, $J_{\text{source}}$ and $M_{\text{source}}$ are the electric and magnetic current densities acting as independent sources of the electric and magnetic field energy, and $\sigma_{\text{e}}$ and $\sigma_{\text{m}}$ are the electric conductivity and the equivalent magnetic loss, respectively.
The spatial and temporal derivatives of the electric and magnetic fields are approximated by *second-order central differences*: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u_{i,j,k}^n}{\partial x} &= \frac{u_{i+\frac{1}{2}, j, k}^{n} - u_{i-\frac{1}{2},j,k}^n}{\Updelta x} + O \Big[ \left(\Updelta x \right)^2 \Big]\,,
\label{eq:FiniteDifferenceApprox1} \\
\frac{\partial u_{i,j,k}^n}{\partial t} &= \frac{u_{i , j, k}^{n+\frac{1}{2}} - u_{i,j,k}^{n-\frac{1}{2}}}{\Updelta t} + O \Big[ \left(\Updelta t \right)^2 \Big]\,,
\label{eq:FiniteDifferenceApprox2}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{i,j,k}^n$ represents the electric and magnetic fields evaluated at a discrete point in space ($i \Updelta x$, $j \Updelta y$, $k \Updelta z$) and a discrete point in time ($n \Updelta t$). This approximation allows to interleave the electric and magnetic field components in space and time at intervals of $\Updelta x/2$ and $\Updelta t/2$ and thus to implement the leapfrog time-stepping algorithm.
#### ***Maxwell Solver Software.***
For the simulations, we use the software *TDME3D* $-$ a massively parallel 3D Maxwell solver that is based on an unconditionally stable FDTD algorithm. The algorithm makes use of the formal solution of Maxwell’s equations in matrix form and the *Lie-Trotter-Suzuki product formula approach*. For more details, see De Raedt [@deRaedt].
The software solves Maxwell’s equations for arbitrary (non-)periodic structures that are illuminated by arbitrary incident plane waves and that consist of linear, isotropic, lossy materials with known permeability, permittivity, and conductivity. The simulations are performed on the *JUQUEEN* supercomputer [@juqueen] at the Forschungszentrum J[ü]{}lich, Germany.
#### ***Simulation of the Polarimetric Setup.***
The Maxwell solver computes the electromagnetic field behind a tissue sample from the given geometric and optical properties of the sample and the incident plane wave. In order to simulate a standard 3D-PLI measurement, the polarimetric setup needs to be taken into account (see Fig. \[fig:MaxwellSolver\]a): After passing the first linear polarizer and the quarter-wave retarder, the light is left-hand circularly polarized. The propagation of this light wave through the sample is computed by TDME3D. The resulting electric field components ($E_x$, $E_y$, $E_z$) are then processed by a second linear polarizer rotated by angles $\rho$, yielding $\tilde{E}_x(\rho)$, $\tilde{E}_y(\rho)$, and $\tilde{E}_z(\rho)$. The x- and y-components of $\vec{\tilde{E}}$ are computed by multiplying $\vec{E}$ with the Jones matrix of a rotated linear polarizer ($R(\rho) \cdot P_y \cdot R(-\rho)$, cf. Sec. \[sec:3D-PLI\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} \tilde{E}_x \\
\tilde{E}_y
\end{pmatrix} &= \begin{pmatrix} \cos\rho & -\sin\rho \\
\sin\rho & \cos\rho
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix} 0\,\, & 0 \\
0\,\, & 1
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix} \cos\rho & \sin\rho \\
-\sin\rho & \cos\rho
\end{pmatrix} \,
\begin{pmatrix} E_x \\
E_y
\end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} \cos\rho \big(E_x \cos\rho + E_y \sin\rho\big) \\
\sin\rho \big(E_x \cos\rho + E_y \sin\rho\big)
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\label{eq:E_x,y}\end{aligned}$$ The z-component of $\vec{\tilde{E}}$ is computed by applying Maxwell’s equation in free space: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{div} \vec{\tilde{E}} = 0 \,\, \Leftrightarrow \,\,
\tilde{E}_z &= - \frac{1}{k_z} \big(k_x \tilde{E}_x + k_y \tilde{E}_y \big) \\
&\overset{(\ref{eq:E_x,y})}{=} - \frac{k_x \cos\rho + k_y \sin\rho}{k_z} \big(E_x \cos\rho + E_y \sin\rho\big)\,,
\label{eq:E_z}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{\tilde{E}} = \vec{\tilde{E}}_0 \, e^{i (\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r} - \omega t + \varphi)}$ (monochromatic plane wave) has been used.
The light intensity recorded by the camera is given by the absolute squared value of the electric field vector: $$\begin{aligned}
I \propto \vert \tilde{E}_x \vert^2 + \vert \tilde{E}_y \vert^2 + \vert \tilde{E}_z \vert^2\,.\end{aligned}$$
The x- and y-components of the electric field yield Fourier coefficients of zeroth and second order in $\rho$: $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \tilde{E}_x \vert^2 + \vert \tilde{E}_y \vert^2
&\overset{(\ref{eq:E_x,y})}{=} \cos^2\rho \, \vert {E}_x \vert^2 + \sin^2\rho \, \vert {E}_y \vert^2 + \sin\rho \cos\rho \big( E_x E_y^{\ast} + E_x^{\ast} E_y \big) \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \Big( \vert {E}_x \vert^2 + \vert {E}_y \vert^2 \Big)
+ \frac{1}{2} \Big( \vert {E}_x \vert^2 - \vert {E}_y \vert^2 \Big) \cos(2\rho) \\
&\,\,\, + \frac{1}{2} \Big( E_x E_y^{\ast} + E_x^{\ast} E_y \Big) \sin(2\rho) \\
&\equiv c_0 + c_2\, \cos(2\rho) + d_2\, \sin(2\rho)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Similar analytical calculations show that the z-component of the electric field yields Fourier coefficients of zeroth, second, and fourth order in $\rho$: $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \tilde{E}_z \vert^2 &\overset{(\ref{eq:E_z})}{=} e_0 + e_2\, \cos(2\rho) + f_2\, \sin(2\rho)
+ e_4\, \cos(4\rho) + f_4\, \sin(4\rho)\,,
\label{eq:E_z_Fourier}\end{aligned}$$ where $e_n$ and $f_n$ are analytical functions of the wave vector $\vec{k}$ and $E_{x,y}$.
The transmitted light intensity $I(\rho)$ can therefore be represented by means of a Fourier series with Fourier coefficients $a_0$, $a_2$, $b_2$, $a_4$, and $b_4$: $$\begin{aligned}
I(\rho) &= a_0 + a_2\, \cos(2\rho) + b_2\, \sin(2\rho) + a_4\, \cos(4\rho) + b_4\, \sin(4\rho), \\
a_0 &= c_0 + e_0, \,\,\,\,\, a_2 = c_2 + e_2, \,\,\,\,\, b_2 = d_2 + f_2, \,\,\,\,\, a_4 = e_4, \,\,\,\,\, b_4 = f_4\,.
\label{eq:Maxwell_FourierCoefficients}\end{aligned}$$ From the five Fourier coefficients, the light intensity profile $I(\rho)$ is derived for arbitrary rotation angles $\rho$.
Results
-------
#### ***Simulated Data.***
Figure \[fig:MaxwellSolver\_SimResults\] shows the computed Fourier coefficients and light intensity profiles for three samples containing horizontal parallel, horizontal crossing, and vertical fibers, respectively. The fibers were simulated as solid cylinders with diameters of $1\,\upmu$m and arranged in hexagonal bundles with inter-fiber distances of $0.1\,\upmu$m in a box of $10 \times 10 \times 12\,\upmu$m$^3$. The simulations were performed with uniaxial perfectly matched layer absorbing boundary conditions [@deRaedt07], a Yee cell of $25\,$nm side length, and $\lambda = 525\,$nm. The refractive indices of the fibers and the surroundings were chosen as $1.47$ and $1.37$ (according to measurements of the refractive indices of myelin and the embedding glycerin solution).
Similar to a 3D-PLI measurement, the transmittance $I_T \propto a_0$ shows the underlying fiber structure (see Fig. \[fig:MaxwellSolver\_SimResults\]a). The (averaged and normalized) light intensity profiles $I(\rho)$ show a strong sinusoidal signal for horizontal parallel fibers, whereas the signal amplitude for horizontal crossing and vertical fibers is very small (see Fig. \[fig:MaxwellSolver\_SimResults\]b) $-$ an effect that can also be observed in a standard 3D-PLI measurement [@MAxer11_1; @MAxer11_2; @dohmen15]. This demonstrates that the Maxwell solver is able to reproduce the most dominant effects of the 3D-PLI measurement without assuming any intrinsic birefringence of the nerve fibers.
#### ***Experimental Data.***
To derive the spatial fiber orientations in a standard 3D-PLI analysis, only the Fourier coefficients of zeroth and second order are extracted from the measured signal (see Eqs. (\[eq:I\_0\_transmittance\])$-$(\[eq:r\_retardation\])). However, the simulations with the Maxwell solver suggest that for non-normal incident light ($E_z \neq 0$), Fourier coefficients of fourth order will also be generated (cf. Eq. (\[eq:E\_z\_Fourier\])).
Figure \[fig:MaxwellSolver\_ExpResults\] shows the Fourier coefficient maps (up to the sixth order) computed from a 3D-PLI measurement of a coronal rat brain section. As can be seen, the Fourier coefficients of fourth order are smaller than the Fourier coefficients of second order, but they still show the underlying tissue structure. Fourier coefficients of higher orders do not contain valuable tissue information and are probably due to noise. This suggests that non-normal incident light (e.g. caused by scattering) leads to Fourier coefficients of fourth order which contain valuable signal information. Therefore, $a_4$ and $b_4$ should also be taken into account when computing the fiber orientations from the measured 3D-PLI light intensity profile.
Conclusion
==========
The 3D Maxwell solver has proven to be a valuable tool for simulating 3D-PLI. It models the interaction of polarized light with brain tissue without assuming any intrinsic birefringence of the nerve fibers. Nevertheless, the Maxwell solver reproduces the most dominant features observed in a 3D-PLI measurement and opens up new ways to improve the accuracy of the extracted fiber orientations: The FDTD simulations suggest, for example, that the Fourier coefficients of fourth order contain valuable structural information and should be incorporated in an enhanced signal analysis of 3D-PLI.
### Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
Our work has been supported by the Helmholtz Association portfolio theme ‘Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain’, by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 604102 (Human Brain Project), and partially by the National Institutes of Health under grant agreement no. R01MH 092311.
We gratefully acknowledge the computing time granted by the JARA-HPC Vergabegremium and provided on the JARA-HPC Partition part of the supercomputer JUQUEEN [@juqueen] at Forschungszentrum J[ü]{}lich.
We would like to thank M. Cremer, Ch. Schramm, and P. Nysten for the preparation of the histological brain sections.
[4]{}
Behrens, T.E.J., Sporns, O.: Human connectomics. Current Opinion in Neurobiology **22**(1), 144–153 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.conb.2011.08.005
Sporns, O., Tononi, G., K[ö]{}tter, R.: The human connectome: A structural description of the human brain. PLoS Computational Biology **1**(4), 245–251 (2005). doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042
Sporns, O.: The human connectome: Linking structure and function in the human brain. In: Johansen-Berg, H., Behrens, T.E.J. (eds.) Diffusion MRI: From Quantitative Measurement to in vivo Neuroanatomy, pp. 309–332, 1st edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam (2009). doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042
Axer, M., Amunts, K., Gr[ä]{}ssel, D., Palm, C., Dammers, J., Axer, H., Pietrzyk, U., Zilles, K.: A novel approach to the human connectome: Ultra-high resolution mapping of fiber tracts in the brain. NeuroImage **54**(2), 1091–1101 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.075
Axer, M., Gr[ä]{}ssel, D., Kleiner, M., Dammers, J., Dickscheid, T., Reckfort, J., H[ü]{}tz, T., Eiben, B., Pietrzyk, U., Zilles, K., Amunts, K.: High-resolution fiber tract reconstruction in the human brain by means of three-dimensional polarized light imaging. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics **5**(34), 1–13 (2011). doi:10.3389/fninf.2011.00034
G[ö]{}thlin, G.F.: Die doppelbrechenden Eigenschaften des Nervengewebes – ihre Ursachen und ihre biologischen Konsequenzen. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapskakademiens Handlingar. **51**(1), 1–91 (1913)
Bear, R.S.: The structure of the myelin sheath. Optical studies. Neurosciences Research Program bulletin **9**(4), 507–510 (1971)
Quarles, R.H., Macklin, W.B., Morell, P.: Myelin formation, structure and biochemistry. In: Siegel, G., Albers, R.W., Brady, S., Price, D. (eds.) Basic Neurochemistry: Molecular, Cellular and Medical Aspects, pp. 51–71, 7th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, MA Burlington (2006)
Jones, R.C.: A new calculus for the treatment of optical systems. Journal of the Optical Society of America **31**, 488–503 (1941). doi:10.1364/JOSA.31.000488
Jones, R.C.: A new calculus for the treatment of optical systems. iv. Journal of the Optical Society of America **32**, 486–486 (1942). doi:10.1364/JOSA.31.000488
Menzel, M., Michielsen, K., De Raedt, H., Reckfort, J., Amunts, K., Axer, M.: A Jones matrix formalism for simulating three-dimensional polarized light imaging of brain tissue. Journal of the Royal Society Interface **12**, 20150734 (2015). doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0734
Glazer, A.M., Lewis, J.G., Kaminsky, W.: An automatic optical imaging system for birefringent media. Proceedings of the Royal Society A **452**, 2751–2765 (1996) doi:10.1098/rspa.1996.0145
Menzel, M., Dohmen, M., De Raedt, H., Michielsen, K., Amunts, K., Axer, M.: Simulation-based validation of the physical model in 3D polarized light imaging. Optics and the Life Sciences, OSA Technical Digest (online), JT3A.33 (2015). doi:10.1364/BODA.2015.JT3A.33
Dohmen, M., Menzel, M., Wiese, H., Reckfort, J., Hanke, F., Pietrzyk, U., Zilles, K., Amunts, K., Axer, M.: Understanding fiber mixture by simulation in 3D Polarized Light Imaging. NeuroImage **111**, 464–475 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.020
Taflove, A., Hagness, S.C.: Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite- Difference Time-Domain Method. Artech House, MA USA, 3rd edn. (2005)
Yee, K.S.: Numerical solution of initial boundary value problems involving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation **14**, 302–307 (1966). doi:10.1109/TAP.1966.1138693
De Raedt, H.: Advances in unconditionally stable techniques. In: Taflove, A., Hagness, S.C. (eds.) Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, chp. 18. Artech House, MA USA, 3rd edn. (2005)
Stephan, M., Docter, J.: JUQUEEN: IBM Blue Gene/Q Supercomputer System at the J[ü]{}lich Supercomputing Centre. Journal of large-scale research facilities **1** (2015). doi:10.17815/jlsrf-1-18
De Raedt, H., Michielsen, K.: Unconditionally stable perfectly matched layer boundary conditions. Physica Status Solidi (b) **244**(10), 3497–3505 (2007). doi:10.1002/pssb.200743148
[^1]: The function ${\rm atan2}(x,y)$ denotes the angle (in radians) between the positive x-axis and the point $(x,y)$. The angle is positive for $y>0$ and negative for $y<0$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Cold Dark Matter (CDM) is a crucial constituent of the current concordance cosmological model. Having a vanishing equation of state (EoS), its energy density scales with the inverse cosmic volume and is thus uniquely described by a single number, its present abundance. We test the inverse cosmic volume law for Dark Matter (DM) by allowing its EoS to vary independently in eight redshift bins in the range $z=10^5$ and $z=0$. We use the latest measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation from the Planck satellite and supplement them with Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) data from the 6dF and SDSS-III BOSS surveys, and with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) key project data. We find no evidence for nonzero EoS in any of the eight redshift bins. With Planck data alone, the DM abundance is most strongly constrained around matter-radiation equality $\omega^{\rm eq}_g = 0.1193^{+0.0036}_{-0.0035}$ (95% c.l.), whereas its present day value is more weakly constrained ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}= 0.16^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ (95% c.l.). Adding BAO or HST data does not significantly change the $\omega^{\rm eq}_g$ constraint, while ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}$ tightens to $0.160^{+0.069}_{-0.065} $ (95% c.l.) and $0.124^{+0.081}_{-0.067}$ (95% c.l.) respectively. Our results constrain for the first time the level of “coldness” required of the DM across various cosmological epochs and show that the DM abundance is strictly positive at all times.'
author:
- Michael Kopp
- Constantinos Skordis
- Daniel B Thomas
- Stéphane Ilić
bibliography:
- 'varywletter.bib'
title: The Dark Matter equation of state through cosmic history
---
#### Introduction
Cosmological observations indicate that there is insufficient baryonic matter in the Universe for the correct description of physical processes, if gravitational laws are dictated by General Relativity. A natural explanation is that most of the matter fields interact negligibly with light, and are thus called Dark Matter, but can still be seen through their gravitational effect. Dark Matter (DM) is generally thought to be a stable particle (or particles) not part of the standard model, however it has so far remained elusive [@CDMS2016; @PandaXII2016; @XENON1002016; @ADMX2016; @Lux2017; @CRESST2017; @BrubakerZhongGurevichEtal2017]. Cosmologically, it is usually modeled as Cold Dark Matter (CDM), which is part of the successful [$\Lambda$CDM ]{}model that is consistent with observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) (e.g. [@PlanckCollaborationXIII2015]), cosmic shear surveys (e.g. [@DESdataRelease1]), measurements of the background expansion such as BAO probes [@AndersonAubourgBaileyEtal2014], supernovae distance measurements [@JonesScolnicRiessEtal2017] and the observed abundance of light elements [@PeimbertLuridianaPeimbert2007].
The CDM model is defined by a phase space distribution function satisfying the collisionless Boltzmann equation with initially vanishing velocity dispersion and curl. This leads to a background CDM density ${\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_c (a) \propto a^{-3}$ ($a$ being the scale factor of the Universe) and equation of state (EoS) $w=0$ while the linearized density and velocity perturbations satisfy the continuity and pressureless Euler equations.[^1] The resulting model arises naturally in the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP) paradigm: the candidate particles are effectively collisionless and typically have an EoS $w \sim 10^{-24} a^{-2}$ [@GreenHofmannSchwarz2005; @Armendariz-PiconNeelakanta2014], thus well described by CDM. The QCD axion is another CDM candidate [@VisinelliGondolo2014].
Not all DM candidates fit into the CDM paradigm, for instance, warm DM [@DodelsonWidrow1994; @Armendariz-PiconNeelakanta2014; @PiattellaCasariniFabrisEtal2015], ultra light axions [@HuBarkanaGruzinov2000; @HlozekGrinMarshEtal2015], collisionless massive neutrinos [@ShojiKomatsu2003; @LesgourguesTram2011], self-interacting massive neutrinos [@CyrRacineSigurdson2014; @OldengottRampfWong2015], Chaplygin gas [@SandvikTegmarkZaldarriagaEtal2004] and self-interacting DM [@SpergelSteinhardt2000]. In addition, DM may interact with other species such as neutrinos [@SerraZalameaCooray2010; @WilkinsonBoehmLesgourgues2014], photons [@BoehmEtAl2002; @WilkinsonLesgourguesBoehm2014], dark radiation [@Cyr-RacineSigurdson2012; @DiamantiGiusarmaMena2013; @Buen-AbadMarques-TavaresSchmaltz2015; @LesgourguesMarques-TavaresSchmaltz2015] and Dark Energy [@Amendola2000; @PourtsidouSkordisCopeland2013; @D'AmicoHamillKaloper2016].
Rather than taking the CDM description for granted we consider it timely to examine whether the data itself supports any deviation from the CDM paradigm, and thus to further determine or constrain DM properties. For our purpose we use the Generalized Dark Matter (GDM) model, first proposed by W. Hu [@Hu1998a]. The phenomenology of the GDM model has been thoroughly investigated in [@KoppSkordisThomas2016], where a connection was found with more fundamental theories, including those of a rich self-interacting dark sector. In addition, the recent work on the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure (EFTofLSS) [@BaumannNicolisSenatoreEtal2012] suggests that, even for an initially pressureless perfect fluid, the non-linearities that develop on small scales affect the cosmological background and large scale linear perturbations, creating an effective pressure and viscosity such as those found in GDM.
The GDM model has been used to constrain DM properties with either constant or specific time dependences of the parameters [@Muller2005; @CalabreseMigliaccioPaganoEtal2009; @KumarXu2012; @XuChang2013; @ThomasKoppSkordis2016; @KunzNesserisSawicki2016]. Here, we allow the DM EoS to vary more freely in time than all previous studies.
#### The model
We consider a flat Universe with only scalar perturbations, see [@KoppSkordisThomas2016] for more details and notation. The background density ${\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_g$ and pressure ${\ensuremath{\bar{P}}}_g$ of the DM evolve according to the conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GDMconservation}
\dot{{\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}}_g = - 3 H (1+w) {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_g\,, \qquad {\ensuremath{\bar{P}}}_g=w {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_g\,,
$$ where $H =\frac{\dot a}{a}$ is the Hubble parameter and the overdot denotes derivatives with respect to cosmic time $t$. The parametric function $w(t)$ is freely specifiable with the case $w=0$ corresponding to a CDM background (${\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_g = {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_c$). The GDM model has two further free functions, the speed of sound, $c_s^2$, and the (shear) viscosity, $c_{\rm vis}^2$. The EoS $w$ is uncorrelated with the two perturbative parameters $c_s^2$ and $c_{\rm vis}^2$, as shown in [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016], thus in this work we set these to zero and denote this class of GDM models by $w$DM. Consequently, replacing CDM by $w$DM in the $\Lambda$CDM model leads to $\Lambda$$w$DM.
With this choice, the perturbed $w$DM fluid equations for the density contrast $\delta_g$ and velocity perturbation $\theta_g$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GDMperts}
\frac{\dot{\delta}_g}{1+w} &= 3 H \left( \frac{w \delta_g}{1+w} +3 a H c_a^2 \theta_g\right) - \left( \frac{1}{2} \dot{h} - \frac{1}{a}{\ensuremath{\vec{\nabla}}}^2\theta_g \right) \notag
\\
\dot{\theta}_g & = - H \theta_g \,,\qquad c_a^2 = \frac{\dot{{\ensuremath{\bar{P}}}}_g}{\dot{{\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}}_g} = w - \frac{\dot{w}}{3 H (1+w)} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $c_a^2$ is the adiabatic speed of sound and $h$ is a metric perturbation in synchronous gauge [@Hu1998a; @KoppSkordisThomas2016]. The Euler equation $\dot{\theta}_g = - H \theta_g$ is identical to that of CDM, which implies the solution $\theta_g=0$. An example of $w$DM is the combination of CDM and $\Lambda$ interpreted as a single fluid with $w=-(1+{\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_c/{\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_\Lambda)^{-1}$. A large degeneracy between $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $w$ is thus expected at late times (see also [@TutusausEtal2016]).
#### Methodology
The $w$DM fluid equations , were implemented in the Boltzmann code CLASS [@BlasLesgourguesTram2011] as in [@KoppSkordisThomas2016; @ThomasKoppSkordis2016]. A sufficiently general time-dependence of $w$ was achieved by binning its evolution into $N=8$ scale factor bins, whose edges are $\tilde a_i = 10^{\{0,-1,-1.5,-2,-2.5,-3,-3.5,-4\}}$. The bins were smoothly connected using $w(a) = \frac{w_i-w_{i+1} }{2} \operatorname{erf\!}\left( \frac{\ln (a/\tilde a_{i+1})}{\sigma_a}\right) + \frac{ w_i+w_{i+1}}{2}$ for $a_{i+1}<a<a_i$, with bin centers $a_i=\sqrt{ \tilde a_{i} \tilde a_{i+1}}$ for $1\leq i\leq N-2$ while $a_0=1$ and $a_{N-1} = 0$. Because of the aforementioned degeneracy of $w$DM with CDM and $\Lambda$, we chose a wider bin in the late Universe.
The $\sigma_a$ parameter controls the transition width between bins; it was set to $1/20$ so that the transition is small compared to the bin width. We tested that this choice does not affect our conclusions.
We define a dimensionless scaled $w$DM density $$\label{Defomegag}
\omega_g \equiv a^3 {\ensuremath{\bar{\rho}}}_g\,\frac{8 \pi G}{3\times (100\, \rm{km/s/Mpc})^2}\text{.}$$ When $w=0$ through cosmic history, $\omega_g $ is a constant equal to the conventional dimensionless CDM density $\omega_c$. In general however, $\omega_g$ varies over time and is fully determined by the $N+1$ parameters ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}, w_i$. We use the notation $\omega_g^{(i)}=\omega_g(a_i)$ and similarly for other functions with subscripts, so that the present day DM abundance is ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}= \omega_g(a_0)$. For functions without a subscript we instead write $H_i = H(a_i)$ and $w_i=w(a_i)$.
Our parameter constraints were obtained as in [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016] and we present only brief details here. We used the Markov chain Monte Carlo code MontePython [@AudrenLesgourguesBenabedetal2013] and established convergence of the chains using the Gelman-Rubin criterion [@GelmanRubin1992]. Our total parameter set $$(\omega_b, {\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}, H_0,n_s, \tau, \ln 10^{10} A_s, w_i)$$ consists of 6 $\Lambda$CDM parameters and the 8 values $w_i$. We denote the $\Lambda w$DM model with 8 bins as “[*var-w*]{}” and the previously studied model [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016] with $w=\,$const as “[*const-w*]{}”. We assumed adiabatic initial conditions.
We used the Planck 2015 data release [@PlanckCollaborationXI2015] of the CMB anisotropies power spectra, composed of the low-$l$ T/E/B likelihood and the full TT/TE/EE high-$l$ likelihood with the complete “not-lite” set of nuisance parameters. [^2] These likelihoods combined are referred to as Planck Power Spectra (PPS). We also added selectively the HST key project prior on $H_0$ [@RiessMacriCasertanoEtal2011], BAO from the 6dF Galaxy Survey [@BeutlerBlakeCollessEtAl2011] and the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@AndersonAubourgBaileyEtal2014], and the Planck CMB lensing likelihood (respectively referred to as HST, BAO and Lens thereafter).
We set uniform priors on $\tau$ and $H_0$ such that $0.01<\tau$ and $45 \leq H_0 \leq 90$ respectively. We used the same priors on Planck nuisance parameters and the same neutrino treatment as in [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016]. The helium fraction was set to $Y_{\rm He}=0.24667$ [@PlanckCollaborationXIII2015].
#### Results
Our main results are constraints on the time dependence of DM EoS $w(a)$ and abundance $\omega_g(a)$ shown in Figs.\[varwovertime\_THREE\] and \[rhoovertime\]. For comparison, we also show the constraints on the [*const-w*]{} model already discussed in [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016]. We list the 95% confidence regions of all parameters in Table \[table\_results\].
In Fig.\[varwovertime\_THREE\] we observe that [$\Lambda$CDM ]{}lies in the 99% confidence region of the [*const-w*]{} model, which in turn lies in the 99% confidence region of the [*var-w*]{} model, such that the constraints are nested like the models themselves. There is no evidence for significant deviations of the DM EoS from 0 at any time. Consequently, any model selection criteria will favor [$\Lambda$CDM ]{}.
The constraints on $w$ are the strongest between $a_6$ and $a_5$ enclosing the matter-radiation equality $a_{\rm eq} \simeq 3\times10^{-4}$, and are about a factor 2 weaker compared to the [*const-w*]{} model. In other bins the constraints on $w$ weaken significantly. Adding the BAO or HST dataset has only a minor effect on [*var-w*]{} constraints and only tightens limits in the rightmost bin. As was the case for the [*const-w*]{} model, [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016], adding CMB lensing does not significantly improve the constraints.
Let us now compare in more detail the DM abundance $\omega_g(a)$ of the [*var-w*]{} and [*const-w*]{} models focussing only on the two dataset combinations PPS and PPS+BAO+Lens. In Fig.\[rhoovertime\] we see that, like $w(a)$, $\omega_g$ is most tightly constrained between $a_6=10^{-3.75}$ and $a_5=10^{-3.25}$, in fact almost as tightly as for the [*const-w*]{} model (see inset in Fig.\[rhoovertime\]). Around $a=0.4$ there is a squeeze in the constraints of $\omega_g$ from PPS, which extends to $a\sim (0.08,0.4)$ when BAO or HST are included. At all times a vanishing DM abundance ($\omega_g=0$) is inconsistent with the data. More quantitatively, we find for the [*var-w*]{} model at 95% c.l. $\omega^{\rm eq}_g = 0.1193^{+0.0036}_{-0.0035}$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}=0.16^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ with PPS only, whereas for PPS+BAO+Lens we get $\omega^{\rm eq}_g = 0.1189^{+0.0032}_{-0.0033}$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}= 0.169^{+0.067}_{-0.065}$. For [*const-w*]{}-PPS+BAO+Lens we find $\omega^{\rm eq}_g=0.1193^{+0.0026}_{-0.0026}$, whereas the [$\Lambda$CDM ]{}result is $\omega_c=\omega^{\rm eq}_g=0.1184^{+0.0022}_{-0.0022}$, see [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016].
Consider the tightly constrained region around $a_{\rm eq}$, $a_6<a<a_5$, as shown in Fig.\[rhoovertime\] (see also the inset in the same figure). As discussed in [@Hu1998a; @KoppSkordisThomas2016] the GDM abundance $\omega_g(a)$ and expansion rate $H(a)$ in the early Universe determine the time of matter radiation equality and thereby the amount of potential decay until recombination. This in turn sets the relative heights of the first few peaks of the CMB temperature angular power spectrum. Both the [*const-w*]{} and [*var-w*]{} models constrain $\omega_g$ around $a_{\rm eq}$ at a similar level (see above). The degeneracy between $H_0$ and $\omega_g$ in the [*const-w*]{} model [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016] translates into a degeneracy between $H_6$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(6)}_g}}$ in the [*var-w*]{} model as seen in the left panel of Fig. \[Contours\_early\]. Indeed, the $H_6$-${\ensuremath{\omega^{(6)}_g}}$ contours reveal how well the CMB constrains a combination of the expansion rate and the abundance of DM around $a_{\rm eq}$. The degeneracy between $w$-$\omega_g$ [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016; @KoppSkordisThomas2016] in the [*const-w*]{} model due to the same effect is also seen as a degeneracy between $w_6$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(6)}_g}}$ (right panel of Fig. \[Contours\_early\]), however, in the [*var-w*]{} model it is weakened as $w_6$ has only an indirect effect on $a_{\rm eq}$, contrary to ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(6)}_g}}$. Similar correlations exist for $H_5 -{\ensuremath{\omega^{(5)}_g}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(5)}_g}}- w_5$ but in the opposite direction.
The origin of the squeeze around $a\sim (0.08-0.4)$ is of an entirely different nature. The angular diameter distance $d^{{\ensuremath{*}}}_A$ to the last scattering surface is given by $$\label{d_ang}
d^{{\ensuremath{*}}}_A = a_{{\ensuremath{*}}} \int_{a_{{\ensuremath{*}}}}^1 d \ln a\, (aH)^{-1} = a_{{\ensuremath{*}}} (\eta_0 - \eta_{{\ensuremath{*}}})
\,.$$ Here, the second equality has been written in terms of the conformal time ($\eta = \int dt/a$) today, $\eta_0$, and at the last scattering surface, $\eta_{\ensuremath{*}}$. The largest contribution to $d_A^{\ensuremath{*}}$ comes from the first $\ln a$ bin where $\eta$ grows from $\sim 4000\,$Mpc to $\sim 14000\,$Mpc and constitutes $\sim 70\%$ of the total. This contribution can be strongly constrained by geometric probes. Within the first scale factor bin, we have $H = \sqrt{{\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}(a^{-3 (1+w_0)}-1)+H_0^2}$ (with $H$ and $H_0$ in units of $100\,\mathrm{km/s/Mpc}$). Hence for a one-parameter family of ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}$ and $w_0$ the combination $(aH)^{-1}$ is approximately constant. As this is the largest contributor to $d^{{\ensuremath{*}}}_A$ we expect $w_0$ and $\omega^{(0)}_{g}$ to be anticorrelated, as is indeed observed in Fig.\[Contours\_late\] (lower left panel). The inclusion of BAO or HST data significantly improves and shifts the constraints on $\eta(a)$ and is in turn reflected in the $\omega_g$ and $w$ constraints.
For the [*var-w*]{} model, PPS alone allows for very low $H_0$, as low as $45\,$km/s/Mpc, corresponding to our hard prior on $H_0$, see the blue contours in the top left and bottom right panels of Fig.\[Contours\_late\]. Adding BAO (red dotted lines) or HST (black dashed lines) shrinks the posteriors and also moves the mean of $H_0$ back towards the range consistent with the [*const-w*]{} model [@ThomasKoppSkordis2016]. BAO (and also HST) data leads to a degeneracy between $H_0$ and $w_0$ and between $H_0$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}$, as in the [*const-w*]{} model. However, as the present day values of $H$ and $\omega_g$ are no longer anchored to their early Universe values, the degeneracy axis is rotated and the contours are not as flattened.
In the middle panels of Fig.\[Contours\_late\] we display the 2D marginalized posteriors of the $H_0$-$\Omega_\Lambda$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}$-$\Omega_\Lambda$ planes. As $\omega_b$ is well constrained, $w$DM and $\Lambda$ are the only relevant species in the late (flat) Universe and are expected to have their abundances anticorrelated. Indeed, the parameter ${\ensuremath{\omega^{(0)}_g}}$ is anticorrelated with $\Omega^{(0)}_\Lambda$ for all data sets. The combination of CDM and $\Lambda$ may be modeled by $w$DM; in that model, however, $w$ changes steeply only within the $w_0$ bin so that this behavior is unaffected. When BAO or HST data are included the slope and size of the contours change strongly as the late Universe behavior dissociates from the early Universe in the [*var-w*]{} model. The negative values of $\Omega^{(0)}_\Lambda$ are correlated with the low values of $H_0$, and, while allowed by PPS, they disappear when $H_0$ is better constrained after including BAO or HST data.
[| l | c | c | c |]{} & PPS & PPS+BAO & PPS+HST\
& $2.221^{+0.041}_{-0.040} $ & $2.217^{+0.040}_{-0.038} $ & $2.218^{+0.039}_{-0.038} $\
& $0.16^{+0.12}_{-0.10} $ & $0.160^{+0.069}_{-0.065} $ & $0.124^{+0.081}_{-0.067} $\
& $< 65.9 $ & $66.6^{+3.7}_{-4.0} $ & $72.3^{+4.5}_{-4.6} $\
& $0.974^{+0.021}_{-0.020} $ & $0.974^{+0.020}_{-0.020} $ & $0.977^{+0.020}_{-0.020} $\
& $0.072^{+0.039}_{-0.035} $ & $0.076^{+0.040}_{-0.034} $ & $0.076^{+0.037}_{-0.034} $\
& $3.085^{+0.076}_{-0.069} $ & $3.096^{+0.078}_{-0.067} $ & $3.096^{+0.073}_{-0.067} $\
& $-0.03^{+0.17}_{-0.14} $ & $-0.056^{+0.091}_{-0.083} $ & $-0.01^{+0.12}_{-0.13} $\
& $0.01^{+0.13}_{-0.13} $ & $0.02^{+0.12}_{-0.13} $ & $0.02^{+0.12}_{-0.12} $\
& $0.02^{+0.12}_{-0.11} $ & $0.05^{+0.10}_{-0.10} $ & $0.05^{+0.11}_{-0.10} $\
& $-0.044^{+0.075}_{-0.072} $ & $-0.036^{+0.072}_{-0.068} $ & $-0.041^{+0.075}_{-0.067} $\
& $0.002^{+0.038}_{-0.039} $ & $0.005^{+0.036}_{-0.038} $ & $0.005^{+0.038}_{-0.038} $\
& $-0.006^{+0.011}_{-0.010} $ & $-0.006^{+0.010}_{-0.010} $ & $-0.005^{+0.011}_{-0.010} $\
& $0.0078^{+0.0079}_{-0.0081}$ & $0.0084^{+0.0078}_{-0.0079}$ & $0.0085^{+0.0080}_{-0.0080}$\
& $0.021^{+0.031}_{-0.032} $ & $0.022^{+0.030}_{-0.031} $ & $0.025^{+0.029}_{-0.030} $\
& $0.34^{+0.45}_{-0.58} $ & $0.58^{+0.18}_{-0.21} $ & $0.72^{+0.14}_{-0.16} $\
& $0.71^{+0.45}_{-0.36} $ & $0.72^{+0.27}_{-0.23} $ & $0.91^{+0.43}_{-0.39} $\
#### Implications
In the $w$DM model the DM abundance $\omega_g$ may deviate from its expected (constant) CDM value throughout cosmic history, causing only minimal changes to the clustering properties of DM. Hence, the constraints on $w$ and $\omega_g$ are conservative. One could also conservatively allow for general $c_s^2(a,k)$ and $c_{\rm vis}^2(a,k)$ and marginalize over them. However, as $w$ is almost uncorrelated with $c_s^2$ and $c_{\rm vis}^2$, we expect such procedure to give constraints similar to those here. In the cases of warm DM and EFTofLSS the parameters $w$, $c_s^2$ and $c_{\rm vis}^2$ are interrelated so that the $w$ constraints will be driven by $c_s^2$ and $c_{\rm vis}^2$, and hence, tightened further [@Armendariz-PiconNeelakanta2014; @KunzNesserisSawicki2016]. Adding spatial curvature and/or neutrino mass would likely widen the $\omega_g$ constraints on the squeeze at $a\sim\{0.08-0.4\}$ [@FerreiraSkordisZunckel2008] and in the latter case on the tightly constrained region around $a_{\rm eq}$ as well. When applying our constraints to generic theories of Dark Matter, including those coming from modifications of gravity, one must keep in mind our underlying assumption of adiabaticity. As models of modified gravity will typically have additional fields leading to more types of isocurvature modes, we expect our constraints to be less applicable in those cases. However, within our adiabatic assumption we expect our constraints to be valid for any theory of Dark Matter or modified gravity. The cosmological background in any such theory will have to evolve as in $\Lambda$CDM (see for example [@BanadosFerreiraSkordis2009]), around matter radiation equality and before decoupling. Typical examples include DM-DE coupled models [@Amendola2000; @PourtsidouSkordisCopeland2013; @D'AmicoHamillKaloper2016]. Explicit realizations where a CDM-like background decays into DE are given by the quasidilaton models of massive gravity [@GannoujiHossainSamiEtal2013; @AnselmiLopezNacirStarkman2015] and by axion models [@KobayashiFerreira2018].
#### Conclusion
We have constrained the EoS $w$ and abundance $\omega_g$ of Dark Matter, in 8 temporal bins covering 5 decades in cosmic scale factor, using the CMB data from the Planck satellite, and separately including BAO and HST data. We found that $w$ is consistent with zero and the DM abundance is strictly positive at all cosmological epochs considered here, see Fig.\[varwovertime\_THREE\] and Fig.\[rhoovertime\], and thus the concordance [$\Lambda$CDM ]{}model remains unchallenged. This is the first time that the level of DM “coldness” across cosmic time has been explicitly constrained.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 617656 “Theories and Models of the Dark Sector: Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravity”. The Primary Investigator is C. Skordis.
[^1]: Note that we use $w$ to indicate the EOS of DM and not the EOS of Dark Energy which we assume to be -1 as in $\Lambda$CDM.
[^2]: For full details, see the Planck papers and wiki http://wiki.cosmos.esa.int/planckpla2015/index.php/.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $B_n$ be the group of upper-triangular invertible $n\times
n$ matrices and ${\mathcal{X}}_n$ be the variety of strictly upper triangular $n\times n$ matrices of nilpotent order 2. $B_n$ acts on ${\mathcal{X}}_n$ by conjugation. In this paper we describe geometry of orbits ${\mathcal{X}}_n/B_n$ in terms of link patterns.
Further we apply this description to the computations of the closures of orbital varieties of nilpotent order 2 and intersections of components of a Springer fiber of nilpotent order 2. In particular we connect our results to the combinatorics of meanders and Temperley-Lieb algebras.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel'
author:
- Anna Melnikov
title: 'B-orbits of nilpotent order 2 and link patterns'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
{#1.1}
Let ${\mathbf{M}}={\mathbf{M}}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ be an algebra of $n\times n$ matrices over complex numbers. Let ${\mathbf{G}}=GL_n({\mathbb{C}})$ be a general linear group. Consider its action on ${\mathbf{M}}$ by conjugation. For $u\in{\mathbf{M}}$ let ${\mathcal{O}}_u:={\mathbf{G}}.u:=\{AuA^{-1}\ |\ A\in {\mathbf{G}}\}$ denote its orbit.
Let ${\mathfrak{N}}=\{u\in {\mathbf{M}}\ |\ u^k=0\ {\rm for\ some\ } k\}$ be the nilpotent cone of ${\mathbf{M}}.$ Classical Jordan-Gerstenhaber theory gives a complete combinatorial description of geometry of the variety of (nilpotent) orbits ${\mathcal{O}}_u$ where $u\in {\mathfrak{N}}$ in terms of Young diagrams.
Let ${\mathfrak{n}}={\mathfrak{n}}_n{\subset}{\mathbf{M}}$ be a subalgebra of strictly upper-triangular matrices. Let ${\mathbf{B}}{\subset}{\mathbf{G}}$ be a (Borel) subgroup of upper-triangular invertible matrices. Consider its action on ${\mathfrak{n}}$ by conjugation. For $u\in{\mathfrak{n}}$ let ${\mathcal{B}}_u:={\mathbf{B}}.u=\{AuA^{-1}\
|\ A\in{\mathbf{B}}\}$ denote its orbit under action of ${\mathbf{B}}.$ In general for $n\geq 6$ the number of such orbits is infinite and there is no combinatorial theory in the spirit of Jordan-Gerstenhaber theory describing the geometry of these orbits.
However, if we take a subvariety of matrices of nilpotent order 2, that is ${\mathcal{X}}:={\mathcal{X}}_n:=\{u\in{\mathfrak{n}}\ |\ u^2=0\}$ then the number of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ is equal to the number of involutions of the symmetric group ${\mathbf{S}}_n.$ We show in the paper that the complete combinatorial description of geometry of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ can be obtained in terms of link patterns in the spirit of Jordan-Gerstenhaber theory.
Further we give two important application of the technique of link patterns, one in the theory of orbital varieties and another one in the computations of intersections of the components of a Springer fiber.
{#1.2}
Let us first recall in short Jordan-Gerstenhaber theory.
Let $\lambda=(\lambda_1\geq\lambda_2\geq\cdots\geq
\lambda_k>0)\vdash n$ be a partition of $n$ (ordered in decreasing order). Set $\lambda^*:=\{\lambda^*_1\geq \lambda^*_2\geq \cdots\geq
\lambda^*_l>0\}$ to be the conjugate partition, that is $\lambda^*_i= \sharp\{j\ |\ \lambda_j\geq i\}.$
The unique eigenvalue of a nilpotent matrix is 0, so that Jordan form of $u\in {\mathfrak{N}}$ is defined completely by the lengths of its Jordan blocks, which is defined in turn by some partition of $n$. Since each nilpotent orbit has a unique Jordan form up to the order of Jordan blocks we have a bijection between nilpotent orbits and ordered partitions. We can write $J(u):=\lambda$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda:={\mathcal{O}}_u$ where $\lambda$ is the corresponding partition.
Let ${\overline}V$ denote the closure of variety $V$ with respect to Zariski topology. The geometry of ${\overline}{\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ is described combinatorially in terms of partitions. We begin with the formula of the dimension of an orbit: $$\dim {\mathcal{O}}_\lambda=n^2-\sum\limits_{i=1}^l(\lambda_i^*)^2.\eqno{(*)}$$
Our next goal is a combinatorial description of the closure of an orbit.
A partial order on partitions (called a dominance order) is defined as follows. Let $\lambda,\mu\vdash n$ be ordered in decreasing order $\lambda=(\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2\geq \ldots
\lambda_k>0)$ and $\mu=(\mu_1\geq \mu_2\geq\ldots\mu_l>0)$. Set $\lambda\geq \mu$ if for any $j\ :\ 1\leq j\leq \min(k,l)$ one has $\sum\limits_{i=1}^j\lambda_i\geq \sum\limits_{i=1}^j\mu_i.$
Let $\coprod$ denote a disjoint union. By a theorem of M. Gerstehaber (cf. [@He] for example) $$\overline{\mathcal{O}}_\lambda=\coprod\limits_{\mu\leq \lambda}{\mathcal{O}}_\mu.$$
Given a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1\geq \ldots\geq \lambda_k>0)$ we define the corresponding Young diagram $D_\lambda$ of $\lambda$ to be an array of $k$ rows of cells starting on the left with the $i$-th row containing $\lambda_i$ cells.
Young diagrams are a very convenient visualization of the partitions with respect to nilpotent orbits. Indeed, the dual partition used in $(*)$ is simply the list of lengths of the columns of the corresponding Young diagrams. Also, $\mu<\lambda$ if $D_\mu$ is obtained from $D_\lambda$ by pushing down some cells. In particular, the cover of a given partition (that is all the maximal partitions strictly smaller than the given one) with respect to the dominance order is described easily in the terms of Young diagrams.
Indeed, let $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots)$ be in the cover of $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots).$ Then $\mu$ is obtained from $\lambda$ in one of two ways:
- There exists $i$ such that $\lambda_i-\lambda_{i+1}\geq 2$. Then $\mu_j = \lambda_j$ for $j\neq i, \ i+1$ and $$\mu_i = \lambda_i-1, \ \ \mu_{i+1} = \lambda_{i+1}+1 \ .$$ In this case $\dim{\mathcal{O}}_\mu=\dim{\mathcal{O}}_\lambda-2.$
- There exists $i$ such that $ \lambda_{i+1}=\lambda_{i+2}=\cdots=\lambda_{i+k}= \lambda_i-1$ for some $k\geq 1$ and $\lambda_{i+k+1} = \lambda_i-2.$ Then $\mu_j = \lambda_j$ for $j\neq i, \ i+k+1$ and $$\mu_i = \lambda_i-1, \ \ \mu_{i+k+1} = \lambda_i-1 \ .$$ In this case $\dim{\mathcal{O}}_\mu=\dim{\mathcal{O}}_\lambda-2(k+1).$
In particular the cover of a nilpotent orbit is not equidimensional in general.
The above result can be described by Young diagrams as follows.
In the first case $D_\mu$ is obtained from $D_\lambda$ by pushing one box down one row (and possible across several columns). For example, $$D_\lambda =
\vcenter{ \halign{& \hfill#\hfill \tabskip4pt\cr
\multispan{11}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{11}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ \ &{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}&X&{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{11}{\hrulefill}\cr {\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{3}{\hrulefill}\cr {\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{3}{\hrulefill}\cr}}\ , \qquad
D_\mu =
\vcenter{ \halign{& \hfill#\hfill \tabskip4pt\cr
\multispan{11}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{11}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{9}{\hrulefill}\cr {\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}&X&{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{5}{\hrulefill}\cr {\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{3}{\hrulefill}\cr}}\ .$$
In the second case diagram $D_\mu$ is obtained from $D_\lambda$ by pushing one box across one column (and possible down several rows). For example, $$D_\lambda =
\vcenter{ \halign{& \hfill#\hfill \tabskip4pt\cr
\multispan{9}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}&\quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}&X &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{9}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{5}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{3}{\hrulefill}\cr}}\ , \qquad
D_\mu =
\vcenter{ \halign{& \hfill#\hfill \tabskip4pt\cr
\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \quad & {\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr
{\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ & {\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}&X& {\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{7}{\hrulefill}\cr {\noalign{\vskip -1pt}}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}& \ &{\tabskip 4pt}{\vrule height 14pt depth 7pt}\cr {\noalign{\vskip-7pt}}\multispan{3}{\hrulefill}\cr}}\ .$$
{#1.3}
In the paper we show that link patterns play the same role for the combinatorial description of geometry of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ as Young diagrams for the description of geometry of nilpotent orbits. First we describe the bijection between ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ and link patterns.
Let ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2:=\{\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n\ |\ \sigma^2=Id\}$ be the subset of involutions of the symmetric group ${\mathbf{S}}_n$. For any $\sigma\in
{\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ let $N_\sigma$ be the matrix obtained from the representation matrix of $\sigma$ by erasing the lower-triangular part (including the main diagonal), that is $$(N_\sigma)_{i,j}:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 1&{\rm if}\ i<j\
{\rm and}\
\sigma(i)=j;\\
0&{\rm otherwise.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ One can see at once that $N_\sigma\in{\mathcal{X}}$ for any $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2.$ Moreover by [@Mx2 2.2] one has $${\mathcal{X}}=\coprod\limits_{\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2}{\mathcal{B}}_{N_{\sigma}}.$$ Thus, ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ are labelled by involutions of ${\mathbf{S}}_n.$ Put ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma:={\mathcal{B}}_{N_\sigma}.$
Given $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ the corresponding link pattern $P_\sigma$ is an array of $n$ points on a (horizontal) line where points $i\ne j$ are connected by an arc if $\sigma(i)=j.$ We will call such points end points of an arc. A point $i$ satisfying $\sigma(i)=i$ is called a fixed point of $P_\sigma$. For example, for $\sigma=(1,3)(2,6)(4,7)\in {\mathbf{S}}_7^2$ one has
(100,80) (-20,40)[$P_\sigma=$]{} (10,40)(20,0)[7]{} (10,25)[1]{} (30,25)[2]{} (50,25)[3]{} (70,25)[4]{} (90,25)[5]{} (110,25)[6]{} (130,25)[7]{} (10,40)(30,70)(50,40) (30,40)(70,100)(110,40) (70,40)(100,80)(130,40)
The only fixed point of $P_\sigma$ is $5.$
I found the notion of link pattern in the papers in combinatorics and mathematical physics [@Z], [@Kn], [@Z-J]. In general link patterns considered there are patterns with maximal possible number of arcs and a link pattern is a circle with n points rather than a line. Respectively the authors use a word “arch” not “arc”. I adopted the notion of a link pattern from them, however it seems to me that the word “arc” is more appropriate in the representation given here.
{#1.4}
Let us explain the role of link patterns in the description of geometry of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$.
Let ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ be an orbit in ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $P_\sigma$ be the corresponding link pattern. We begin with formula of $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ in terms of a link pattern. Given $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ (in cyclic form).
- Put $\ell(P_\sigma):=k$ to be the number of arcs in $P_\sigma$ (we will call it the length of a pattern);
- Arcs $(i,j),(i',j')$ where $i<i'$ of $P_\sigma$ are called intersecting if $i<i'<j$ and $j'>j.$ We say that arcs $(i,j), (i',j')$ have a crossing in this case. Put $c(P_\sigma)$ to be the number of crossings of arcs in $P_\sigma;$
- Let $\{p_s\}_{s=1}^{n-2k}$ be the set of fixed points of $P_\sigma$. For $s:\ 1\leq s\leq n-2k$ put $f_{p_s}(P_\sigma)$ to be the number of arcs $(i_t,j_t)$ over $p_s$ (that is such that $i_t<p_s<j_t$) and $f(P_\sigma):=\sum_{s=1}^{n-2k}
f_{p_s}(P_\sigma).$
In the example above $\ell(P_\sigma)=3$, $c(P_{\sigma})=2$, and $f(P_\sigma)=f_{5}(P_\sigma)=2.$
As we show in \[3.1\] one has $$\dim
{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=\ell(P_\sigma)\cdot(n-\ell(P_\sigma))-c(P_\sigma)-f(P_\sigma).$$ Thus, in our example $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=3\cdot 4-2-2=8.$
Note that ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ can be stratified by the length of link patterns. Put ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k):=\{\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2\ |\
\ell(P_\sigma)=k\}.$ One has ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2=\coprod\limits_{k\leq{n\over
2}}{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k).$
Note that this stratification partitions ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ into sets belonging to the same nilpotent orbit. Indeed, put ${\mathcal{O}}_\sigma:={\mathcal{O}}_{N_\sigma},$ then ${\mathcal{O}}_\sigma={\mathcal{O}}_{\sigma'}$ iff $\ell(P_\sigma)=\ell(P_{\sigma'}).$ This is because a nilpotent orbit of nilpotent order 2 is completely defined by the rank of its representing matrix and ${{\rm Rank\,}}(N_\sigma)=\ell(P_\sigma).$
{#1.5}
Further we describe ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ in terms of $P_\sigma$.
For $i,j\ :\ 1\leq i\leq j\leq
n$ let $[i,j]:=\{s\}_{s=i}^{j}$ be the set of integer points of a segment $[i,j]$. For an arc $(i_s,j_s)\in P_\sigma$ we put $(i_s,j_s)\in [i,j]$ if $i\leq i_s,j_s\leq j.$ For $i,j\ :\ 1\leq i<j\leq n$ let $(R_\sigma)_{i,j}$ be the number of arcs in $P_\sigma$ belonging to $[i,j]$. Just for convenience we can represent $R_\sigma$ as an $n\times n$ matrix with integer non negative entries by setting $(R_\sigma)_{i,j}=0$ for any $i\geq j.$ In our example
$$R_{\sigma}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
0&0&1&1&1&2&3\\
0&0&0&0&0&1&2\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
\end{array}\right)$$
Define a partial order on ${\mathbf{M}}_n({\mathbb R})$ by $A\succeq B$ if for any $i,j\ :\ 1\leq i,j\leq n$ one has $(A)_{i,j}\geq (B)_{i,j}.$ This order induces a partial order on involutions by putting $\sigma\succeq \sigma'$ if $R_\sigma \succeq R_{\sigma'}.$ Then, by \[2.4\] and \[3.2\] one has $$\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=\coprod\limits_{\sigma'\preceq\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}.$$
{#1.6}
Let us apply the previous result to the cover of a given $\sigma$ with respect to order $\preceq$. We describe the cover in terms of link patterns only.
First, notice that nilpotent orbits of nilpotent order 2 are ordered linearly with respect to a dominance order. Indeed, given $\lambda, \mu$ corresponding to nilpotent orbits of nilpotent order 2 then $\lambda^*=(n-k,k)$ and $\mu^*=(n-m,m)$. One has $\mu\leq\lambda$ iff $m\leq k$ otherwise $\mu>\lambda.$ Thus, for any nilpotent orbits ${\mathcal{O}},{\mathcal{O}}'$ of nilpotent order 2 one has either ${\overline}{\mathcal{O}}'\subset {\overline}{\mathcal{O}}$ or ${\overline}{\mathcal{O}}'\supset{\overline}{\mathcal{O}}.$ In particular the cover of partition $(n-k,k)^*$ consists of the unique partition $(n-k+1,k-1)^*$ ( it is of type (ii) described in \[1.2\]).
Let ${\mathcal{C}}(\sigma)$ denote the cover for a given $\sigma\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ with respect to order $\preceq.$ In \[3.9\] we show that $\sigma'\in {\mathcal{C}}(\sigma)$ iff ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1$ so that the cover with respect to order $\preceq$ is equidimensional.
However, from geometric point of view there are two interesting subsets of elements smaller than $\sigma.$ The first one is ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ – the subset of maximal elements smaller than $\sigma$ in the set of patterns of smaller length. The second one is ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma):={\mathcal{C}}(\sigma)\cap{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(\ell(P_\sigma)).$
Let $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k).$ Geometric meaning of ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ is provided by $${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\bigcap({\overline}{\mathcal{O}}_\sigma\setminus
{\mathcal{O}}_\sigma)={\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\bigcap{\overline}{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k+1,k-1)^*}=
\bigcup\limits_{\sigma'\in {\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}.$$
As for ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ it helps to understand the structure of ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ inside of ${\mathcal{O}}_{\sigma}$. In particular for $\sigma,\sigma'\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ such that $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=\dim {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$ one has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}({\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'})=1$ if and only if ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)\cap {\mathcal{D}}(\sigma')\ne\emptyset.$
We give the combinatorial description in terms of link patterns of both ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ and ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$. The description of ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ in terms of link patterns is very simple. We call an arc of $P_\sigma$ [**external**]{} if there is no arc over it, that is $(i,j)\in P_\sigma$ is external if for any arc $(i',j')\ne(i,j)$ in $P_\sigma$ one has $(i,j)\not\in[i',j'].$
All the elements of ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ are obtained from $\sigma$ by deleting an external arc. So the number of elements in ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ is equal to the number of external arcs in $\sigma$ and all the elements in ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ are in ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2(\ell(P_\sigma)-1).$
Note that in general
- the set $\{ {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\ |\ \sigma'\in
N(\sigma)\}$ is not equidimensional;
- ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ is [**not**]{} a subset of $C(\sigma).$
${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ consists of 3 possible types of elements. We describe them in \[3.4\]-\[3.6\].
{#1.6a}
All the results mentioned above are based on [@Mo2] and we use heavily the results of this paper in our proofs. The advantage of the representation of involutions by link patterns is that the complex combinatorics of [@Mo2] becomes easy and natural in this language.
The fact that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1$ for any $\sigma'\in {\mathcal{C}}(\sigma)$ was shown already in [@M-PII]. However, the proof provided there involves a lot of computations and here using the technique of link patterns we prove it in a few lines.
{#1.7}
Let us use the technique of link patterns to study orbital varieties of nilpotent order 2 and components of Springer fibers of nilpotent order 2. To do this we consider link patterns without intersecting arcs and without fixed points under the arcs. They are the most simple link patterns from the combinatorial point of view on one hand and the most important objects for the applications to representation theory on the other hand.
By \[1.4\] $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=(n-k)k$ (that is ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ is of maximal possible dimension) iff $P_\sigma$ is such link pattern. Note that by \[1.2\] $\dim
{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}=n^2-k^2-(n-k)^2=2k(n-k).$ Since in general $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_u\leq 0.5\dim{\mathcal{O}}_u$ for $u\in{\mathfrak{n}}$ we get that ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ corresponding to link patterns without intersecting arcs and without fixed points under the arcs are ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of maximal possible dimension. Moreover, their closures in ${\mathcal{O}}_\sigma$ are Lagrangian subvarieties of ${\mathcal{O}}_\sigma$, called orbital varieties.
Let us give a brief general description of an orbital variety (cf. \[2.2\] for the details). Let ${\mathcal{O}}$ be a nilpotent orbit in a semisimple Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let us fix some triangular decomposition ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{n}}\oplus{\mathfrak{h}}\oplus {\mathfrak{n}}^-$. The irreducible components of ${\mathcal{O}}\cap{\mathfrak{n}}$ are called orbital varieties associated to ${\mathcal{O}}.$ Note that ${\mathcal{O}}$ is a symplectic manifold and as it was shown by N. Spaltenstein, R. Steinberg and A. Joseph an orbital variety is a Lagrangian subvariety of ${\mathcal{O}}.$ According to orbit method Lagrangian subvarieties should play an important role in the representation theory.
Let us explain the role of orbital varieties in ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}}_n$ considered in the paper. In this case orbital varieties associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ are parameterized by standard Young tableaux corresponding to Young diagram $D_\lambda.$ Let ${\mathbf{Tab}}_\lambda$ be the set of standard Young tableaux corresponding to $D_\lambda.$ For $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_\lambda$ we denote by ${\mathcal{V}}_T$ the corresponding orbital variety associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda.$
By a result of A. Joseph primitive ideals of the enveloping algebra $U({\mathfrak{g}})$ corresponding to a highest weight module with an integral weight are in bijection with standard Young tableaux. Let $I_T$ be the primitive ideal corresponding to $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_\lambda.$ As it is shown in [@M] an orbital variety closure $\overline {\mathcal{V}}_T$ is the associated variety of $I_T.$ As those they play a key role in the theory of primitive ideals. The details on the theory above can be found in [@J].
Let $S,T$ be Young tableaux with two columns. By [@Mrang2] $I_T\subset I_S$ if and only if ${\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_T\supset {\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_S.$ Further in [@Mo2] it was shown that for $T\in {\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ one has that the closure of ${\mathcal{V}}_T$ is a union of orbital varieties and the combinatorial description of this closure in terms of Young tableaux was obtained. However the combinatorial description in [@Mo2 4.3] is too complex to be satisfactory. On the other hand, as it was noted already in [@Msmith] each orbital variety ${\mathcal{V}}_T$ of nilpotent order two admits the unique ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbit. Let us denote the corresponding involution by $\sigma_T$. In \[4.2\] we simplify this description using link patterns and get a simple answer in terms of ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma_T)$.
{#1.8}
As it was shown in [@M-P] the bijection between orbital varieties associated to a nilpotent orbit ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ and components of Springer fiber ${\mathcal{F}}_x$ where $x\in
{\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ is extended to the intersections: Let $S,T\in
{\mathbf{Tab}}_\lambda$ and let ${\mathcal{V}}_T,{\mathcal{V}}_S$ be orbital varieties associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_T,{\mathcal{F}}_S$ be the corresponding components of ${\mathcal{F}}_x$. The number of irreducible components of ${\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S$ and their codimensions are equal to the number of irreducible components of ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S$ and their codimensions. Via this bijection orbital varieties play a key role in Springer theory.
This bijection together with the theory of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of nilpotent order 2 gave the opportunity to compute for the first time the intersections of the components of Springer fiber when these components are singular. These intersections were considered in [@M-PI], [@M-PII]. Here we use link patterns to simplify and extend these results. We start with a general theory of intersections of the closures of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of nilpotent order 2 belonging to ${\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}.$ Let $\sigma,\sigma'\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$. The general picture of ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ was considered in [@M-PI], [@M-PII]. As it is shown there these intersections can be very complex. In particular,there are examples in these papers of a reducible intersection of codimension 1 and of a reducible intersection of higher codimension which is not equidimensional ( in \[4.3\] we give an example of an intersection of codimension 1 which is not equidimensional). To compute ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ we use matrix $R_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ defined by $$(R_{\sigma,\sigma'})_{i,j}:=\min\{(R_{\sigma})_{i,j},\ (R_{\sigma'})_{i,j}\}$$ As it was shown in [@M-PI 5.6, 5.7] this intersection is non empty and it is a union of all ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}$ where $\sigma^{\prime\prime}\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ are such that $R_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\preceq R_{\sigma,\sigma'}$. In particular this intersection is irreducible iff there exists $\sigma^{\prime\prime}\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ such that $R_{\sigma,\sigma'}=R_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}.$
To simplify the results on intersections we pass from link patterns to so called (generalized) meanders. To do this we draw two link patterns on the same line of points in such a way that the arcs of the first link pattern are drown upward and the arcs of the second one are drown downward.
For example, consider $\sigma=(1,3)(2,5)(4,7),\ \sigma'=(1,4)(3,5)(6,7)\in {\mathbf{S}}_7^2.$ Their generalized meander $M_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ is
(100,80) (10,40)(20,0)[7]{} (6,30)[1]{} (26,30)[2]{} (46,30)[3]{} (70,30)[4]{} (92,30)[5]{} (106,30)[6]{} (134,30)[7]{} (10,40)(30,80)(50,40) (30,40)(60,90)(90,40) (70,40)(100,90)(130,40)
(10,40)(40,-10)(70,40) (50,40)(70,0)(90,40) (110,40)(120,20)(130,40)
These generalized meanders are useful for computing $R_{\sigma,\sigma'}.$
Taking a meander built of 2 link patterns corresponding to maximal ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ we get a classical meander (that is without crossing arcs) without fixed points under any (upward or downward) arc. As it is shown in [@M-PII] for $S,T\in {\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*} $ if ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{V}}_T}({\mathcal{V}}_S\cap{\mathcal{V}}_T)=1$ then ${\mathcal{V}}_S\cap{\mathcal{V}}_T$ is irreducible. The combinatorial description of pairs $S,T$ with intersection of codimension 1 is provided there.
However, the consideration of these intersections in terms of meanders first of all simplifies the description and the proofs and further connects our results to Temperley-Lieb representations of Hecke algebras and Kazhdan-Lusztig data.
Let us formulate the result. A meander $M_{\sigma_T,\sigma_S}$ is called even if any its connected part consists of even number of arcs. Otherwise $M_{\sigma_T,\sigma_S}$ is called odd. The connected part consisting of even number of arcs may be either a closed path (we call it a loop) or an open path (we call it an even interval). As we show in \[4.5\] for $S,T\in
{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*} $ one has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{V}}_T}({\mathcal{V}}_S\cap{\mathcal{V}}_T)=1$ if and only is $M_{\sigma_S,\sigma_T}$ is an even meander with $k-1$ loops. The irreducibility of such intersections is obvious from the combinatorics of the meanders.
B.W. Westbury in [@W] computed the inner product matrix for the Kazhdan-Lusztig basis for a two row shape tableaux in terms of Temperley-Lieb cup diagrams. Note that for $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ the corresponding cup diagram defined in [@W] is exactly $P_{\sigma_{T^t}}$ where $T^t\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ is a transposed tableau. Given $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ let $c_T,c_S$ be the corresponding Kazhdan-Lusztig basis vectors from [@W]. As it is shown in [@W 7] their inner product $< c_S,c_T>$ is always either 0 or $(t+t^{-1})^r$ where $0\leq r\leq k-1.$ Moreover, restating his results in the language of meanders we get $< c_S,c_T>=(t+t^{-1})^{r}$ if and only if the corresponding meander $M_{\sigma_S,\sigma_T}$ is an even meander with $r$ loops.
F.Y.C. Fung in [@F] computed the intersections of the components of a Springer fiber corresponding to a nilpotent element with two Jordan blocks, that is ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap {\mathcal{F}}_S$ where $T,S\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ . In this case ${\mathcal{F}}_T$ is nonsingular and as he showed all the intersections are either irreducible or empty. Using the technique similar to those used in [@W] he showed that ${\mathcal{F}}_S\cap{\mathcal{F}}_T=\emptyset$ if and only if $< c_T,c_S>=0$ and if $< c_T,c_S>\ne 0$ then ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap {\mathcal{F}}_S)=k- \deg< c_T,c_S>.$
Consider $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}.$ Combining the above we get that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap {\mathcal{F}}_S)=1$ if and only if ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}}({\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap {\mathcal{F}}_{S^t})=1$ and this happens iff $<c_S,c_T>=(t+t^{-1})^{k-1}.$
However the pictures of the intersections of higher codimension in two-row and two-column cases are very different. Note that for $\sigma,\sigma'\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ one has ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}\ne\emptyset$, thus, in particular for an odd meander $M_{\sigma_S,\sigma_T}$ one has $<c_{S^t},c_{T^t}>=0$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S\ne\emptyset.$ On the other hand, for even meanders with less than $k-1$ loops it can occur that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap {\mathcal{F}}_S)> {{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}}({\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap {\mathcal{F}}_{S^t})$ as we show by example in \[4.7\]. The general theory of intersections of higher codimension is too complex from combinatorial point of view and not that interesting from geometric point of view so we do not discuss it here.
Also, the intersections of higher codimension are almost always reducible. Again, the general theory is too involved combinatorially to explain it here so we only provide in \[4.8\] a very simple combinatorial sufficient condition for the reducibility of an intersection which shows that in general the intersections of higher codimension are reducible.
0.2 cm In the end of the paper one can find the index of notation in which symbols appearing frequently are given with the subsection where they are defined. I hope that this will help the reader to find his way through the paper.
0.2 cm [**Acknowledgements.**]{} I am very grateful to A. Elashvili for the discussions on biparabolic algebras and the role of meanders in their description. He was first to introduce the world of meanders to me. Through these discussions I realized the role that they (and link patterns) play in the description of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of nilpotent order 2 and intersections of the components of a Springer fiber of nilpotent order 2. I am also very grateful to A. Joseph for many fruitful discussions during various stages of this work.
${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits in ${\mathcal{X}}$ and involutions
========================================================
{#2.1}
Put ${\mathfrak{B}}_{(n-k,k)}=\coprod\limits_{\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$ As we noted in \[1.4\] ${\mathfrak{B}}_{n-k,k}={\mathcal{X}}\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ so that ${\mathcal{X}}=\coprod\limits_{k\leq {n\over 2}}{\mathfrak{B}}_{(n-k,k)}.$
We start with the computation of the dimension of ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$ All over this paper we write a cycle in round brackets $(i,j)$ when the entries are ordered in the increasing order, i.e. $i<j$. We write it in double round brackets $((i,j))$ when the entries $i\ne j$ are not ordered. Write $\sigma\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ as a product of disjoint cycles of length 2, that is $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)(i_2,j_2)\ldots(i_k,j_k)$ where $i_s<j_s$ and $\{i_s,j_s\}\cap\{i_t,j_t\}=\emptyset$ for any $1\leq s\ne t\leq k.$ We write $(i,j)\in \sigma$ or $(i,j)\in
P_\sigma$ if $(i,j)=(i_s,j_s)$ for some $s\ :\ 1\leq s\leq t.$ For $(i,j)\in\sigma$ put
$$q_{(i,j)}(\sigma):=\#\{i_p<i\ | \ j_p<j\}+
\#\{j_p\ |\ j_p<i\}. \eqno{(*)}$$
Take $\sigma=(1,6)(3,4)(5,7)\in{\mathbf{S}}_7^2(3).$ Then $\ell(P_\sigma)=3$ and $q_{(1,6)}(\sigma)=0,\ q_{(3,4)}(\sigma)=0,\
q_{(5,7)}(\sigma)=2+1=3.$
By [@Mx2 3.1] one has
\[dim\] For $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)(i_2,j_2)\ldots(i_k,j_k)\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ one has $$\dim {\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=kn-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(j_s-i_s)-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k q_{(i_s,j_s)}(\sigma).$$
{#2.2}
What is the maximal dimension of an orbit in ${\mathfrak{B}}_{(n-k,k)}$? We would like to provide a detailed answer to this question. To do this we consider in detail orbital varieties defined briefly in \[1.7\].
Let ${\mathbf{G}}$ be a connected semisimple finite dimensional complex algebraic group and let ${\mathfrak{g}}={\rm Lie}({\mathbf{G}})$ be the corresponding semisimple Lie algebra. Let ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{n}}\oplus{\mathfrak{h}}\oplus{\mathfrak{n}}^-$ be its triangular decomposition. For $u\in{\mathfrak{n}}$ let ${\mathcal{O}}_u={\mathbf{G}}.u$ be its adjoint (nilpotent) orbit. Note that by the identification of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$ through the Killing form ${\mathcal{O}}_u$ is provided a symplectic structure.
Consider ${\mathcal{O}}_u\cap{\mathfrak{n}}.$ This variety is reducible and its irreducible components are called orbital varieties associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_u$. Let ${\mathcal{V}}$ be an orbital variety associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_u.$ By [@Sp2] and [@St1] one has $\dim {\mathcal{V}}={1\over
2}\dim{\mathcal{O}}_u.$ ( Moreover as it was pointed out in [@J] this implies that an orbital variety is a Lagrangian subvariety of the nilpotent orbit it is associated to.)
In particular, if ${\mathbf{G}}=SL_n$ nilpotent orbits are described by Young diagrams as we explained in \[1.2\]. In this case there exists a very nice combinatorial characterization of orbital varieties in terms of Young tableaux. Recall that a Young tableau $T$ associated to Young diagram $D_\lambda$ is obtained by filling the boxes of $D_\lambda$ with numbers $1,\ldots,n$ so that the numbers increase in rows from left to right and in columns from top to bottom. Given a Young tableau $T$ associated to $D_\lambda$ its shape is defined to be $\lambda$ and denoted by ${{\rm sh\,}}(T).$ Given $u\in {\mathfrak{n}}\cap {\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ its Young diagram is again defined to be $\lambda$ and denoted by $D_n(u)$, or simply $D(u).$ Now consider canonical projections $\pi_{1,n-i}:{\mathfrak{n}}_n{\rightarrow}{\mathfrak{n}}_{n-i}$ acting on a matrix by deleting the last $i$ columns and the last $i$ rows. Set $D_{n-1}(u):=D(\pi_{1,n-1}(u)),
D_{n-2}(u):=D(\pi_{1,n-2}(u)),\ldots, D_1(u):=D(\pi_{1,1}(u))$ and $\phi(u):=(D_1(u),D_2(u),\ldots,D_n(u)).$ Put $1$ into the unique box of $D_1(u).$ For any $i\ : 1\leq i\leq n-1$ note that $D_{i+1}(u)$ differs from $D_i(u)$ by a single “corner” box. Put $i+1$ into this box. This gives a bijection from the set of the chains $(D_1(u),D_2(u),\ldots,D_n(u))$ to the set of standard Young tableaux $T$ of shape $D_n(u).$ In other words, we view a standard Young tableau as a chain of Young diagrams. For $u\in{\mathfrak{n}}$ put $\varphi(u):=T$ if $T$ corresponds to $\phi(u)$ under this bijection. Set $\nu_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T}:=\{u\in {\mathfrak{n}}\ |\
\varphi(u)=T\}.$
By Spaltenstein [@Sp] orbital varieties associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda$ are parameterized by standard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ as follows. Let $\{T_i\}$ be the set of Young tableaux of shape $\lambda.$ Set ${\mathcal{V}}_{T_i}:={\overline}\nu_{{\scriptscriptstyle}T_i}\cap {\mathcal{O}}_\lambda.$ Then $\{{\mathcal{V}}_{T_i}\}$ is the set of orbital varieties associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_\lambda.$
Note that in particular by this construction $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_u\leq
{1\over 2} \dim{\mathcal{O}}_u.$ In general this inequality is strict. Moreover, obviously if $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_u={1\over 2} \dim{\mathcal{O}}_u$ then ${\mathcal{B}}_u$ is dense in the corresponding orbital variety. Unfortunately, for $n\geq 6$ the vast majority of orbital varieties do not admit a dense ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbit. However, orbital varieties of nilpotent order two always admit a unique dense orbit. That gives the answer to the question posed above.
To formulate this answer let us consider the corresponding Young tableaux in detail. Let ${\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ be the set of Young tableaux of shape $(n-k,k)^*.$ For $T\in {\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ set $T=(T_1,T_2),$ where $T_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\cr\vdots\cr
a_{n-k}\cr\end{array}\right)$ is the first column of $T$ and $T_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\cr\vdots\cr
j_k\cr\end{array}\right)$ is the second column of $T.$ It is enough to define the columns as sets since the entries increase from top to bottom in the columns. We denote a column by $\langle T_i\rangle$ when we consider it as a set.
Put $\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T}=(i_1,j_1)\ldots (i_k,j_k)$ where $i_1=j_1-1,$ and $i_s=\max\{d\in \langle
T_1\rangle\setminus\{i_1,\ldots,i_{s-1}\}\ |\ d<j_s\}$ for any $s>1.$ For example, take $$T=\begin{array}{ll}
1&4\\
2&5\\
3&7\\
6&8\\
\end{array}$$ Then $\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T}=(3,4)(2,5)(6,7)(1,8).$
Put ${\mathcal{B}}_T:={\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_T}.$ As it was shown in [@Msmith 4.13]
For $T\in {\mathbf{Tab}}_n^2$ one has $\overline{\mathcal{V}}_T=\overline{\mathcal{B}}_T.$
By [@M-PI Remark 5.5] for $\sigma\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ one has $\dim
{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\leq k(n-k)$ and the equality is satisfied iff $\sigma=\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ for some $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$. That is the number of ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\in{\mathfrak{B}}_{(n-k,k)}$ of dimension $k(n-k)$ is equal to the number of Young tableaux in ${\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ which is ${n!\over
k!(n-k)!}{n-2k+1\over n-k+1}.$
Let $\dim
{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma= k(n-k)$ where $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)$ then $\sigma=\sigma_T$ where $\langle T_2\rangle=\{j_1,\ldots, j_k\}$ and respectively $\langle T_1\rangle=\{i\}_{i=1}^n\setminus\langle
T_2\rangle.$
{#2.3}
In [@Mo2] the combinatorial description of $\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ (with respect to Zariski topology) for $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ is provided. Let us formulate this result.
For $1\leq i<j\leq n$ consider the canonical projections $\pi_{i,j}:{\mathfrak{n}}_n\rightarrow {\mathfrak{n}}_{j-i+1}$ acting on a matrix by deleting the first $i-1$ columns and rows and the last $n-j$ columns and rows. Define the rank matrix $R_u$ of $u\in{\mathfrak{n}}$ to be
$$(R_u)_{i,j}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\rm Rank}\,(\pi_{i,j}(u))&{\rm if}\ i< j;\\
0 &{\rm otherwise}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
Obviously for any $y\in{\mathcal{B}}_u$ one has $R_y=R_u$ so that we can define $R_{{\mathcal{B}}_u}:=R_u.$
Put $R_\sigma:=R_{{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}=R_{N_\sigma}.$ Note that ${\rm Rank}\, (\pi_{i,j}(N_\sigma))$ is simply the number of ones in matrix $\pi_{i,j}(N_\sigma)$ since all ones belong to different rows and columns.
Let ${\mathbb Z}^+$ be the set of non-negative integers. Put ${\mathbf R}^2_n:=\{R_\sigma\ |\ \sigma\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2\}.$ By [@Mo2 3.1, 3.3] one has
$R\in M_{n\times n}({\mathbb Z}^+)$ belongs to ${\mathbf R}^2_n$ if and only if it satisfies
- $R_{i,j}=0$ if $i\geq j;$
- For $i<j$ one has $R_{i+1,j}\leq R_{i,j}\leq R_{i+1,j}+1$ and $R_{i,j-1}\leq R_{i,j}\leq R_{i,j-1}+1;$
- If $R_{i,j}=R_{i+1,j}+1=R_{i,j-1}+1=R_{i+1,j-1}+1$ then
- $R_{i,k}=R_{i+1,k}$ for any $k<j$ and $R_{i,k}=R_{i+1,k}+1$ for any $k\geq j;$
- $R_{k,j}=R_{k,j-1}$ for any $k>i$ and $R_{k,j}=R_{k,j-1}+1$ for any $k\leq i;$
- $R_{j,k}=R_{j+1,k}$ and $R_{k,i}=R_{k,i-1}$ for any $k\ :\ 1\leq k\leq n.$
Note that we respectively can define $\pi_{i,j}:{\mathbf{Tab}}_n\rightarrow
{\mathbf{Tab}}_{j-i+1}$ by so called “jeu de taquin” (cf. [@Mo2], for example). Here we need only $\pi_{1,k}:{\mathbf{Tab}}_n\rightarrow{\mathbf{Tab}}_k$ where $\pi_{1,k}(T)$ is obtained by erasing boxes with $n,n-1,\ldots,k+1.$ As it is shown in [@Mo2] and one can easily see $\pi_{i,j}{\mathcal{B}}_T={\mathcal{B}}_{\pi_{i,j}(T)}.$
{#2.4}
Recall a partial order $\preceq$ on ${\mathbf{M}}_n({\mathbb R})$ defined in \[1.5\]. Its restriction to ${\mathbf R}_n^2$ defines a partial order $\preceq$ on ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ by putting $\sigma'\preceq \sigma$ if $R_{\sigma'}\preceq R_\sigma.$ As it is shown in [@Mo2 3.5]
For any $\sigma\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ one has $$\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=\coprod\limits_{\sigma{^{\prime}}\preceq\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma{^{\prime}}}.$$
{#2.4a}
Consider $\pi_{i,j}(\sigma)$ as an element of ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2$. Note that $(R_{\pi_{i,j}(\sigma)})_{s,t}=(R_\sigma)_{\max(i,s),\min(j,t)}$ which gives us a very easy lemma that we need in what follows.
For any $\sigma,\sigma'\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ such that $\sigma\preceq\sigma'$ and for any $i,j\ :\ 1\leq i<j\leq n$ one has
- $\pi_{i,j}(\sigma)\preceq\pi_{i,j}(\sigma')$
- $\pi_{i,j}(\sigma)\preceq\sigma$
{#2.5}
As it is shown in [@M-PI 5.6] there is a unique minimal element $\sigma_o(k)$ in ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ (that is $\sigma\succeq\sigma_o(k)$ for any $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$). In particular for any $S'\subseteq{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ one has $$\bigcap\limits_{\sigma\in S'}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma
\bigcap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}\ne\emptyset.\eqno{(*)}$$
To find ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$ for $\sigma,\sigma'\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ we use an intersection matrix $R_{\sigma,\sigma{^{\prime}}}$ for $\sigma,\sigma{^{\prime}}\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ defined in \[1.8\]. As it is shown in [@M-PI 5.7],
For any $\sigma,\sigma{^{\prime}}\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ one has $$\overline
{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma{^{\prime}}}=\coprod\limits_{R_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\preceq
R_{\sigma,\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}$$ In particular, $\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma{^{\prime}}}$ is irreducible if and only if $R_{\sigma,\sigma{^{\prime}}}\in {\mathbf R}_n^2.$ In that case $\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\cap\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\tau$ where $R_\tau=R_{\sigma,\sigma{^{\prime}}}.$
${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ in terms of link patterns
================================================
{#3.1}
In this section we translate all the results of the previous section into the language of link patterns. Recall $\ell(P_\sigma),\ c(P_\sigma), f(P_\sigma)$ from \[1.4\] and $[i,j]$ from \[1.5\]. We put $[i,j]:=\emptyset$ if $i>j.$ For any point $m:\ 1\leq m\leq n$ put ${\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)$ to be the set of arcs over $m$, that is ${\bf over}_m(P_\sigma):=\{(i,j)\in P_\sigma\ |\
m\in[i+1,j-1]\}.$ For any $(i,j)\in P_\sigma$ put ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the set of arcs over arc $(i,j)$, that is ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in
P_\sigma\ |\ (i,j)\in[i'+1,j'-1]\}$
For $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ one has $$\dim
{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=\ell(P_\sigma)\cdot(n-\ell(P_\sigma))-c(P_\sigma)-f(P_\sigma).$$
Our proof is based on the recalculating the expression of Theorem \[2.1\] in the language of link patterns.
Let $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k).$ For a given arc $(i,j)\in
P_\sigma$ we define
- $l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the set arcs to the left of $(i,j)$, that is $l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in P_\sigma\ |\ (i',j')\in
[1,i-1]\};$
- $r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the set of arcs to the right of $(i,j)$, that is $r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in
P_\sigma\ |\ (i',j')\in [j+1,n]\}$.
- ${\bf
under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the set of arcs under $(i,j)$ that is ${\bf under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in P_\sigma\ |\
(i',j')\in[i+1,j-1]\}$.
- $c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the set of arcs intersecting with $(i,j)$ on the left that is $c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in P_\sigma\ |\ i'\in [1,i-1]\
{\rm and}\ j'\in [i+1,j-1]\}.$
- $c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the set of arcs intersecting with $(i,j)$ on the right that is $c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in P_\sigma\ |\ i'\in[i+1,j-1]\
{\rm and}\ j'\in[j+1,n]\}.$
- recall that ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma):=\{(i',j')\in P_\sigma\ |\
(i,j)\in[i'+1,j'-1]\}.$
Put $|S|$ to be cardinality of set $S.$ Let us provide a few identities on the summing of the cardinalities of the sets defined above.
- Note that the list of six types of arcs above includes all the possible positions of an arc $(i',j')\ne(i,j)$ of $P_\sigma$ with respect to $(i,j)$. Thus, for any $(i,j)\in P_\sigma$ one has $$|l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+| r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+|{\bf
under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)| +|{\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+
|c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+|c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|=k-1.$$
- Let $\{p_s\}_{s=1}^{n-2k}$ be the set of fixed points of $P_\sigma.$ Put $f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ to be the number of fixed points under the arc $(i,j)$ then obviously $\sum_{s=1}^k f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=\sum_{s=1}^{n-2k}f_{p_s}(P_\sigma)=f(P_\sigma).$ Note also that for $(i,j)\in\sigma$ any $p\in [i+1,j-1]$ is either a fixed point, or some end point of $(i',j')\in{\bf
under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ or some end point of and arc intersecting $(i,j).$ Thus, one has $$j-i-1=f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)+2|{\bf under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+ |c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+
|c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|.$$
- Note that $(i,j)\in c^l_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)$ iff $(i',j')\in c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ so that $$\sum\limits_{s=1}^k|c^l_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)|=
\sum\limits_{s=1}^k|c^r_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)|=c(P_\sigma).$$
- Note also that arc $(i',j')\in l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ iff $(i,j)\in r_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)$ so that $$\sum\limits_{s=1}^k|l_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)|=\sum\limits_{s=1}^k|r_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)|.$$
- Exactly in the same way $(i',j')\in {\bf
under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ iff $(i,j)\in{\bf
over}_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)$ so that $$\sum\limits_{s=1}^k|{\bf
under}_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)|=\sum\limits_{s=1}^k|{\bf
over}_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)|.$$
- Finally note that $\#\{j_p\ |\ j_p<i\}$ (from $(*)$ of \[2.1\]) is exactly $|l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|$ and $\#\{i_p<i\ |\ j_p<j\}$ (from $(*)$ of \[2.1\]) is $|l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+|c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|$ so that $$q_{(i,j)}(\sigma)=2|l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|+|c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|.$$
In the following computations we omit the notation $(P_\sigma)$ in all the sets defined above since we consider only $P_\sigma$ here. Starting from Theorem \[2.1\] we get $$\begin{array}{l}
\dim {\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=kn-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(j_s-i_s)-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k
q_{(i_s,j_s)}(\sigma)\quad{{\rm by\ (ii),(vi)}\atop=}\\
kn-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(1+f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(\sigma)+2|{\bf
under}_{(i_s,j_s)}|+ |c^l_{(i_s,j_s)}|+|c^r_{(i_s,j_s)}|)\\
\quad-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(2|l_{(i_s,j_s)}|+|c^l_{(i_s,j_s)}|)\quad {{{\rm by\ (iii)\ and\ def.\ }f(\sigma) }\atop =}\\
nk-k-f(\sigma)-3c(P_\sigma)-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(2|{\bf
under}_{(i_s,j_s)}|+2|l_{(i_s,j_s)}|)\quad{{\rm by\ (iv),(v)}\atop =}\\
nk-k-f(\sigma)-3c(P_\sigma)-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(|{\bf
under}_{(i_s,j_s)}|+|{\bf
over}_{(i_s,j_s)}|+|l_{(i_s,j_s)}|+|r_{(i_s,j_s)}|)\quad
{{\rm by\ (i)}\atop = }\\
nk-k-f(\sigma)-3c(P_\sigma)-\sum\limits_{s=1}^k(k-1-(|c^l_{(i_s,j_s)}|+
|c^r_{(i_s,j_s)}|))\quad{{\rm by\ (iii)}\atop
=}\\
nk-k-f(\sigma)-3c(P_\sigma)-k(k-1)+2c(P_\sigma)=\\
k(n-k)-f(P_\sigma)-c(P_\sigma).\\
\end{array}$$
{#3.2}
Let us translate the definitions of \[2.3\] into the language of link patterns.
For $i,j\ :\ 1\leq i<j\leq n$ we define $\pi_{i,j}(P_\sigma)$ to be a link pattern from $i$ to $j$. It consists only of arcs $(i',j')\in P_\sigma$ such that $(i',j')\in[i,j].$ On the other hand, there is 1 in place $(i',j')$ of matrix $N_\sigma$ where $i'\geq i$ and $j'\leq j$ iff there exists $(i',j')\in\sigma$. Hence $\ell(\pi_{i,j}(P_\sigma))$ is equal to number of ones in $\pi_{i,j}(N_\sigma)$ which in turn is ${\rm Rank}(\pi_{i,j}(N_\sigma))$ as it was noted in \[2.3\]. Thus, $$(R_\sigma)_{i,j}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ell(\pi_{i,j}(P_\sigma))& {\rm if}\ i<j;\\
0&{\rm otherwise;}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ exactly as we have defined in \[1.5\]. Together with \[2.4\] this provides the result announced in \[1.5\].
{#3.3}
Now we can describe the cover of $\sigma$ for our partial order in terms of link patterns. We start with the description of ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$ defined in \[1.6\].
Recall from \[1.6\] that $(i,j)\in P_\sigma$ is called external if ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=\emptyset.$ Let $E(\sigma)$ be the set of external arcs in $P_\sigma$.
For example, let $\sigma=(1,3)(2,7)(4,5)$ then $P_\sigma$ is
(100,80) (10,40)(20,0)[7]{} (10,25)[1]{} (30,25)[2]{} (50,25)[3]{} (70,25)[4]{} (90,25)[5]{} (110,25)[6]{} (130,25)[7]{} (10,40)(30,70)(50,40) (30,40)(80,110)(130,40) (70,40)(80,60)(90,40)
and $E(\sigma)=\{(1,3),(2,7)\}.$
For $(i,j)\in\sigma$ put $\sigma_{(i,j)}^-$ to be an involution obtained from $\sigma$ by omitting $(i,j)$. Respectively $P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-}$ is obtained from $P_\sigma$ by erasing arc $(i,j).$
By [@Mo2 3.7, 3.9] one has
${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)=\{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-\ |\ (i,j)\in E(\sigma)\}$
{#3.4}
${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ defined in \[1.6\] is more involved. Its description given in [@Mo2 3.11-3.14] is rather complicated. However it is much more short and elegant in the language of link patterns. ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ contains of three types of elements which we describe in three following subsections. The main idea which is very clear on the level of link patterns is that the elements of ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ are obtained either by moving a left (resp. right) end point of an arc to the nearest fixed point to the left (resp. to the right) of it, so that we get a new fixed point under the arc, or by crossing two arcs. If $P_{\sigma'}$ is obtained from $P_\sigma$ in such way, then ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$ must be of codimension 1 in ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$ A more delicate point is that all the elements of ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ are obtained in such way. This is exactly the content of Proposition 3.15 of [@Mo2].
We begin with constructing of a link pattern obtained from a given one by moving one end point of an arc to the nearest fixed point.
Given $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)$ we put $\langle
\sigma\rangle:=\langle P_\sigma\rangle:=\{i_1,j_1,\ldots i_k,j_k\}$ to be the set of end points of $P_\sigma$.
For $i\in \langle \sigma\rangle$ and $f\not\in \langle
\sigma\rangle$ put $\sigma_{i\rightarrow f}$ to be an involution obtained from $\sigma$ by changing an arc $((i,j))$ to $((f,j))$. We write the arcs in double round brackets since the definition is not connected to the ordering of the ends of an arc.
For $(i,j)\in \sigma$ if there exist fixed points to the left of arc $(i,j)$ let $m$ be the largest among them, that is $m=\max\{p<i\ |\
p\not\in \langle \sigma\rangle\}.$ If in addition ${\bf
over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\cap [m+1,n]=\emptyset$ (or in other words ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\subseteq {\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)$) we put $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (i,j)}:=\sigma_{i\rightarrow m}.$ Otherwise put $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (i,j)}=\emptyset.$
Let $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft(i,j)}=\sigma_{i\rightarrow m}$. Note that by \[3.2\] we get $$(R_{\sigma_{\curvearrowleft(i,j)}})_{s,t}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(R_\sigma)_{s,t}-1 &{\rm if}\ m< s\leq i\ {\rm and}\ t\geq j;\\
(R_\sigma)_{s,t}&{\rm otherwise.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, if $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft(i,j)}\ne\emptyset$ then $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft(i,j)}\prec\sigma.$
Exactly in the same way, for $(i,j)\in \sigma$ if there exist fixed points to the right of $(i,j)$ let $m$ be the minimal among them, that is $m=\min\{p>j\ |\ p\not\in \langle \sigma\rangle\}.$ If in addition ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\cap [1,m-1]=\emptyset$ (that is again ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\subseteq {\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)$) we put $\sigma_{(i,j)\curvearrowright}:=\sigma_{j\rightarrow m}$. Otherwise put $\sigma_{ (i,j)\curvearrowright}=\emptyset.$
And again, exactly as in case $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (i,j)}$ if $\sigma_{(i,j)\curvearrowright}\ne\emptyset$ then $\sigma_{(i,j)\curvearrowright}\prec\sigma.$
For example, let $\sigma=(1,6)(3,5)(4,7)\in{\mathbf{S}}_8^2.$
(100,80) (-40,40)(20,0)[8]{} (-40,25)[1]{} (-20,25)[2]{} (0,25)[3]{} (20,25)[4]{} (40,25)[5]{} (60,25)[6]{} (80,25)[7]{} (100,25)[8]{}
(-40,40)(10,100)(60,40) (0,40)(20,70)(40,40) (20,40)(50,80)(80,40)
Then $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (1,6)}=\emptyset$ and $\sigma_{(1,6)\curvearrowright}=(1,8)(3,5)(4,7)$ so that
(100,80) (-100,40)(20,0)[8]{} (-100,25)[1]{} (-80,25)[2]{} (-60,25)[3]{} (-40,25)[4]{} (-20,25)[5]{} (0,25)[6]{} (20,25)[7]{} (40,25)[8]{}
(-100,40)(-50,100)(0,40) (-60,40)(-40,70)(-20,40) (-40,40)(-10,80)(20,40) (55,45)[$\scriptstyle{(1,6)\curvearrowright}$]{} (55,40)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (90,40)(20,0)[8]{} (90,25)[1]{} (110,25)[2]{} (130,25)[3]{} (150,25)[4]{} (170,25)[5]{} (190,25)[6]{} (210,25)[7]{} (230,25)[8]{}
(90,40)(160,110)(230,40) (130,40)(150,70)(170,40) (150,40)(180,80)(210,40)
$\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (3,5)}=(1,6)(2,5)(4,7)$ and $\sigma_{(3,5)\curvearrowright}=\emptyset$ so that
(100,80) (-100,40)(20,0)[8]{} (-100,25)[1]{} (-80,25)[2]{} (-60,25)[3]{} (-40,25)[4]{} (-20,25)[5]{} (0,25)[6]{} (20,25)[7]{} (40,25)[8]{}
(-100,40)(-50,100)(0,40) (-60,40)(-40,70)(-20,40) (-40,40)(-10,80)(20,40) (55,45)[$\scriptstyle{\curvearrowleft (3,5)}$]{} (55,40)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (90,40)(20,0)[8]{} (90,25)[1]{} (110,25)[2]{} (130,25)[3]{} (150,25)[4]{} (170,25)[5]{} (190,25)[6]{} (210,25)[7]{} (230,25)[8]{}
(90,40)(140,100)(190,40) (110,40)(140,80)(170,40) (150,40)(180,80)(210,40)
Finally, $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (4,7)}=(1,6)(3,5)(2,7)$ and $\sigma_{(4,7)\curvearrowright}=(1,6)(3,5)(4,8)$ so that
(100,150) (-100,60)(20,0)[8]{} (-100,45)[1]{} (-80,45)[2]{} (-60,45)[3]{} (-40,45)[4]{} (-20,45)[5]{} (0,45)[6]{} (20,45)[7]{} (40,45)[8]{}
(-100,60)(-50,120)(0,60) (-60,60)(-40,90)(-20,60) (-40,60)(-10,100)(20,60) (55,65)[(1,1)[20]{}]{} (55,55)[(1,-1)[20]{}]{} (45,35)[$\scriptstyle{ (4,7)\curvearrowright}$]{} (45,85)[$\scriptstyle{\curvearrowleft (4,7)}$]{}
(90,100)(20,0)[8]{} (90,85)[1]{} (110,85)[2]{} (130,85)[3]{} (150,85)[4]{} (170,85)[5]{} (190,85)[6]{} (210,85)[7]{} (230,85)[8]{}
(90,100)(140,160)(190,100) (130,100)(150,130)(170,100) (110,100)(160,160)(210,100) (90,20)(20,0)[8]{} (90,5)[1]{} (110,5)[2]{} (130,5)[3]{} (150,5)[4]{} (170,5)[5]{} (190,5)[6]{} (210,5)[7]{} (230,5)[8]{}
(90,20)(140,80)(190,20) (130,20)(150,50)(170,20) (150,20)(190,70)(230,20)
As an easy corollary of Theorem \[3.1\] we get
Let $\sigma'$ be either $\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (i,j)}$ or $\sigma_{ (i,j)\curvearrowright}.$ Then ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1.$
By our note above ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\subset{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$
Let us compute $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}.$ It is enough to compute it in one of the cases since one case can be obtained from the other by mirroring $P_\sigma$ around the point ${1+n}\over 2$.
For example, let us consider case $\sigma'=\sigma_{\curvearrowleft (i,j)}.$ Let $\sigma'=\sigma_{i\rightarrow m}.$ Recall notation from the proof of Theorem \[3.1\]. Note that
- $f'_{(m,j)}(P_{\sigma'})=f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)+1$ and since ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\subset {\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)$ one has $c^r_{(m,j)}(P_{\sigma'})=c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma).$
- Again, since ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\subset {\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)$ one has ${\bf over}_{(m,j)}(P_{\sigma'})={\bf
over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ so that for any $(i',j')\in {\bf
over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ one has $f'_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'})=f'_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)$ and $c^r_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'})=c^r_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma).$
- Exactly in the same way for $(i',j')\in P_\sigma$ such that $(i',j')\not\in{\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)$ one has $f'_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'})=f'_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)$ and $c^r_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'}=c^r_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma).$
- If $(i',j')\in\left({\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)\setminus {\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\right)\cap
c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ (that is $i'<m$ and $i<j'<j$) then again $f'_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'})=f'_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)$ and $c^r_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'}=c^r_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma).$
- Finally, if $(i',j')\in\left({\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)\setminus {\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)
\right)\cap l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ (that is $i'<m$ and $m<j'<i$) then $f'_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'})=f'_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)-1$ and $c^r_{(i',j')}(P_{\sigma'})=c^r_{(i',j')}(P_\sigma)+1.$
Set $t:=|({\bf over}_m(P_\sigma)\setminus {\bf
over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma))\cap l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)|.$ Summarizing the calculations above we get $$\begin{array}{ll}
f(P_{\sigma'})&=\sum_{s=1}^k
f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_{\sigma'})=f(P_\sigma)+1-t;\\
c(P_{\sigma'})&=\sum_{s=1}^k
c^r_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_{\sigma'})=c(P_\sigma)+t;\\
\end{array}$$ so that $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=k(n-k)-f(P_{\sigma'})-c(P_{\sigma'})=\dim
{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma}-1.$
{#3.5}
Let us again consider $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k).$ Take $i,j\in\langle
\sigma\rangle$ such that $i<j.$ Assume that they belong to different pairs, that is $i\in (i_s,j_s)$ and $j\in(i_t,j_t)$ where $s\ne t.$ Put $\sigma_{i\leftrightarrows j}$ to be an involution obtained by interchanging places of $i$ and $j$ in the pairs. Assume that $(i_s,j_s)=((i,p))$ and $(i_t,j_t)=((j,q))$ then $\sigma_{i\leftrightarrows j}=((i,q))((j,p))\ldots$ where by dots we denote all the pairs of $\sigma$ but $(i_s,j_s),(i_t,j_t).$ Note that we cannot say anything about ordering $((i,q))$ and $((j,p))$ so we write them in double round brackets.
The link pattern $P_{\sigma'}$ described below is obtained from $P_\sigma$ by crossing some arc with an arc to the left of it.
Let $(i,j)\in\sigma.$ Translating [@Mo2 3.13] we put $$L_{(i,j)}(\sigma):=\{(i_s,j_s)\in\sigma\ |\ j_s<i\ {\rm and}\
\{p\}_{p=j_s+1}^{i-1}\subset\langle \pi_{i_s,j}(P_\sigma)\rangle\}$$ In other words $(i_s,j_s)\in L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ if $(i_s,j_s)\in
l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ and there are no fixed points between $j_s$ and $i$ in $\pi_{i_s,j}(P_\sigma).$ Note that $L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ may contain a few elements. Put $$S_{(i,j)\looparrowright}(\sigma):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\{\sigma_{j_s\leftrightarrows i}\ |\ (i_s,j_s)\in
L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)\}& {\rm
if}\ L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)\ne \emptyset\\
\emptyset& {\rm otherwise}\\
\end{array}\right.$$
Note that for $(i_s,j_s)\in L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ one has $$(R_{\sigma_{j_s\leftrightarrows i}})_{s,t}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(R_\sigma)_{s,t}-1 &{\rm if}\ i\leq s<j_s\ {\rm and}\ t\geq j\
{\rm or}\ j_s\leq t<i\ {\rm and}\ s\leq i_s ;\\
(R_\sigma)_{s,t}&{\rm otherwise.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, for any $(i_s,j_s)\in L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ one has $\sigma_{j_s\leftrightarrows i}\prec\sigma.$
For example, let $\sigma=(1,5)(2,4)(3,6)(7,9)(10,11)\in{\mathbf{S}}_{11}^2.$ Its link pattern is
(100,80) (-40,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-40,25)[1]{} (-25,25)[2]{} (-10,25)[3]{} (5,25)[4]{} (20,25)[5]{} (35,25)[6]{} (50,25)[7]{} (65,25)[8]{} (80,25)[9]{} (95,25)[10]{} (110,25)[11]{}
(-40,40)(-10,90)(20,40) (-25,40)(-10,70)(5,40) (-10,40)(12.5,80)(35,40) (50,40)(65,70)(80,40) (95,40)(102.5,60)(110,40)
One has $L_{(1,5)}(\sigma)=L_{(2,4)}(\sigma)=L_{(3,6)}(\sigma)=\emptyset,$ $L_{(7,9)}(\sigma)=\{(1,5),\ (3,6)\}$, so that
(100,140) (-139,60)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,45)[1]{} (-125,45)[2]{} (-110,45)[3]{} (-95,45)[4]{} (-80,45)[5]{} (-65,45)[6]{} (-50,45)[7]{} (-35,45)[8]{} (-20,45)[9]{} (-8,45)[10]{} (6,45)[11]{}
(-140,60)(-110,110)(-79,60) (-125,60)(-110,90)(-94,60) (-110,60)(-87.5,100)(-64,60) (-50,60)(-35,90)(-19,60) (-5,60)(2.5,80)(11,60)
(25,80)[$\sigma_{5\leftrightarrows 7}$]{} (25,60)[(2,1)[30]{}]{}
(81,90)(15,0)[11]{} (80,75)[1]{} (95,75)[2]{} (110,75)[3]{} (125,75)[4]{} (140,75)[5]{} (155,75)[6]{} (170,75)[7]{} (185,75)[8]{} (200,75)[9]{} (212,75)[10]{} (227,75)[11]{}
(80,90)(125,160)(171,90) (95,90)(110,120)(126,90) (140,90)(170,140)(201,90) (110,90)(132.5,130)(156,90) (215,90)(222.5,110)(231,90)
(25,35)[$\sigma_{6\leftrightarrows 7}$]{} (25,55)[(2,-1)[30]{}]{}
(81,30)(15,0)[11]{} (80,15)[1]{} (95,15)[2]{} (110,15)[3]{} (125,15)[4]{} (140,15)[5]{} (155,15)[6]{} (170,15)[7]{} (185,15)[8]{} (200,15)[9]{} (212,15)[10]{} (227,15)[11]{}
(80,30)(110,80)(141,30) (95,30)(110,60)(126,30) (110,30)(140,80)(171,30) (155,30)(177.5,70)(201,30) (215,30)(222.5,50)(231,30)
and $L_{(10,11)}(\sigma)=\{(7,9)\}$ so that
(100,80) (-139,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,25)[1]{} (-125,25)[2]{} (-110,25)[3]{} (-95,25)[4]{} (-80,25)[5]{} (-65,25)[6]{} (-50,25)[7]{} (-35,25)[8]{} (-20,25)[9]{} (-8,25)[10]{} (6,25)[11]{}
(-140,40)(-110,90)(-79,40) (-125,40)(-110,70)(-94,40) (-110,40)(-87.5,80)(-64,40) (-50,40)(-35,70)(-19,40) (-5,40)(2.5,60)(11,40)
(25,45)[$S_{(10,11)\looparrowright}(\sigma)$]{} (25,40)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
(86,40)(15,0)[11]{} (85,25)[1]{} (100,25)[2]{} (115,25)[3]{} (130,25)[4]{} (145,25)[5]{} (160,25)[6]{} (175,25)[7]{} (190,25)[8]{} (205,25)[9]{} (217,25)[10]{} (232,25)[11]{}
(85,40)(115,90)(146,40) (100,40)(115,70)(131,40) (115,40)(137.5,80)(161,40) (175,40)(197.5,80)(221,40) (205,40)(220,70)(236,40)
Again, as an easy corollary of Theorem \[3.1\] we get
If $L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)\ne\emptyset$ then ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1$ for any $\sigma'\in
S_{(i,j)\looparrowright}(\sigma)$
By the note above ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$ Also, by the definition of $L_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ $P_{\sigma'}$ differs from $P_\sigma$ by one additional cross obtained from changing pairs $(i_s,j_s)(i,j)$ to $(i_s,i)(j_s,j)$ as we show below.
Indeed, since there are no fixed points between $j_s$ and $i$ in $\pi_{i_s,j}(P_\sigma)$ we get that in particular there are no fixed points between $j_s$ and $i$ in $P_\sigma$ so that $f(P_\sigma)=f(P_{\sigma'}).$ Also, the absence of fixed points between $j_s$ and $i$ in $\pi_{i_s,j}(P_\sigma)$ means that ${\bf
over}_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)\cap l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=\emptyset$ and ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\cap r_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=\emptyset$ so that $ c(P_{\sigma'})=c(P_\sigma)+1$. Thus, by Theorem \[3.1\] $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma-1.$
{#3.6}
The last type of elements in ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ is obtained by crossing two concentric arcs. It is defined as follows. For $(i,j)\in\sigma$ recall ${\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ and ${\bf under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ from \[3.1\] and put $$Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma):=\{(i_s,j_s)\in {\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)\
|\
{\bf under}_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=\{(i,j)\}\cup{\bf under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma) \}$$ In other words $(i_s,j_s)\in Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ if $(i_s,j_s)\in
{\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$ and there are no arcs between $(i_s,j_s)$ and $(i,j)$ in $P_\sigma.$ Note that $Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ may contain a few elements. Put $$S_{(i,j)\upharpoonleft\downharpoonright}(\sigma):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\{\sigma_{i_s\leftrightarrows i}\ |\ (i_s,j_s)\in
Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)\} & {\rm if}\ Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)\ne\emptyset;\\
\emptyset &{\rm otherwise};\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Note that $\sigma_{i_s\leftrightarrows
i_t}=\sigma_{j_s\leftrightarrows j_t}$. Note also that for $(i_p,j_p)\in Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ one has $$(R_{\sigma_{i_p\leftrightarrows i}})_{s,t}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(R_\sigma)_{s,t}-1 &{\rm if}\ i_p< s\leq i\ {\rm and}\ j\leq t<
j_s;\\
(R_\sigma)_{s,t}&{\rm otherwise.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Thus, for any $(i_p,j_p)\in Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$ one has $\sigma_{i_p\leftrightarrows i}\prec\sigma.$
For example, let $\sigma=(1,11)(2,6)(3,9)(4,5)\in{\mathbf{S}}_{11}^2.$ Its link pattern is
(100,100) (-40,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-40,25)[1]{} (-25,25)[2]{} (-10,25)[3]{} (5,25)[4]{} (20,25)[5]{} (35,25)[6]{} (50,25)[7]{} (65,25)[8]{} (80,25)[9]{} (95,25)[10]{} (110,25)[11]{}
(-40,40)(35,130)(110,40) (-25,40)(5,80)(35,40) (-10,40)(35,110)(80,40) (5,40)(12.5,60)(20,40)
One has $Ov_{(1,11)}(\sigma)=\emptyset,$ $Ov_{(2,6)}(\sigma)=\{(1,11)\}$ so that
(100,100) (-139,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,25)[1]{} (-125,25)[2]{} (-110,25)[3]{} (-95,25)[4]{} (-80,25)[5]{} (-65,25)[6]{} (-50,25)[7]{} (-35,25)[8]{} (-20,25)[9]{} (-8,25)[10]{} (6,25)[11]{}
(-140,40)(-65,130)(10,40) (-125,40)(-95,80)(-64,40) (-110,40)(-65,110)(-19,40) (-95,40)(-87.5,60)(-79,40)
(25,45)[$S_{(2,6)\upharpoonleft\downharpoonright}(\sigma)$]{} (25,40)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
(86,40)(15,0)[11]{} (85,25)[1]{} (100,25)[2]{} (115,25)[3]{} (130,25)[4]{} (145,25)[5]{} (160,25)[6]{} (175,25)[7]{} (190,25)[8]{} (205,25)[9]{} (217,25)[10]{} (232,25)[11]{}
(85,40)(122.5,90)(160,40) (100,40)(167.5,120)(235,40) (115,40)(160,110)(205,40) (130,40)(137.5,60)(145,40)
and $Ov_{(3,9)}(\sigma)=\{(1,11)\}$ so that
(100,100) (-139,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,25)[1]{} (-125,25)[2]{} (-110,25)[3]{} (-95,25)[4]{} (-80,25)[5]{} (-65,25)[6]{} (-50,25)[7]{} (-35,25)[8]{} (-20,25)[9]{} (-8,25)[10]{} (6,25)[11]{}
(-140,40)(-65,130)(10,40) (-125,40)(-95,80)(-64,40) (-110,40)(-65,110)(-19,40) (-95,40)(-87.5,60)(-79,40)
(25,45)[$S_{(3,9)\upharpoonleft\downharpoonright}(\sigma)$]{} (25,40)[(1,0)[50]{}]{}
(86,40)(15,0)[11]{} (85,25)[1]{} (100,25)[2]{} (115,25)[3]{} (130,25)[4]{} (145,25)[5]{} (160,25)[6]{} (175,25)[7]{} (190,25)[8]{} (205,25)[9]{} (217,25)[10]{} (232,25)[11]{}
(85,40)(145,110)(206,40) (100,40)(130,80)(160,40) (115,40)(175,120)(236,40) (130,40)(137.5,60)(145,40)
Finally $Ov_{(4,5)}(\sigma)=\{(2,6),\ (3,9)\}$ so that
(100,140) (-139,60)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,45)[1]{} (-125,45)[2]{} (-110,45)[3]{} (-95,45)[4]{} (-80,45)[5]{} (-65,45)[6]{} (-50,45)[7]{} (-35,45)[8]{} (-20,45)[9]{} (-8,45)[10]{} (6,45)[11]{}
(-140,60)(-65,150)(10,60) (-125,60)(-95,100)(-64,60) (-110,60)(-65,130)(-19,60) (-95,60)(-87.5,80)(-79,60)
(25,80)[$\sigma_{2\leftrightarrows 4}$]{} (25,60)[(2,1)[30]{}]{}
(86,90)(15,0)[11]{} (85,75)[1]{} (100,75)[2]{} (115,75)[3]{} (130,75)[4]{} (145,75)[5]{} (160,75)[6]{} (175,75)[7]{} (190,75)[8]{} (205,75)[9]{} (217,75)[10]{} (232,75)[11]{}
(85,90)(160,180)(235,90) (100,90)(122.5,120)(146,90) (115,90)(160,160)(205,90) (130,90)(145,110)(160,90)
(25,35)[$\sigma_{3\leftrightarrows 4}$]{} (25,55)[(2,-1)[30]{}]{}
(86,30)(15,0)[11]{} (85,15)[1]{} (100,15)[2]{} (115,15)[3]{} (130,15)[4]{} (145,15)[5]{} (160,15)[6]{} (175,15)[7]{} (190,15)[8]{} (205,15)[9]{} (217,15)[10]{} (232,15)[11]{}
(85,30)(160,115)(236,30) (100,30)(130,70)(161,30) (115,30)(130,60)(146,30) (130,30)(167.5,85)(206,30)
And again, exactly as in \[3.5\] we get
If $Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma)\ne\emptyset$ then ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1$ for any $\sigma'\in
S_{(i,j)\upharpoonleft\downharpoonright}(\sigma)$
Exactly as in \[3.5\] we get that ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\subset{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ and exactly as in \[3.5\] we get that $f(P_{\sigma'})=f(P_\sigma)$ and $c(P_{\sigma'})=c(P_\sigma)+1$ which together provide us the result.
{#3.7}
By Proposition 3.15 from [@Mo2] and Propositions \[3.4\], \[3.5\], \[3.6\] we get
Let $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ then
- ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)=\coprod\limits_{s=1}^k\sigma_{(i_s,j_s)\curvearrowright}
\bigsqcup\coprod\limits_{s=1}^k\sigma_{\curvearrowleft(i_s,j_s)}
\bigsqcup\coprod\limits_{s=1}^k S_{(i_s,j_s)\looparrowright}(\sigma)
\bigsqcup\coprod\limits_{s=1}^kS_{(i_s,j_s)\upharpoonleft\downharpoonright}(\sigma)$
- Let $\sigma'\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ be such that $\sigma'\prec\sigma.$ Then $\sigma'\in {\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$ iff ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1.$
{#3.8}
Now we are ready to finish the description of ${\mathcal{C}}(\sigma).$ Note first that $${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma){\subset}{\mathcal{C}}(\sigma){\subset}{\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)\cup{\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)$$.
So we have to find $ {\mathcal{N}}(\sigma)\cap {\mathcal{C}}(\sigma).$
Consider $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2.$ Let $E_{\max}(\sigma)$ be the subset of arcs in $E(\sigma)$ without fixed points outside of them. In that case all the fixed points of $P_\sigma$ are under arc $(i,j)$ so that $(i,j)\in E_{\max}(\sigma)$ iff $f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=n-2k.$ We can use this fact to define $E_{\max}(\sigma)$ formally: $$E_{\max}(\sigma): =\{(i,j)\in E(\sigma)\ |\
f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=n-2k\}$$
Consider $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)\in {\mathbf{S}}_n^2$ and let $(i,j)\in E(\sigma).$
- If $(i,j)\not\in E_{\max}(\sigma)$ then $\sigma_{(i,j)}^-\not\in{\mathcal{C}}(\sigma).$
- If $(i,j)\in E_{\max}(\sigma)$ then $\dim {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-}=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma-1.$
To prove (i) note that for any $(i,j)\in E(\sigma)$ one has ${\bf
over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=\emptyset.$ So the conditions of \[3.4\] for $(i,j)\in E(\sigma)$ are satisfied iff $(i,j)\not\in
E_{\max}(\sigma)$ and in this case $S=\{\sigma_{\curvearrowleft(i,j)},\
\sigma_{(i,j)\curvearrowright}\}\ne\emptyset.$ Let $\sigma'\in S$ and let $P_{\sigma'}$ be obtained from $P_\sigma$ by replacing $(i,j)$ to $(i',j')$. Then obviously $\sigma_{(i,j)}^-=(\sigma')_{(i',j')}^-$ so that $\sigma_{(i,j)}^-\prec\sigma'\prec\sigma$ and $\sigma_{(i,j)}^-\not\in {\mathcal{C}}(\sigma).$
To compute (ii) we use notation from the proof of theorem \[3.1\]. Consider an arc $(i_s,j_s)\in P_\sigma.$
- If $(i_s,j_s)$ does not intersect $(i,j)$ then $$f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})\quad{\rm
and}\quad
|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_\sigma)|=|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})|.$$
- If $(i_s,j_s)$ intersects $(i,j)$ on the left $i$ is a new fixed point under $(i_s,j_s)$ in $P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-}$ comparing to $P_\sigma$ and the crossings from the left of $(i_s,j_s)$ are the same in both patterns, so that $$f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-1\quad{\rm
and}\quad
|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_\sigma)|=|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})|$$
- If $(i_s,j_s)$ intersects $(i,j)$ on the right then $j$ is a new fixed point under $(i_s,j_s)$ in $P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-}$ comparing to $P_\sigma$ and there is one less crossing from the left of $(i_s,j_s)$ in $P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-}$ comparing to $P_\sigma$, so that $$f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-1\quad{\rm
and}\quad
|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_\sigma)|=|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})|+1$$
- Finally, since there are no fixed points outside of $(i,j)$ in $P_\sigma$ one has $f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=n-2k$
Summarizing we get $$\begin{array}{ll}
f(P_\sigma)&=\sum\limits_{s=1}^k
f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)=\sum\limits_{(i_s,j_s)\ne(i,j)}
f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_\sigma)+f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)=\\
&\sum\limits_{(i_s,j_s)\ne(i,j)}f'_{(i_s,j_s)}(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-
|c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|-|c_{(i,j)}^r(P_\sigma)|+n-2k=\\
&f(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-
|c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|-|c_{(i,j)}^r(P_\sigma)|+n-2k;\\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
c(P_\sigma)=\sum\limits_{s=1}^k
|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_\sigma)|=\sum\limits_{(i_s,j_s)\ne(i,j)}
|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_\sigma)|+ |c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|=\\
\left(\sum\limits_{{(i_s,j_s)\ne(i,j)}\atop{(i_s,j_s)\not\in
c_{(i,j)^r}(P_\sigma)}}|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})|\right)+
\left(\sum\limits_{(i_s,j_s)\in
c_{(i,j)^r}(P_\sigma)}|c_{(i_s,j_s)}^l(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})|+
|c_{(i,j)}^r(P_\sigma)|\right) +|c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|=\\
\quad\\
c(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})+|c_{(i,j)}^r(P_\sigma)| +|c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|\\
\end{array}$$ Thus, $$\begin{array}{ll}
\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma&=k(n-k)-f(P_\sigma)-c(P_\sigma)=\\
& k(n-k)-\left(
f(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-
|c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|-|c_{(i,j)}^r(P_\sigma)|+n-2k\right)-\\
&\quad\left( c(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})+|c_{(i,j)}^r(P_\sigma)|
+|c_{(i,j)}^l(P_\sigma)|\right)=\\
&k(n-k)-(n-2k)-f(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-c(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})=\\
&(k-1)(n-k+1)+1-f(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})-c(P_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-})=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-}+1.\\
\end{array}$$
{#3.9}
As a straightforward corollary of theorem \[3.7\] and lemma \[3.8\], we get
Let $\sigma=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k)\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2.$ One has
- ${\mathcal{C}}(\sigma)={\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)\bigsqcup\{\sigma_{(i,j)}^-\ |\
(i,j)\in E_{\max}(\sigma)\}.$
- $\sigma'\in {\mathcal{C}}(\sigma)$ iff ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=1.$
{#3.9a}
In section 5 we will discuss intersections of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbit closures in ${\mathcal{X}}_n.$ As a preparation we would like to finish this section with a few preliminary general definition and results.
Given $\emptyset\ne S{\subset}{\mathbf{S}}_n^2.$ We define the components of $U=\bigcap\limits_{\sigma\in
S}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ in a standard way by setting ${\mathcal{B}}_{\tau_1},\ldots,{\mathcal{B}}_{\tau_r}$ to be the components of $U$ if $U=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^r{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\tau_i}$ and $\tau_i\preceq\tau_j$ implies $i=j$ for any $i,j\ :\ 1\leq i,j\leq r.$ Let us call $\tau_1,\ldots,\tau_i$ component involutions of $U.$
Given $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ where $k\leq {1\over 2}n-1$. For $m\ :\ k<m\leq {\frac 12}n$ put $F_m(\sigma):=\{\tau\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(m)\ |\ \tau\succ\sigma\}.$ Let $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{n-2k}$ be fixed points of $\sigma$. Note that $n-2k\geq 2(m-k)$ so that $\sigma'=\sigma(p_1,p_2)\ldots(p_{2(m-k)-1},p_{2(m-k)}\in
{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(m)$ and $\sigma'\succ\sigma.$ Thus, $F_m(\sigma)\ne\emptyset$
As an easy corollary of subsection \[2.5\] we get
Let $k\leq {1\over 2}n-1$. For any $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ and any $m\ :\ k<m\leq {1\over 2}n$ there exists the unique ${\overline}\sigma_m\in F_m(\sigma)$ such that $$\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau={\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}.$$
In particular, let $\emptyset\ne S{\subset}{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ and let $U=\bigcap\limits_{\sigma\in S}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$ Then all the component involutions of $U$ are of length $k.$
By $(*)$ of \[2.5\] $U'=\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau\bigcap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-m,m)^*}\ne\emptyset.$ Let $\tau_1,\ldots\tau_r$ be the component involutions of $U'.$ Then by irreducibility of ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ there exists $\tau_i={\overline}\sigma_m$ such that ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}$ but then ${\overline}\sigma_m\in F_m(\sigma)$ and $$U'= \bigcup\limits_{j=1}
^r\left({\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\tau_j}\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-m,m)^*}\right)={\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-m,m)^*}.$$ To complete the proof we have to show that $\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau={\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}$ (in other words we have to show that ${\overline}{\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau\bigcap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-m,m)^*}}=\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau\bigcap{\overline}{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-m,m)^*}=\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau$, where the second equality is obvious). To do this we must show that for any $j<m$ for any ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'} {\subset}\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau\bigcap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-j,j)^*}$ one has ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}.$ Let us consider $F_m(\sigma').$ Since ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}{\subset}\bigcap\limits_{\tau\in
F_m(\sigma)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_\tau$ we get $F_m(\sigma){\subset}F_m(\sigma')$. By the previous there exists the unique minimal element ${\overline}\sigma'_m$ of $F_m(\sigma')$ so that ${\overline}\sigma'_m\preceq{\overline}\sigma_m$ which provides ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_m}$ and completes the proof.
Let us consider $U$ from the proposition. It is enough to show that for any $\sigma$ such that ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma{\subset}U$ and $l(\sigma)<k$ there exists $\sigma'\succ\sigma$ such that ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}{\subset}U$ and $l(\sigma')=k.$ Consider $F_k(\sigma).$ By the definition of $U$ we get $S{\subset}F_k(\sigma)$ so that ${\overline}\sigma_k$ satisfies ${\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_k}{\subset}U.$
Note that in general $U$ defined in the proposition can be reducible.
{#3.10}
Given $\sigma'\in F_p(\sigma)$, to show that $\sigma'={\overline}\sigma_p$ it is enough to check that $$\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\geq \dim{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}\quad {\rm for\
any}\quad \sigma^{\prime\prime}\in F_p(\sigma).\eqno{(*)}$$
It is easy to write explicitly ${\overline}\sigma_{k+1}$ and to compute the dimension of ${\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_{k+1}}.$ For $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ let $i_\sigma:=\min\{\{s\}_{s=1}^n\setminus\langle\sigma\rangle\}$ and $j_\sigma:=\max\{\{s\}_{s=1}^n\setminus\langle\sigma\rangle\}$. If $E_{\max}(\sigma)\ne\emptyset$ then $(i,j)\in{\rm
over}_{i_\sigma}(P_\sigma),{\rm over}_{j_\sigma}(P_\sigma)$ for any $(i,j)\in E_{\max}$. Let $E_{\max}(\sigma)=\{(i_r,j_r)\}_{r=1}^s$ where the arcs are ordered in the increasing order according to the left end points. Note that $i_1<i_2<\ldots<i_s<i_\sigma<j_\sigma<j_1<\ldots j_s.$ Put $j_0:=j_\sigma$ and $i_{s+1}:=i_\sigma$ and let $\sigma'$ be obtained from $\sigma$ by deleting all the cycles in $E_{\max}(\sigma).$ Put $$\overline\sigma_{k+1}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sigma(i_\sigma,j_\sigma)& {\rm if}\ E_{\max}(\sigma)=\emptyset\\
\sigma'(i_1,j_0)(i_2,j_1)\ldots(i_s,j_{s-1})(i_{s+1},j_s)& {\rm otherwise}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Let us show some examples to make the picture clear:
(100,100)(-170,80)[$E_{\max}(\sigma)=\emptyset\ :\ $]{} (-139,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,25)[1]{} (-125,25)[2]{} (-110,25)[3]{} (-95,25)[4]{} (-80,25)[5]{} (-65,25)[6]{} (-50,25)[7]{} (-35,25)[8]{} (-20,25)[9]{} (-8,25)[10]{} (6,25)[11]{}
(-140,40)(-107,90)(-65,40) (-125,40)(-72.5,110)(-20,40) (-50,40)(-20,80)(10,40) (-95,40)(-87.5,60)(-79,40)
(35,50)[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
(86,40)(15,0)[11]{} (85,25)[1]{} (100,25)[2]{} (115,25)[3]{} (130,25)[4]{} (145,25)[5]{} (160,25)[6]{} (175,25)[7]{} (190,25)[8]{} (205,25)[9]{} (217,25)[10]{} (232,25)[11]{}
(85,40)(117.5,90)(160,40) (100,40)(152.5,110)(205,40) (175,40)(205,80)(235,40) (130,40)(137.5,60)(145,40) (115,40)(167.5,120)(220,40)
(100,100)(-170,80)[$E_{\max}(\sigma)=\{(2,10)\}\ :\ $]{} (-139,40)(15,0)[11]{} (-140,25)[1]{} (-125,25)[2]{} (-110,25)[3]{} (-95,25)[4]{} (-80,25)[5]{} (-65,25)[6]{} (-50,25)[7]{} (-35,25)[8]{} (-20,25)[9]{} (-8,25)[10]{} (6,25)[11]{}
(-140,40)(-107,90)(-65,40) (-125,40)(-65,110)(-5,40) (-50,40)(-20,80)(10,40) (-95,40)(-87.5,60)(-79,40)
(35,50)[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
(86,40)(15,0)[11]{} (85,25)[1]{} (100,25)[2]{} (115,25)[3]{} (130,25)[4]{} (145,25)[5]{} (160,25)[6]{} (175,25)[7]{} (190,25)[8]{} (205,25)[9]{} (217,25)[10]{} (232,25)[11]{}
(85,40)(117.5,90)(160,40) (100,40)(152.5,110)(205,40) (175,40)(205,80)(235,40) (130,40)(137.5,60)(145,40) (115,40)(167.5,120)(220,40)
Note that $$(R_{{\overline}\sigma_{k+1}})_{i,j}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(R_\sigma)_{i,j}+1&{\rm if}\ i\leq i_r\ {\rm and}\ j\geq j_{r-1}\
{\rm
for}\ 1\leq r\leq s\\
(R_\sigma)_{i,j}& {\rm otherwise}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ So that ${\overline}\sigma_{k+1}\succ\sigma.$ We must show that ${\overline}\sigma_{k+1}$ defined above is indeed the minimal element of $F_{k+1}(\sigma).$
Let $k\leq {1\over 2}n-1$. Then for every $\sigma'\in F_p(\sigma)$ where $p\geq k+1$ one has $\sigma'\succeq {\overline}\sigma_{k+1}.$ One also has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_{k+1}}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=|E_{\max}(\sigma)|+1.$
Let us show this by induction on the $|E_{\max}(\sigma)|$. Put $A(\sigma):=\{\sigma'\ |\ \sigma\in {\mathcal{D}}(\sigma')\}$ and $B(\sigma):=\{\sigma'\ |\ \sigma\in {\mathcal{C}}(\sigma')\ {\rm and}\
\ell(P_{\sigma'})=\ell(P_\sigma)+1\}.$ Note that for any $\sigma'\in
A(\sigma)$ one has $$|E_{\max}(\sigma)|-1\leq |E_{\max}(\sigma')|\leq
|E_{\max}(\sigma)|.\eqno(**)$$
Note also that by definition $$B(\sigma)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\sigma(i_\sigma,j_\sigma)& {\rm if}\
E_{\max}(\sigma)=\emptyset\\
\emptyset&{\rm otherwise}\\
\end{array}\right.\eqno{({**\atop *})}$$
If $E_{\max}(\sigma)=\emptyset$ then $B(\sigma)=\{\sigma(i_\sigma,j_\sigma)\}$ so that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma(i_\sigma,j_\sigma)}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=1.$ For any $\sigma'\in F_{k+1}(\sigma)$ one has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\geq 1$, thus, by $(*)$ and Proposition \[3.10\] we get the result.
Now assume this is true for $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ such that $|E_{\max}(\sigma)|=s$ and show this is true for $\sigma$ such that $|E_{\max}(\sigma)|=s+1$. Let $\sigma'$ be obtained from $\sigma$ by changing $(i_1,j_1)$ to $(i_1, j_\sigma).$ Note that $\sigma=\sigma'_{(i_1,j_\sigma)\curvearrowright}$ so that $\sigma'\in A(\sigma)$ and that $|E_{\max}(\sigma')|=s.$ Note also that ${\overline}\sigma_{k+1}={\overline}\sigma'_{k+1}$, thus, by induction one has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_{k+1}}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma={{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{{\overline}\sigma_{k+1}}}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}
+{{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma=s+1.$
To show that ${\overline}\sigma_{k+1}$ is the minimal element of $F_{k+1}(\sigma)$ it is enough to show by $(*)$ that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\geq s+1$ for any $\sigma'\in
F_{k+1}(\sigma).$ Assume this is not true. Let $\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ be maximal such that $|E_{\max}(\sigma)|=s+1$ and there exists $\sigma'\in F_{k+1}(\sigma) $ such that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma\leq s.$ By $({**\atop *})$ $B(\sigma)=\emptyset$ so that by theorem \[3.9\] there exists $\sigma^{\prime\prime}\in A(\sigma)$ such that $\sigma'\succ\sigma^{\prime\prime}\succ\sigma.$ Note that $\sigma'\in F_{k+1}(\sigma^{\prime\prime}).$ By $(**)$ $s\leq
|E_{\max}(\sigma^{\prime\prime})|\leq s+1$. If $|E_{\max}(\sigma^{\prime\prime})|=s+1$ we get that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\leq s-1$ which contradicts maximality of $\sigma.$ If $|E_{\max}(\sigma^{\prime\prime})|=s$ then by induction hypothesis ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma^{\prime\prime}}\geq s$ so that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma}\geq s+1$ which contradicts the assumption.
Combinatorial description of the closure of an orbital variety of nilpotent order 2
===================================================================================
{#4.1}
In this section we apply the results obtained above to the closures of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of dimension $k(n-k)$ in ${\mathfrak{B}}_{(n-k,k)}$, that is of the maximal possible dimension. Such orbit is dense in an orbital variety associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ and every orbital variety associated to ${\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ admits such ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbit as we explained in \[2.2\].
As it was shown in [@Mo2 4.5] the closure of an orbital variety of nilpotent order 2 is a union of orbital varieties. In [@Mo2 4.3] the combinatorial description of such orbital variety in terms of Young tableaux is given. We would like to use link patterns to simplify this description.
By Proposition \[2.2\] ${\mathcal{B}}_T$ is the dense ${\mathbf{B}}$-orbit in ${\mathcal{V}}_T$ for $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}.$ By definition of an orbital variety ${\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_T={\mathcal{V}}_T\bigsqcup\bigcup\limits_{\sigma'\in{\mathcal{N}}(\sigma_T)}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$. Moreover, since an element of ${\mathcal{N}}(\sigma_T)$ is obtained from $\sigma_T$ by erasing an external arc it is a link pattern without fixed points under an arc and without arc crossings, thus, ${\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$ for $\sigma'\in {\mathcal{N}}_{\sigma_T}$ is $\sigma'=\sigma_{T'}$ for some $T'\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k+1,k-1)^*}.$
How to define $\{T'\in {\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k+1,k-1)^*}\ |\
\sigma_{T'}\in{\mathcal{N}}(\sigma_T)\}$? The answer given in [@Mo2 4.3] is too complex to be satisfactory. Let us try to understand the picture using link patterns.
Given $\sigma_T=(i_1,j_1)\ldots (i_k,j_k)$ ordered in increasing order according to the second entry of the cycle (that is $j_1<\ldots<j_k$). Then $T_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\cr\vdots\cr
j_k\cr\end{array}\right)$ (cf. \[2.2\]). Moreover, set $\{j_1,\ldots j_k\}$ defines $\sigma_T$ completely. In turn $\sigma_{T'}$ is obtained from $\sigma_T$ by erasing some external arc, that is $T'_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\vdots\\j_{l-1}\\j_{l+1}\\
\vdots \cr\end{array}\right)$ for some $l\ :\ 1\leq l\leq k.$ To determine $T'\ :\ \sigma_{T'}\in{\mathcal{N}}_{\sigma_T}$ we must find $E(\sigma_T)$ – the subset of external arcs.
Note that since arcs of $P_{\sigma_T}$ do not intersect, for any $t>s$ (that is such that $j_t>j_s$) one has $i_t\not\in[i_s,j_s]$ that is either $i_t<i_s$ or $i_t>j_s.$ Thus, arc $(i_s,j_s)\in
E(\sigma_T)$ if for any $(i_t,j_t)\in\sigma$ such that $t>s$ one has $i_t>j_s$. Hence, for any $t>s$ there must be at least $2(t-s)-1$ points between $j_s$ and $j_t.$ In other words the necessary condition is $j_t-j_s\geq
2(t-s).$ This is also a sufficient condition. Let us formulate this statement as a lemma
Let $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ be such that $T_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\cr\vdots\cr
j_k\cr\end{array}\right).$ Let $\sigma_T=(i_1,j_1)\ldots(i_k,j_k).$ Then $E(\sigma_T)=\{(i_l,j_l)\ |\ l=k\ or\ \forall\ s\ :\ l<s\leq k\
\Rightarrow\ j_s-j_l\geq 2(s-l)\}.$
First of all let us show that if $(i_l,j_l)\in E(\sigma_T)$ then for any $s>l$ one must have $j_s-j_l\geq 2(s-l).$ Indeed, for any $t\
:\ l<t\leq s$ one has (as we already mentioned) $i_t>j_l$ and $j_t\leq j_s$ so that $[j_l+1,j_s]$ must contain at least $2(s-l)$ points, therefore $j_s-j_l\geq 2(s-l).$
Exactly in the same way we show that if $j_s-j_l\geq 2(s-l)$ for any $s>l$ then $(i_l,j_l)\in E(\sigma_T).$ Indeed, for $s=l+1$ one has $j_{l+1}\geq j_l+2$ so that $j_{l+1}-1\in\langle T_1\rangle$ and $i_{l+1}=j_{l+1}-1>j_l.$ Assume that we already know arcs $(i_{l+1},j_{l+1}),\ldots (i_{s-1},j_{s-1})$ and $i_{l+1},\ldots,i_{s-1}\in [j_l+1,j_{s-1}].$ By the construction $i_s=\max\{r\}_{r=1}^n\setminus \{i_p,j_p\}_{p=1}^{s-1}$ And since there are at least $2(s-l)$ points in $[j_l+1,j_s]$ and only $2(s-1-l)+1$ are occupied we get that $i_s\in[j_l+1,j_s].$
{#4.2}
Consider $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ and let $T_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\cr\vdots\cr
j_k\cr\end{array}\right).$ For $b\in \langle T_2\rangle$ put $T\langle b\rangle$ to be the tableau obtained from $T$ by moving $b$ from $T_2$ to an appropriate place in $T_1.$
Let us denote by ${\mathcal{N}}(T):=\{S\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k+1,k-1)^*}\ |\ {\mathcal{V}}_S{\subset}{\mathcal{V}}_T\}$. By dimension reasoning it is obvious that ${\mathcal{V}}_S\ :\
S\in{\mathcal{N}}(T)$ are orbital varieties of maximal dimension in ${\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_T\setminus {\mathcal{V}}_T.$ Moreover the fact that ${\mathcal{V}}_T$ admits a dense ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbit and Proposition \[3.3\] provide that these are all maximal orbital varieties in ${\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_T\setminus {\mathcal{V}}_T.$ In other words ${\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_T={\mathcal{V}}_T\bigsqcup\bigcup\limits_{S\in{\mathcal{N}}(T)}{\overline}{\mathcal{V}}_S.$
As a straightforward corollary of Lemma \[4.1\] we get
Let $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ and $T_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}j_1\cr\vdots\cr
j_k\cr\end{array}\right)$. Then $${\mathcal{N}}(T)=\{T\langle j_i\rangle\ |\ i=k\ or\ \forall\ s\ :\
i<s\leq k\ \Rightarrow\ j_s-j_i\geq 2(s-i)\}.$$
This theorem simplifies Theorem 4.3 from [@Mo2].
Meanders and intersections of the components of a Springer fiber of nilpotent order 2
=====================================================================================
{#4.3}
In this section we apply our results to the theory of intersections of the components of Springer fiber ${\mathcal{F}}_x$ where $x\in
{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}.$ For $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ let ${\mathcal{F}}_T,\ {\mathcal{F}}_S$ be the corresponding components of ${\mathcal{F}}_x.$ As we explained in \[1.8\] the number of components of ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S$ and their codimensions equal to the number of components of ${\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S$ and their codimensions. So we formulate our results in terms of the components of a Springer fiber, however the computations are made in ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of nilpotent order 2. First note that for $T,S\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ one has $${\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S={\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_T\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_S\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(n-k,k)^*}=
\coprod\limits_{{\sigma\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)}\atop {\sigma\preceq
\sigma_T,\sigma_S}}{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma.$$
We will try to understand these intersections in terms of meanders. We draw one link pattern upwards and one link pattern downwards. If both link patterns of a meander are without intersections we get a classical meander, otherwise we get a generalized meander.
As we have mentioned in \[1.8\] a generalized meander $M_{\sigma,\sigma'}$ corresponding to $\sigma,\sigma'\in{\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$ provides us an easy way to compute $R_{\sigma,\sigma'}$. However for a generalized meander the picture seems to be too complex to understand it without going to matrix $R_{\sigma,\sigma'}$.
As it is shown in [@M-PII 3.8] even an intersection of codimension 1 for (closures of) generic ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits of the same dimension can be reducible. Moreover, it can be not of pure dimension as it is shown by the example below. We also use this example to construct the corresponding generalized meander. Consider $\sigma=(1,3)(4,5),
\ \sigma'=(2,3)(4,6)\in{\mathbf{S}}_6^2(2).$ Note that $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,5)}=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(4,6)}=2\cdot 4-1=7.$ The generalized meander is
(100,80) (-70,40)[$M_{(1,3)(4,5),\ (2,3)(4,6)}=$]{} (40,40)(20,0)[6]{}
(40,40)(60,70)(80,40) (100,40)(110,60)(120,40) (60,40)(70,20)(80,40) (100,40)(120,10)(140,40)
and $$R_{(1,3)(4,5),\ (2,3)(4,6)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
0&0&1&1&1&2\\
0&0&0&0&1&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0\\
\end{array}\right)$$ One can easily check using Proposition \[2.3\] that $R_{(1,3)(4,5),\ (2,3)(4,6)}\not\in{\mathbf R}_6^2$ so that the intersection is reducible by Theorem \[2.5\]. Computing $R_{(1,3)(4,6)}$ and $R_{(1,6)(2,5)}$ we get $\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,5)}\cap\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(4,6)}=\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,6)}\cup
\overline{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,6)(2,5)}$ so that the intersection is reducible and $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,6)}=2\cdot 4-2=6$, $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,6)(2,5)}=2\cdot 4-4=4.$
{#4.4}
As we explained in the introduction the meanders consisting of link patterns of orbital varieties that is $M_{\sigma_S,\sigma_T}$, where $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ are the most simple on one hand and the most important on the other hand. To simplify the notation we put $P_T:=P_{\sigma_T}$ and $M_{S,T}:=M_{\sigma_S,\sigma_T}.$
By the very nature of the ordering of ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits if ${\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S$ is of higher (than 1) codimension and ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ is a component of the intersection there exist ${\mathcal{B}}_\tau{\subset}{\mathcal{V}}_T,\ {\mathcal{B}}_\tau\not{\subset}{\mathcal{V}}_S$ and ${\mathcal{B}}_{\tau'}{\subset}{\mathcal{V}}_S,\ {\mathcal{B}}_{\tau'}\not{\subset}{\mathcal{V}}_T$ such that $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\tau=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{\tau'}=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_\sigma+1$ and ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ is a component of their intersection. Thus, the description of the intersections of higher codimension involves the description of intersections of codimension 1 for general ${\mathbf{B}}$ orbits. Just to illustrate this point let us show that the example of \[4.3\] provides us with the intersection of codimension 2 of two orbital varieties which is not only reducible but also is not of pure dimension. This is the example from [@M-PI 5.7]. Consider $$T=\begin{array}{ll}
1&3\\
2&6\\
4& \\
5& \\
\end{array}\quad{\rm and}\quad S=\begin{array}{ll}
1&2\\
3&5\\
4& \\
6& \\
\end{array}$$ so that $\sigma_T=(2,3)(5,6)$ and $\sigma_S=(1,2)(4,5).$ One has $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(5,6)}=\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,2)(4,5)}=8.$ The corresponding meander is
(100,80) (-40,40)(20,0)[6]{} (-40,25)[1]{} (-22,25)[2]{} (0,25)[3]{} (20,25)[4]{} (38,25)[5]{} (60,25)[6]{}
(-40,40)(-30,70)(-20,40) (20,40)(30,70)(40,40) (-20,40)(-10,10)(0,40) (40,40)(50,10)(60,40)
Comparing with the meander in \[4.3\] we see that ${\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,5)}{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,2)(4,5)}$ of codimension 1 and ${\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,5)}\not{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(5,6)}$, also ${\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(4,6)}{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(5,6)}$ of codimension 1 and ${\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(4,6)}\not{\subset}{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,2)(4,5)}$ Moreover computing $R_{\sigma_T,\sigma_S}$ we get $$R_{\sigma_T,\sigma_S}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
0&0&1&1&1&2\\
0&0&0&0&1&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0\\\end{array}\right)=R_{(1,3)(4,5),\ (2,3)(4,6)}$$ Thus, exactly as in \[4.3\] we get $${\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S=\left({\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,5)}\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(2,3)(4,6)}\right)\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(4,2)^*}=
\left({\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,6)}\cup{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,6)(2,5)}\right)\cap{\mathcal{O}}_{(4,2)^*}$$ and $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,3)(4,6)}=6$ and $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,6)(2,5)}=4$ so that ${\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_{S}$ contains one component of codimension 2 and another component of codimension 4.
{#4.5}
To formulate the statement on the intersections of codimension 1 we need more notation.
Arcs of $M_{S,T}$ never intersect one another. A connected subset of arcs in $M_{S,T}$ can be either open or closed . If it is open we call it an [**interval**]{}. If it is closed we call it a [**loop**]{}. The number of arcs in a path ${\mathcal{P}}$ is called the length of ${\mathcal{P}}$, we denote it by $L({\mathcal{P}})$. Note that if ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a loop $L({\mathcal{P}})$ is even. An interval can be either of even length, then we call it even, or of odd length, correspondingly we call it odd. We call a meander [**even**]{} if it consists only of loops and even intervals. Otherwise we call it [**odd**]{}. For example, the meander in \[4.4\] consists of two even intervals (each one of length 2) so it is an even meander.
Now we can formulate our result.
For $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ one has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)=1$ if and only if $M_{S,T}$ is an even meander with $k-1$ loops. In this case ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S$ is irreducible.
Note that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{V}}_T}({\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S)=1$ iff ${\mathcal{D}}(\sigma_T)\cap{\mathcal{D}}(\sigma_S)\ne\emptyset.$
Since for $\sigma'\in D(\sigma_T)$ one has $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}=k(n-k)-1$ we get that either there is one fixed point under one arc of $P_{\sigma'}$ or exactly two arcs of $P_{\sigma'}$ intersect.
Let $P_{\sigma'}$ be a link pattern with one fixed point under one arc. Let $m$ be this fixed point and $(i,j)$ be the corresponding arc. There are exactly two ways to get a bigger link pattern (that is without fixed points under an arc and without crossings) and by maximality of dimension each one of them is a link pattern of some orbital variety:
(100,140) (-150,60)[$P_{\sigma'}:$]{} (-131.5,60)(7.5,0)[21]{} (-110,60) (-5,60) (-50,60) (-110,45)[$i$]{} (-52,45)[$m$]{} (-5,45)[$j$]{}
(-110,60)(-58.5,130)(-5,60)
(40,65)[(2,1)[30]{}]{} (70,90)[$P_S:$]{}
(93.5,90)(7.5,0)[21]{} (115,90) (175,90) (220,90) (115,75)[$i$]{} (175,75)[$m$]{} (217,75)[$j$]{}
(175,90)(197.5,130)(220,90)
(40,55)[(2,-1)[30]{}]{} (70,28)[$P_T:$]{}
(93.5,30)(7.5,0)[21]{} (115,30) (175,30) (220,30) (115,15)[$i$]{} (175,15)[$m$]{} (217,15)[$j$]{} (115,30)(145,80)(175,30)
where dots on $[i+1,m-1]$ are all end points of arcs belonging to $\pi_{i,m}(P_{\sigma'})$ and dots on $[m+1,j-1]$ are end points of arcs belonging to $\pi_{m,j}(P_{\sigma'}).$
Note that $M_{S,T}$ in that case consists of $k-1$ loops $(i_s,j_s)\ne(i,m),\ (m,j)$ (all the loops are of length 2) and a unique even interval (of length 2) connecting $i$ and $j$ via $m$:
(100,40) (-32.5,20)(7.5,0)[21]{} (-10,20) (95,20) (50,20) (-10,5)[$i$]{} (95,5)[$j$]{} (48,5)[$m$]{}
(-10,20)(20,60)(50,20) (50,20)(72.5,-10)(95,20)
Now let $P_{\sigma'}$ have two intersecting arcs. Let $(i,j),
(i',j')$ where $i<i'<j<j'$ be these arcs. There are exactly two ways to get a bigger link pattern (that is without crossings and without fixed points under an arc) and by maximality of dimension each one of them is a link pattern of some orbital variety:
(100,100) (-150,60)[$P_{\sigma'}:$]{} (-133,60)(7.5,0)[3]{} (-110,60) (-110,45)[$i$]{} (-104,60)(7.5,0)[3]{} (-90,60) (-90,45)[$i'$]{} (-82.5,60)(7.5,0)[4]{} (-53,60) (-53,45)[$j$]{} (-33,60) (-47,60)(7.5,0)[3]{} (-33,45)[$j'$]{} (-25,60)(7.5,0)[3]{} (-110,60)(-82.5,110)(-53,60) (-90,60)(-62.5,110)(-33,60)
(30,65)[(2,1)[30]{}]{} (60,90)[$P_S:$]{}
(87,90)(7.5,0)[3]{} (110,90) (110,75)[$i$]{} (130,90) (130,75)[$i'$]{} (116,90)(7.5,0)[2]{} (137.5,90)(7.5,0)[4]{} (167,90) (167,75)[$j$]{} (187,90) (187,75)[$j'$]{} (173,90)(7.5,0)[2]{} (195,90)(7.5,0)[3]{} (110,90)(120,120)(130,90) (167,90)(177,120)(187,90)
(30,55)[(2,-1)[30]{}]{} (60,28)[$P_T:$]{} (87,30)(7.5,0)[3]{} (110,30) (110,15)[$i$]{} (130,30) (130,15)[$i'$]{} (116,30)(7.5,0)[2]{} (137.5,30)(7.5,0)[4]{} (167,30) (167,15)[$j$]{} (187,30) (187,15)[$j'$]{} (173,30)(7.5,0)[2]{} (195,30)(7.5,0)[3]{} (110,30)(148.5,80)(187,30) (130,30)(148.5,60)(167,30)
where dots on $[i+1,i'-1]$ are all end points of arcs belonging to $\pi_{i,i'}(P_{\sigma'})$, dots on $[i'+1,j-1]$ are all end points of arcs belonging to $\pi_{i',j}(P_{\sigma'})$ and dots on $[j+1,j'-1]$ are all end points of arcs belonging to $\pi_{j,j'}(P_{\sigma'}).$
Note that $M_{S,T}$ consists of $k-1$ loops: $k-2$ loops of type $(i_s,j_s)$ (of length 2) where $\{i_s,j_s\}\cap\{i,i',j,j'\}=\emptyset$ and a loop (of length 4) involving $\{i,i',j,j'\}$:
(100,80) (-33,40)(7.5,0)[3]{} (-10,40) (-10,25)[$i$]{} (10,40) (10,25)[$i'$]{} (-4,40)(7.5,0)[2]{} (17.5,40)(7.5,0)[4]{} (47,40) (47,25)[$j$]{} (67,40) (67,25)[$j'$]{} (53,40)(7.5,0)[2]{} (75,40)(7.5,0)[3]{} (-10,40)(0,70)(10,40) (47,40)(57,70)(67,40) (-10,40)(28.5,-20)(67,40) (10,40)(28.5,10)(47,40)
Thus, in both cases we get an even meander with $k-1$ loops. Let $M_{S,T}$ be a meander with $2k$ arcs. If it is even and contains $k-1$ loops then it must contain $k-2$ loops of length 2 and either one loop of length 4 or one more loop of length 2 and one even interval of length 2, so that the cases above are all possible cases for even meanders with $k-1$ loops.
Also, one can see from the pictures above that for $\sigma\in{\mathcal{D}}(\sigma_T)$ there exists exactly one $S$ such that ${\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma_T}\cap{\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma_S}\supset\{\sigma\}$ and in this case ${\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma_T}\cap{\mathcal{D}}_{\sigma_S}=\{\sigma\}$ so that the intersection of codimension 1 is irreducible.
{#4.6}
Let us compare the results above to the results of Wesbury [@W] which were applied by Fung [@F] to two-row case. In this subsection we formulate the results which coincide with our results on two-column case.
For $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ let $I(T):=I(P_{\sigma_T}):=I(\sigma_T):=\{i\
:\ (i,i+1)\in \sigma_T \}=\{i\ :\ i\in\langle T_1\rangle,\
i+1\in\langle T_2\rangle\}$. For example, take $$T=\begin{array}{ll}
1&4\\
2&5\\
3&7\\
6&8\\
9&\\
\end{array}$$ Then $\sigma_{\scriptscriptstyle T}=(3,4)(2,5)(6,7)(1,8)$ and $I(T)=\{3,6\}.$
Given $i\in \langle T_1\rangle,\ j\in\langle T_2\rangle$ put $T_{i\leftrightarrows j}$ to be a tableau obtained from $T$ by interchanging columns of $i$ and $j$ if an array obtained in such a way is a tableau. Otherwise $T_{i\leftrightarrows j}=\emptyset.$ Note that if $j<i$ then $T_{i\leftrightarrows j}\ne \emptyset$ always. If $j>i$ then $T_{i\leftrightarrows j}\ne\emptyset$ iff ${{\rm sh\,}}(\pi_{1,i}(T))=(i-k',k')^*$ where $i-k'> k'+1$ and ${{\rm sh\,}}(\pi_{1,j}(T))=(j-k{^{\prime\prime}},k{^{\prime\prime}})^*$ where $j-k{^{\prime\prime}}>k{^{\prime\prime}}.$
If $i\not\in I(T)$ put $$u_i(T):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
T_{\sigma_T(i)\leftrightarrows i}&{\rm if}\ i,i+1\in \langle
T_2\rangle\\
T_{i+1\leftrightarrows i} &{\rm if}\ i\in \langle T_2\rangle\ {\rm
and}\ i+1\in \langle
T_1\rangle \\
T_{i+1\leftrightarrows \sigma_{T}(i+1)}&{\rm if}\ i,i+1\in \langle
T_1\rangle\ {\rm and}\ \sigma_T(i+1)\ne i+1\\
\emptyset& {\rm if}\ i,i+1\in \langle T_1\rangle\ {\rm and}\
\sigma_T(i+1)=i+1
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that in the last case $\sigma_T(i)=i$ as well. And this is the only case when $u_i(T)=\emptyset.$
The picture is much more clear on the level of link patterns. Let $T$ be such that $i\not\in I(P_T).$ then $u_i(P_T)\ne\emptyset$ iff $\{i,i+1\}\cap\langle P_T\rangle\ne\emptyset.$
In this case
- If $\{i,i+1\}{\subset}\langle\sigma_T\rangle$ then $u_i(\sigma_T):=\sigma_{u_i(T)}=(\sigma_T)_{i\leftrightarrows\sigma_T(i+1)}$ and $M_{T,u_i(T)}$ consists of $k-2$ loops of length 2 and one loop of length 4 with the points $\{i,i+1,\sigma_T(i),\sigma_T(i+1)\}.$ There are 3 possible situations shown below:
(100,100) (-190,60)[$i,i+1\in \langle T_2\rangle:$]{} (-123,60)(10,0)[2]{} (-103,60) (-130,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (-93,60)(10,0)[3]{} (-63,60) (-70,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (-53,60)(10,0)[4]{} (-13,60) (-15,45)[$i$]{} (-3,60) (-5,45)[$i+1$]{} (7,60)(7.5,0)[2]{} (-103,60)(-53,110)(-3,60) (-63,60)(-38,90)(-13,60)
(30,60)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (60,80)[$P_{u_i(T)}:$]{}
(87,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60) (80,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (147,60) (140,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (117,60)(10,0)[3]{} (157,60)(10,0)[4]{} (197,60) (193,45)[$i$]{} (207,60) (205,45)[$i+1$]{} (217,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60)(127,100)(147,60) (197,60)(202,80)(207,60)
(100,100) (-190,60)[$i,i+1\in \langle T_1\rangle:$]{} (-123,60)(10,0)[2]{} (-103,60) (-106,45)[$i$]{} (-93,60) (-95,45)[$i+1$]{} (-83,60)(10,0)[4]{} (-43,60) (-60,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (-33,60)(10,0)[3]{}
(-3,60) (-10,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (7,60)(7.5,0)[2]{} (-103,60)(-53,110)(-3,60) (-93,60)(-68,90)(-43,60)
(30,60)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (60,80)[$P_{u_i(T)}:$]{}
(87,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60) (104,45)[$i$]{} (117,60) (115,45)[$i+1$]{} (127,60)(10,0)[4]{} (167,60) (150,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (177,60)(10,0)[3]{} (207,60) (200,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (217,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60)(112,80)(117,60) (167,60)(187,110)(207,60)
(100,100) (-185,70)[$i\in \langle T_2\rangle$]{} (-200,50)[$i+1\in \langle T_1\rangle$]{} (-140,60)[$:$]{} (-123,60)(10,0)[2]{} (-103,60) (-115,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (-93,60)(10,0)[3]{} (-63,60) (-67,45)[$i$]{} (-53,60) (-53,45)[$i+1$]{} (-43,60)(10,0)[4]{} (-3,60) (-10,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (7,60)(10,0)[2]{}
(-103,60)(-83,90)(-63,60) (-53,60)(-28,100)(-3,60)
(30,60)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (60,80)[$P_{u_i(T)}:$]{}
(87,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60) (95,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (117,60)(10,0)[3]{} (147,60) (142,45)[$i$]{} (157,60) (155,45)[$i+1$]{} (167,60)(10,0)[4]{} (207,60) (200,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (217,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60)(157,120)(207,60) (147,60)(152,80)(157,60)
- If $\{i,i+1\}\not{\subset}\langle\sigma_T\rangle$ then
- If $i\in\langle\sigma_T\rangle$ and $i+1\not\in \langle\sigma_T\rangle$ then $i\in\langle
T_2\rangle,$ $i+1\in\langle T_1\rangle$ and $u_i(\sigma_T):=\sigma_{u_i(T)}=(\sigma_T)_{\sigma_T(i)\rightarrow
i+1}$, so that $M_{T,u_i(T)}$ consists of $k-1$ loops of length 2 and one interval of length 2 consisting of arcs $(\sigma_T(i),i),\ (i,i+1)$ as it is shown at the picture below:
(100,100) (-123,60)(10,0)[2]{} (-103,60) (-115,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (-93,60)(10,0)[3]{} (-63,60) (-67,45)[$i$]{} (-53,60) (-53,45)[$i+1$]{} (-43,60)(10,0)[5]{} (-103,60)(-83,90)(-63,60)
(30,60)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (60,80)[$P_{u_i(T)}:$]{}
(87,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60) (95,45)[$\sigma_T(i)$]{} (117,60)(10,0)[3]{} (147,60) (142,45)[$i$]{} (157,60) (155,45)[$i+1$]{} (167,60)(10,0)[5]{} (147,60)(152,80)(157,60)
- If $i+1\in\langle\sigma_T\rangle$ and $i\not\in
\langle\sigma_T\rangle$ then $i,i+1\in\langle T_1\rangle$ and $u_i(\sigma_T):=\sigma_{u_i(T)}=(\sigma_T)_{\sigma_T(i+1)\rightarrow
i}$ so that $M_{T,u_i(T)}$ consists of $k-1$ loops of length 2 and an interval of length 2 consisting of arcs $(i,i+1),\
(i+1,\sigma_T(i+1))$ as it is shown at the picture below:
(100,100) (-123,60)(10,0)[2]{} (-103,60) (-105,45)[$i$]{} (-93,60) (-95,45)[$i+1$]{} (-83,60)(10,0)[3]{} (-53,60) (-60,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (-43,60)(10,0)[5]{} (-93,60)(-73,90)(-53,60)
(30,60)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (60,80)[$P_{u_i(T)}:$]{}
(87,60)(10,0)[2]{} (107,60) (105,45)[$i$]{} (117,60) (115,45)[$i+1$]{} (127,60)(10,0)[3]{} (157,60) (150,45)[$\sigma_T(i+1)$]{} (167,60)(10,0)[5]{} (107,60)(112,80)(117,60)
Note that in both cases we get by Theorem \[4.5\] that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{V}}_T}({\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_{u_i(T)})=1.$ Moreover, if $i\not\in I(T)$ then $u_i(T)$ is the only tableau in $\{S\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}\ :\ i\in
I(S)\}$ such that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{V}}_T}({\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_{S})=1.$
Further, by [@W 7] one can define inner product on Templerley-Lieb algebra of $\{P_T\ :\ T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}\}$ where link pattern $P_T$ for $T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ is defined exactly in the same way as it is defined here (that is $P_T:=P_{T^t}.$). Then for two basis elements $P_T,P_S\ :\ T,S\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ one has either $<P_T,P_S>=\delta^s$ where $0\leq s\leq k-1$ or $<P_T,P_S>=0.$ The $W$ graph of link patterns with vertices $\{P_T\ :\
T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}\}$ each labeled by the set $I(T)$ (where $i\in
I(T)$ if $i$ is in the first row of $T$ and $i+1$ in the second row of $T$, that is $I(T):=I(T^t)$) and edges connecting $P_T$ and $P_S$ if $<P_T,P_S>=\delta^{k-1}$ is a graph of Kazhdan-Lusztig type. Moreover, translating the result to our language we get $<P_{S^t},P_{T^t}>=\delta^{k-1}$ iff $M_{S,T}$ is an even meander with $k-1$ loops.
Comparing to our results we get that for $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ one has ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)=1$ iff $<P_{S^t},P_{T^t}>=\delta^{k-1}.$ Thus, in particular $W$ graph of link patterns with vertices $\{P_T\ :\ T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}\}$ labeled by the set $I(T)$ and edges connecting $P_T$ and $P_S$ if ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{V}}_S}({\mathcal{V}}_T\cap{\mathcal{V}}_S)=1$ coincides with the graph of corresponding Templerley-Lieb algebra and respectively it is of Kazhdan-Lusztig type. As it was shown by F. Fung ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_{S^t}}({\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{S^t})=1$ exactly in the same cases.
{#4.7}
More generally, in [@W] and [@G-L] it was shown that for $P_S,P_T\ :\ S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ $$<P_S,P_T>=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\delta^r & {\rm if}\ M_{S,T}\ {\rm is\ an\ even\ meander\ with}\ r\
{\rm loops};\\
0 & {\rm if}\ M_{S,T}\ {\rm is\ odd}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ They showed this theorem using the proposition that for $P_S,P_T\
:\ S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ such that $i\in I(P_S)$ and $i\not\in
I(P_T)$ one has $$<P_S,P_T>=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\delta^{-1}<P_S,P_{u_i(T)}> & {\rm if}\ u_i(P_T)\ne\emptyset;\\
0 & {\rm otherwise}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
F. Fung in [@F] considered the intersections of ${\mathcal{F}}_T\ :\
T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}.$ By [@F 7] for $T,S\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)}$ one has $${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
k-r &{\rm if}\ <P_S,P_T>=\delta^r\\
\emptyset&{\rm if}\ <P_S,P_T>=0\\
\end{array}\right.$$ He showed this using the same technique, namely showing that for $i\in I(P_S),\ i\not\in I(P_T)$ one has $${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}({\mathcal{F}}_S\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{u_i(T)})+1 & {\rm if}\ u_i(P_T)\ne\emptyset;\\
\emptyset & {\rm otherwise}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
However the results on the intersections of higher codimensions in two-column case are very different from those of Westbury and Fung . First of all note that since ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S\ne\emptyset$ for $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ it cannot occur that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)={{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}}({\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{S^t})$ for all $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$.
It is interesting that the deviations of the codimensions are directed in both sides. On one hand, if $M_{S,T}$ is odd then ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)<{{\rm codim\,}}_{F_{T^t}}({\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{S^t})$ ( since ${\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{S^t}=\emptyset$). On the other hand, for even meanders with less than $k-1$ loops it seems that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_T}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)\geq{{\rm codim\,}}_{F_{T^t}}({\mathcal{F}}_{T^t}\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{S^t}).$ We do not prove this here, we only show by the example that the technique of passing from $M_{T,S}$ to $M_{u_i(T),S}$ explained above does not work in two-column case. Namely we give an example of $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ such that $i\in I(S)$ and $i\not\in I(T)$ and $u_i(T)\ne\emptyset$ and ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}({\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)>{{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}({\mathcal{F}}_{u_i(T)}\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S)+1:$
Let us consider $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_6^2$ shown below. Note that $2\in I(S)$ and $2\not\in I(T)$ so that $$S=\begin{array}{ll}
1&3\\
2&4\\
5& \\
6& \\
\end{array},
\quad
T=\begin{array}{ll}
1&5\\
2&6\\
3& \\
4& \\
\end{array},
\quad u_2(T)=\begin{array}{ll}
1&3\\
2&5\\
4& \\
6&\\
\end{array}$$ The corresponding meanders are:
(200,80) (-100,40)[$M_{S,T}=$]{} (-60,40)(15,0)[6]{} (-63,30)[1]{} (-48,30)[2]{} (-33,30)[3]{} (-18,30)[4]{} (3,30)[5]{} (18,30)[6]{}
(-61,40)(-33.5,80)(-16,40) (-46,40)(-38.5,55)(-31,40) (-30,40)(-7.5,0)(16,40) (-15,40)(-7.5,25)(0,40) (60,40)[and]{} (120,40)[$M_{S,u_2(T)}=$]{} (180,40)(15,0)[6]{} (177,30)[1]{} (192,30)[2]{} (211,30)[3]{} (222,30)[4]{} (243,30)[5]{} (255,30)[6]{} (180,40)(202.5,80)(225,40) (195,40)(202.5,55)(210,40) (195,40)(202.5,25)(210,40) (240,40)(232.5,25)(225,40)
By Theorem \[4.5\] ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}{\mathcal{F}}_S\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{u_2(T)}=1$. On the other hand, a straightforward computation shows that ${\mathcal{V}}_S\cap{\mathcal{V}}_T$ is irreducible and its only component is ${\mathcal{B}}_{(1,6)(2,5)}$ with $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{(1,6)(2,5)}=8-4=4$ so that ${{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}{\mathcal{F}}_S\cap{\mathcal{F}}_T={{\rm codim\,}}_{{\mathcal{F}}_S}{\mathcal{F}}_S\cap{\mathcal{F}}_{u_2(T)}+3$.
One can define $I(\sigma)$ and respectively $u_i(\sigma)$ for any $\sigma$ not only for $\sigma_T$ but in general case $\dim{\mathcal{B}}_{u_i(\sigma)}\geq \dim {\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ and the difference between these two dimensions can be quite big. And this is the reason of the jumps of codimension of the intersections. But the details of this general theory are very involved on one hand and ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S$ of higher codimensions are not that interesting from the geometric point of view on the other hand, so we stop here.
{#4.8}
Let us note at the end that there exists a very easy sufficient condition for ${\mathcal{F}}_T\cap{\mathcal{F}}_S$ to be reducible. Generalizing this condition we can obtain the necessary and sufficient condition for the intersection to be irreducible, but again, the formulation of this condition is too involved.
Consider $M_{S,T}$ and put $[i_1,j_1],[i_2,j_2],\ldots$ to be the segments such that $(R_{S,T})_{i_s,j_s}=1$ and $(R_{S,T})_{p,q}=0$ for any $[p,q]\subsetneq [i_s,j_s].$ We order these segments in increasing order (that is $i_1<i_2<\ldots$) and call them 1-segments of $M_{S,T}.$
Consider $S,T\in{\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*}$ Let $[i_1,j_1],\ldots[i_t,j_t]$ be 1-segments of $M_{S,T}.$ If there exists $s\ :\ 1\leq s<t$ such that either $i_{s+1}=j_s$ or $i_{s+1}<j_s$ and $(R_{S,T})_{i_s,j_{s+1}}=1$, then ${\mathcal{F}}_S\cap{\mathcal{F}}_T$ is reducible.
First of all note that for a 1-segment $[i_s,j_s]$ there exists a component ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma$ of ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_S}\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_T}$ such that $(i_s,j_s)\in\sigma.$ Indeed, by the definition of $[i_s,j_s]$ one has $(i_s,j_s)\prec \sigma_S,\sigma_T.$ Thus, by proposition \[3.9a\] there exists a component involution $\sigma$ of ${\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_S}\cap{\overline}{\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma_T}$ such that $\sigma\succ(i_s,j_s)$. In particular, this provides $(R_\sigma)_{i_s,j_s}\geq 1$. On the other hand, for any $[p,q]\subsetneq [i_s,j_s]$ one has $(R_\sigma)_{p,q}\leq (R_{S,T})_{p,q}=0$ and $(R_\sigma)_{i_s,j_s}\leq (R_{S,T})_{i_s,j_s}=1$. Thus, $(R_\sigma)_{i_s,j_s}= 1$ and $(i_s,j_s)\in\sigma.$
If $i_{s+1}=j_s$ then there exist component involutions $\sigma,\sigma'$ of ${\mathcal{B}}_T\cap{\mathcal{B}}_S$ such that $(i_s,j_s)\in\sigma$ and $(j_s,j_{s+1})\in\sigma'.$ Obviously, ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma,\ {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$ are two different components of the intersection.
If $i_{s+1}<j_s$ then there exist component involutions $\sigma,\sigma'$ such that $(i_s,j_s)\in\sigma$ and $(j_s,j_{s+1})\in\sigma'.$ If $\sigma=\sigma'$ we get $(i_s,j_s),(i_{s+1},j_{s+1})\in\sigma$ so that $(R_\sigma)_{i_s,j_{s+1}}=2$ which contradicts the condition $(R_{S,T})_{i_s,j_{s+1}}=1$. Thus, again, ${\mathcal{B}}_\sigma,\ {\mathcal{B}}_{\sigma'}$ are two different components of the intersection.
INDEX OF NOTATION
--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[1.1\] ${\mathcal{O}}_u,\ {\mathfrak{N}},\ {\mathbf{B}},\ {\mathcal{B}}_u,\ {\mathcal{X}}$
\[1.2\] $\lambda,\ \lambda^*,\ J(u), {\mathcal{O}}_\lambda,\ D_\lambda$
\[1.3\] ${\mathbf{S}}_n^2,\ N_\sigma,\ {\mathcal{B}}_\sigma,\ P_\sigma$
\[1.4\] $\ell(P_\sigma),\ c(P_\sigma),\ f_p(P_\sigma),\ f(P_\sigma),\ {\mathbf{S}}_n^2(k)$
\[1.5\] $[i,j],\ R_\sigma,\ \succeq$
\[1.6\] ${\mathcal{C}}(\sigma),\ {\mathcal{N}}(\sigma),\ {\mathcal{D}}(\sigma)$
\[1.8\] $R_{\sigma,\sigma'}$
\[2.1\] ${\mathfrak{B}}_{(n-k,k)},\ (i,j),\ ((i,j)),\ q_{(i,j)}(\sigma)$
\[2.2\] ${\mathcal{V}}_T,\ {\mathbf{Tab}}_{(n-k,k)^*},\ T_1,\ T_2,\ \langle
T_i\rangle,\ \sigma_T,\ {\mathcal{B}}_T$
\[2.3\] $\pi_{i,j},\ R_u,\ R_\sigma,\ {\mathbf R}_n^2$
\[3.1\] $ {\bf over}_m(P_\sigma),\ {\bf over}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma),\ l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma),\
r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma),\ c^l_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma),$
$\ c^r_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma),\
{\bf under}_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma),\ f'_{(i,j)}(P_\sigma)$
\[3.2\] $\pi_{i,j}(P_\sigma)$
\[3.3\] $E(\sigma),\ \sigma_{(i,j)}^- $
\[3.4\] $\langle P_\sigma\rangle,\ \langle \sigma\rangle,\
\sigma_{i\rightarrow f},\ \sigma_{\curvearrowleft (i,j)},\
\sigma_{(i,j)\curvearrowright}$
\[3.5\] $\sigma_{i\leftrightarrows j},\ L_{(i,j)}(\sigma),\ S_{(i,j)\looparrowright}$
\[3.6\] $Ov_{(i,j)}(\sigma),\
S_{(i,j)\downharpoonleft\upharpoonright} $
\[3.8\] $E_{\max}(\sigma)$
--------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[m]{} P. Di Francesco, P. Zinn-Justin, [*From Orbital Varieties to Alternating Sign Matrices*]{}, math-ph/0512047. F.Y.C.Fung [*On the topology of components of some Springer fibers and their relation to Kazhdan-Lusztig theory*]{}, Advances in Math. 178 (2003), pp. 244-276.
J.J. Graham, G.I. Lehrer, [*Cellular algebras*]{}, Invent. Math. [**123**]{} (1996), pp. 1-34. W. Hesselink, [*Singularities in the nilpotent scheme of a classical group*]{}, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. [**222**]{} (1976), pp. 1-32.
A. Joseph, [*On the variety of a highest weight module*]{}, J. of Algebra 88 (1984), 238-278.
A. Knutson, P. Zinn-Justin, [*A scheme related to the Brauer loop model*]{}, math.AG/0503224. A.Melnikov, [*Irreducibility of the associated varieties of simple highest weight modules in $\mathfrak s\mathfrak l
(n)$*]{}, C.R.A.S. I, 316 (1993), 53-57. A.Melnikov, [*Orbital varieties in ${\mathfrak {sl}}_n$ and the Smith conjecture*]{}, J. of Algebra, [**200**]{} (1998), pp. 1-31.
A. Melnikov, [*B-orbits in solutions to the equation $X^2=2$ in triangular matrices*]{}, J. of Algebra, [**223**]{} (2000), pp. 101-108. A.Melnikov,[*, The combinatorics of orbital variety closures of nilpotent order 2 in ${\mathfrak {sl}}_n$*]{}, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, vol. 12(1), 2005, R21. A. Melnikov, [*Description of B-orbit closures of order 2 in upper-triangular matrices*]{}, Transformation Groups, Vol. 11 No. 2, 2006, pp. 217-247. A. Melnikov, N.G.J. Pagnon, [*On the intersections of orbital varieties and components of Springer fiber*]{}, J. Algebra 298 (2006), 1-14. A. Melnikov, J.G.N. Pagnon, [*Intersections of components of a Springer fiber for the hook and two column cases*]{}, math.RT/0607673. A. Melnikov, J.G.N. Pagnon, [*Intersections of components of a Springer fiber of codimension one for the two column case*]{}, math.RT/0701178. N.Spaltenstein, [*The fixed point set of a unipotent transformation on the flag manifold*]{}, Proc. Konin. Nederl. Akad. [**79**]{} (1976), pp. 452-456.
N. Spaltenstein, Classes unipotentes de sous-groupes de Borel, LN in Math. 964 Springer-Verlag, 1982.
R. Steinberg, [*On the desingularization of the unipotent variety*]{}, Invent. Math. 36 (1976), 209-224.
B.W. Westbury, [*The representation theory of the Temperley-Lieb algebras*]{}, Math. Zeitschrift, 219 (1995), pp. 539-565. J.-B. Zuber, [*On the counting of fully packed loop configurations: some new conjectures*]{}, The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 11(2004), R13
[^1]: This work was partially supported by the EEC program RTN-grant “Liegrits”
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Accurate molecular crystal structure prediction is a fundamental goal in academic and industrial condensed matter research and polymorphism is arguably the biggest obstacle on the way. We tackle this challenge in the difficult case of the repeatedly studied, abundantly used aminoacid Glycine that hosts still little-known phase transitions and we illustrate the current state of the field through this example. We demonstrate that the combination of recent progress in structure search algorithms with the latest advances in the description of van der Waals interactions in Density Functional Theory, supported by data-mining analysis, enables a leap in predictive power: we resolve, without prior empirical input, all known phases of glycine, as well as the structure of the previously unresolved $\zeta$ phase after a decade of its experimental observation \[Boldyreva et al. *Z. Kristallogr.* **2005,** *220,* 50-57\]. The search for the well-established $\alpha$ phase instead reveals the remaining challenges in exploring a polymorphic landscape.'
author:
- Cong Huy Pham
- Emine Kucukbenli
- Stefano de Gironcoli
title: 'Crystal Structure Prediction of Molecular Crystals from First Principles: Are we there yet?'
---
Introduction
============
Molecular polymorphism, the observation of different crystal structures made up of the same molecules, has been a central problem standing in the way of affordable and reliable crystal structure prediction (CSP) which would greatly accelerate the development of new materials for applications in solid state chemistry, material science and pharmaceutical science [@Woodley2008; @Desiraju2002]. The key challenges for ab initio CSP of molecular crystals can be summarized as **i)** the computational cost of thermodynamical exploration of a rich polymorphic phase space, **ii)** the accuracy needed to resolve similarly-low energies among polymorphs [@Garnet2014], and **iii)** the fact that kinetic factors may control the crystallization procedure rather than thermodynamic ones [@Price2004].
The past decade witnessed these challenges being tackled by the scientific community and the progress can be followed through the blind tests organized yearly by the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre [@CCDC; @CCDC2001; @CCDC2011]. The exponential growth in the hardware performance and new, efficient algorithms tailored for molecular crystals have allowed a wider region of the phase space to be explored. The increased computational performance also enabled a transition from empirical interatomic potentials to more accurate but time consuming quantum mechanical techniques, mainly Density Functional Theory (DFT). This transition did not guarantee however an increase in predictive power in all cases [@USPEX-molecule]: the standard DFT functionals do not describe properly van der Waals (vdW) interactions, which forces CSP studies to employ approximate semi-empirical corrections. These approximations to vdW interactions strongly affect the energy ordering of explored structures, which is a core information in predicting polymorphism. Hence, to render CSP predictions reliable, a fully ab initio method, able to obtain an accurate lattice energy including the vdW interactions, has been highly desirable.
Recently a breakthrough in the description of vdW interactions in DFT has been made: many new non-local functionals that accurately describe the dispersion interactions have been proposed and demonstrated unprecedented success in a wide range of systems from molecules, molecular crystals to layered materials, with a computational cost comparable to that of standard functionals [@vdW-DF; @other-vdW]. It has been recently shown that even in difficult cases such as glycine crystals, where polymorphs show energy differences as little as 1 kcal/mol, new non-local functionals can yield the correct stability ordering as well as accurate pressure evolution [@vdW-glycine].
Encouraged by these results we combine this critical progress in DFT with recent developments in evolutionary CSP [@USPEX], specifically adapted for molecular structure search [@USPEX-molecule], and perform a fully ab initio CSP search on glycine crystals, without semi empirical corrections in the energy description, using neither information on cell geometry nor the symmetry of the experimentally observed polymorphs. We thus assess whether state-of-the-art ab-initio CSP can pass the challenging blind test of exploring the phase space of polymorphic glycine.
Glycine, NH$_2$CH$_2$COOH, the smallest aminoacid, is an excellent test case for CSP studies as its already rich polymorphism under ambient conditions is amplified and becomes less understood at higher pressure (see Fig.\[fig1\]).
![ (color) **Glycine polymorphism under pressure.** The stability order of polymorphs at ambient pressure, $ \gamma > \alpha > \beta$, with indicated $Z$ molecules in unit cell, is given. The form readily obtained by evaporation of aqueous solutions is $\alpha$-glycine, which for long was believed to be the most stable phase instead of the later discovered ground-state phase $\gamma$. Pressure evolution of ambient pressure phases show that while $\gamma$ and $\beta$ phases quickly lose single crystal nature or undergo a phase transition within a few GPa, $\alpha$ phase stays stable up to 23 GPa, the highest pressure reached in experiments. A reversible, hysteresis-free single-crystal to single-crystal transition occurs from $\beta$ to $\delta$ phase at 0.76 GPa. Single crystals of the $\gamma$ phase instead undergo an extended polymorphic transformation in the wide range of 2.7-7.6 GPa, to a high-pressure polymorph, the $\epsilon$ phase, accompanied with the fragmentation of single crystals into powder. Upon decompression, the $\epsilon$ phase is stable down to 0.62 GPa, where a new, irreversible phase transition occurs to the $\zeta$ phase, a new polymorph which is reported to be stable at ambient conditions for at least three days.[]{data-label="fig1"}](figure1.eps){width="47.00000%"}
A clear example to this is the $\zeta$ phase, which is reported to be stable at ambient conditions for at least three days [@zeta]. Interestingly, despite its stability, and at least three CSP studies devoted to Glycine so far [@USPEX-molecule; @glycine-CSP-fail1; @Chisholm2005], a decade after its observation, the $\zeta$ phase has not been structurally resolved yet.
The complex polymorphism of glycine highlights the importance of performing an extensive search in phase space, while practical concerns limit any CSP study to explore primarily the lowest energy structures. In this study we use evolutionary algorithms (EA) as implemented in the USPEX package to address this interplay efficiently [@USPEX-molecule]. We perform three test suits with Z=2, 3 or 4 glycine molecules in the crystal unit cell. At the first generation, we start with a population of 30 random structures. This population evolves through generations where only the thermodynamically most stable members are allowed to ’procreate’. The procreation operations are cross-overs of parent structures, and mutations that involve variation of the molecular position and orientation. The diversity of the population is guaranteed by addition of new random structures at each generation. The highest computational cost in this workflow is due to the ab initio geometry optimization of each structure considered. To keep this cost well within the capacity of modern high-performance computing technologies and within the budget of academic as well as industrial research, we limit the evolution to 20 generations at most (see Methods for details).
Methods
=======
Evolutionary Search
-------------------
We use EA as implemented in the USPEX package to search for the low-energy structures of glycine with Z=2, 3 or 4 molecules in the unit cell. At the first generation, 30 structures are created randomly. After energy ordering, the $20\%$ of the population that is energetically least favorable is discarded. Among the remaining, a fingerprint analysis is performed and potential parents whose fingerprint is within a threshold distance of 0.01 from any lower energy structure are discarded as well. The so-determined unique structures are eligible as parents and are allowed to procreate. The 30 new structures of the next generation are created from parents through the following operations: heredity (cross-over of two structures) ($40\%$), softmutation (translation and rotation based on estimate of soft vibrational modes) ($20\%$), rotation of the molecule ($20\%$), and random structure generation ($20\%$). In addition, the three best parents are directly cloned to the next generation. In all simulations, the maximum number of generations was 20.
ab initio Calculations
----------------------
For every structure generated by USPEX, the geometry and cell relaxation is performed using vdW-DF functional [@vdW-DF] which was implemented in the QUANTUM ESPRESSO package [@QE]. A kinetic energy cutoff of $80$ Ryd and a charge density cutoff of $560$ Ryd are used. The Brillouin zone sampling resolution was gradually increased in three steps during relaxation: resolution of $2\pi \times 0.12~{\textup{\AA}}^{-1}$, $2\pi \times 0.10~{\textup{\AA}}^{-1}$ and $2\pi \times 0.08~{\textup{\AA}}^{-1}$ respectively. Energies and geometries of the last step with the densest k-point are used throughout the study. PAW pseudopotentials are taken from the PSLibrary project[@PSLibrary]. By using this setup all structures are fully relaxed within a convergence of less than 0.1 mRy for absolute total energy, $0.5$ mRy/a.u. for the forces on atoms and less than $0.005$ GPa for the stress tensor.
Cluster analysis
----------------
The cluster analysis is performed by using single linkage clustering, where two structures with fingerprint distance less than distance threshold $d$ are considered to belong to the same cluster. Since USPEX definition of fingerprint does not include any information on the enthalpy of the structure, a constraint is added such that two structures with enthalpy difference more than 0.5 kJ/mol are not allowed to form a cluster. This constraint is found necessary only when the clustering analysis is performed for all the encountered structures, while limiting the analysis to low enthalpy region, such constraint was not necessary as each cluster was successfully identified with distance only.
Results and Discussion
======================
The results of CSP can be visualized through the distribution of energy as a function of volume for the structures encountered during the search. Despite the exploration of a wide region in phase space (see left panel of Fig.\[fig2\]),
![ (color) **Results of ab initio crystal structure search for Glycine with cluster analysis.** *Left panel*: Enthalpy vs volume distribution of all encountered structures for 2 molecules per cell shows that CSP with evolutionary algorithm allows a wide energy range to be explored while “survival of the fittest” algorithm keeps the focus on the thermodynamically low lying structures. *Right panels*: Expanded view of all explored structures compatible with 2, 3 and 4 molecules per cell in the lowest 4 kJ/mol range. All known phases of Glycine are identified with the right energy ordering along with a number of low-lying alternative polymorphs, including our prediction for the hitherto unresolved $\zeta$ phase. As shown in the *inset* of the Z=4 panel, crowding around each polymorph, when compared with its equation of state, is compatible with numerical noise due to incomplete relaxation. The distance-based clustering techniques adopted here are however well suited to separate and identify the different low lying polymorphs even in presence of noise. []{data-label="fig2"}](figure2.eps){width="47.00000%"}
about 40% of all the structures lies within 4 kJ/mol of the experimentally known ground state structure, $\gamma$. Focusing on this region of the energy landscape as shown in the right panels of Fig.\[fig2\], we see structures forming islands with varying size and shapes. This feature illustrates the added complication in the case of molecular CSP with respect to standard inorganic solids where a well-defined, isolated minimum would be observed for each phase. The shape and finite size of the islands can be understood considering that Glycine is very soft, therefore structures that are far off from the equilibrium lattice parameters are thermodynamically penalized only slightly as demonstrated in the inset of Fig.\[fig2\]. This effect, combined with the numerical noise in geometry optimization, as well as an increased number of degrees of freedom in molecular crystals, is enough to give rise to crowding around each polymorphic minimum. Nevertheless islands are well separated and a clear assignment of polymorphs can be made for most of them. This is in stark contradiction with a very recent CSP study for glycine with empirical corrections for intermolecular interactions, which reported that the obtained energy-volume points were not separated well enough to clearly identify each polymorph, thus underlining the challenge of polymorphism for CSP [@glycine-CSP-fail1]. In this study instead the separation between several islands are well represented down to very small energy differences (inset of Fig.\[fig2\]). We believe this stems from the leap in accuracy and precision reached by the use of fully ab initio energetics together with last generation evolutionary algorithm tools.
ssibility of machine learning the polymorphs Reliable energetics from ab initio calculations is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee a reliable structure classification in CSP. More than one polymorph can be present within a given extended island; or what appears to be two adjacent islands due to insufficient sampling and/or relaxation, may actually correspond to the same packing order. Indeed the most human-time consuming part of a CSP procedure is known to be the stage where the output structures are comparatively examined in order to successfully separate the essential data from the crowd of repetitions [@Price2014]. Although not utilized to their full extent within CSP, concepts from data mining, mainly clustering techniques, can be of great help in this stage of the analysis, as we demonstrate in the following.
![ (color) **The number of clusters as a function of the distance threshold $\rm{d}$** for all structures (green line) and low-energy structures within approximately 4 kJ/mol of the ground state (blue line) for the case of $Z=3$. Insets show the enthalpy (kJ/mol) as a function of volume ($\AA^3$) per molecule for different values of $\rm{d} = 0.01,\ 0.08,\ 0.15,\ 0.25$. Different colors and point types in each inset correspond to different clusters. The value of $\rm{d} = 0.05 - 0.09$ can distinguish different clusters successfully. For $Z=2$ and $Z=4$, see Supplementary Material Fig.S1[]{data-label="fig3"}](figure3.eps){width="47.00000%"}
In Fig.\[fig3\] we display a step by step clustering analysis where a bottom-up distance-based hierarchical clustering approach with single linkage is used to identify the unique polymorphs among all the structures obtained with CSP. In distance-based approaches, a similarity metric is defined so that a distance can be measured between data points, and clusters are constructed based on proximity. In this study we use as the metric the fingerprint-based cosine distance [@USPEX-molecule; @USPEX-fgpr] defined in the EA code USPEX [@USPEX]: $$D_{\mathrm{cosine}}(1,2) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{F_1 \cdot F_2}{|F_1|\;|F_2|}\right),$$ where individual structure fingerprints are defined as $$F_{AB}(R) = \sum_{A_i,\mathrm{cell}} \sum_{B_j} \frac{\delta(R-R_{ij})}{4\pi R_{ij}^2 \frac{N_A N_B}{V} \Delta} - 1,$$ where the double sum runs over all $i$th molecules of type $A$ within the unit cell and all $j$th molecules of type $B$ within a distance $R_{\mathrm{max}}$; $\delta(R-R_{ij})$ is a Gaussian-smeared delta function; $R_{ij}$ is the distance measured from the centers of molecules $i$ and $j$; $V$ is the unit cell volume; the function $F_{AB}(R)$ is discretized over bins of width $\Delta$; $N_A$ and $N_B$ are the number of molecules of type $A$ and $B$, respectively.
The distance threshold used to define whether two data points belong to the same cluster is then monotonically increased. As a result the cluster population evolves from the situation where every data point forms a distinct cluster to the situation in which all data points belong to the same global cluster, revealing the bottom-up and hierarchical nature of the approach. Translated to the CSP problem, this data mining approach transforms the challenge of identification of unique polymorphs from the visual comparison of all structures into an easier decision on the value of the distance-threshold. The optimal distance threshold is such that each data cluster matches a unique physical polymorph. In the case of Glycine a distance threshold around 0.05-0.1 is found to be appropriate to identify the low energy polymorphs successfully (see Supplementary Material Table.S1 and related .cif files). The so-determined optimal threshold can serve in advanced supervised learning techniques and be fed back in the CSP procedure to increase considerably the efficiency by reducing the generation of replicas of already explored structures.
The cluster analysis outlined above identifies all experimentally observed phases of glycine compatible with 2, 3 or 4 molecules per cell, as well as suggesting others, hereon named according to their enthalpy-per-molecule ordering. Phases 1 to 11 lie within approximately 2 kJ/mol of the experimentally most stable phase, $\gamma$. Among them one of the lowest energy polymorphs (phase 2) can be identified with $\zeta$–glycine based on the excellent agreement with XRD results (Fig.\[fig4\](a)) as well as its pressure evolution (Fig.\[fig4\](b)).
![ (color) **Assignment of the $\zeta$ phase.** **a**. Comparison of simulated x-ray diffraction patterns for $\epsilon$-, $\gamma$- and $\zeta$ - glycine at 2 GPa with experimental data taken from [@zeta] at 0.2 GPa. The XRD of proposed $\zeta$-glycine can explain most of the unassigned peaks that were marked in the experimental spectrum. The theoretical spectra are calculated at higher pressure to offset the overestimation of ground state volumes in ab initio calculations. **b**. Enthalpy per molecule as a function of pressure for $\epsilon$-glycine and $\zeta$-glycine with respect to the $\gamma$ phase up to 5 GPa. The black arrows indicate the phase transitions observed in the experiment [@zeta]: Under pressure, the $\gamma$ phase undergoes a phase transition to $\epsilon$-glycine. The decompression of $\epsilon$-glycine instead results in the $\zeta$ phase. []{data-label="fig4"}](figure4.eps){width="47.00000%"}
The structural identification of the $\zeta$ phase, previously experimentally observed but not resolved up to now, marks an important achievement for CSP and is a key result of our study. The search for $\alpha$–glycine proved very demanding despite it being the experimentally most readily formed polymorph at ambient conditions. In this study the $\alpha$ phase could not be found even after 20 generations with the standard settings in USPEX. This difficulty revealed one of the remaining challenges of CSP: the effective exploration of the topology of an erratic and vast configuration space. Indeed, the fully ab-initio scheme advocated for in this work pays for the higher accuracy with a heavy computational cost that makes this effectiveness even more crucial. To improve on this aspect we weighted the random selection of the space group of the candidate structures according to the frequency distribution appearing in known organic crystal structure database \[$P2_1/c$ (36.59 %), $P\overline{1}$ (16.92 %), $P2_12_12_1$ (11.00 %), $C2/c$ (6.95 %), $P2_1$ (6.35 %), $Pbca$ (4.24 %), and uniform otherwise\] [@Baur1992]. This procedure successfully produced the $\alpha$ phase at the $14^{\mathrm{th}}$ generation, demonstrating that incorporation of even mild and system unspecific experimental knowledge in the search strategy may have a significant impact to overcome the effectiveness challenge in the most demanding cases.
Indeed if more system specific information is available it can be used to further constrain and guide the phase-space search: limiting the search to the experimentally known, $P2_{1}/c$, space group of $\alpha$–glycine, or fixing the cell shape to its experimental value, resulted in its identification at the $15^{\mathrm{th}}$ and $8^{\mathrm{th}}$ generations, respectively. Combining the two constraints resulted in an even quicker discovery at the third generation.
Once the low energy structures are found and examined, the configuration space search can be further instructed to look for certain patterns. In the case of $\alpha$–glycine, it is noteworthy that the crystal building block can be seen as a glycine dimer, with head to tail orientation. This feature is not seen in other ambient pressure polymorphs of glycine, and can be speculated to be one of the reasons for the $\alpha$ phase not being readily connected with other phases in the energy landscape. This correlates with the difficulty of generating the structure during the EA procedure, as well as with its exceptional stability under pressure. Instead, if the dimer unit is taken as building block in a CSP search, the $\alpha$ phase is found at the third iteration and new phases such as phase 8, phase 14, phase 24 and phase 38 are also discovered.
Hence the difficulty of exploring the $\alpha$ phase as well as the finding of new phases only after a dimer unit is employed, underlines the remaining challenges of CSP and calls for even more efficient methods for exploring new structures and innovative data analysis applications to guide the search on the go for a full optimization of resources. (see Supplementary Material Fig.S2-10 for details of all search attempts).
Conclusion
==========
We presented a fully blind, fully ab initio crystal structure prediction test on Glycine, a system that has been examined several times in the past yet never fully grasped. A remarkable precision and a broad sampling is obtained in an affordable computational time thanks to last generation van der Waals density functionals and evolutionary algorithms at the leading edge. The comparison of our results with existing experimental studies enabled us to resolve the so-far unidentified $\zeta$ phase a decade after its first experimental observation. Further analysis of the results of the blind test allowed us to propose several new thermodynamically plausible structures with varying volume, compressibility and polarization. To address the experimentally well established but CSP-wise challenging $\alpha$ phase, we introduced an intuitive sampling strategy based on crystal structure relative frequency found in nature. This strategy successfully found this challenging phase and allowed us further insight in the energy landscape. Overall, the results of our blind test shows us that a reliable crystal structure prediction procedure is possible with incorporation of several complementary recipes to reach success, emphasizing that one-size-fits-all solutions are yet to be discovered. Fortunately, the leap in precision and sampling capability we have demonstrated with these new generation tools opens new paths for crystal structure prediction with data processing procedures such as clustering algorithms. Hence we strongly believe ab initio CSP as presented here has come a long way and that a new standard for structure prediction for molecular crystals is set, and an interdisciplinary horizon for computational science within this field is now open.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
Work supported by the Italian MIUR through the PRIN 2010 initiative (PRIN 20105ZZTSE). Computational resources have been provided by SISSA and CINECA, Italy, and on Curie@TGCC-CEA through PRACE Project 2011050736.
[11]{}
S.M. Woodley, R. Catlow, [*Nature Mat.*]{} [**7**]{}, 937-946, (2008).
G.R. Desiraju, [*Nature Mat.*]{} [**1**]{}, 77-79 (2002).
J. Yang, W. Hu D. Usvyat, D. Matthews M. Schuetz, G.K.-L. Chan, [*Science*]{} [**345**]{}, 640-643, (2014).
S.L. Price, [*Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews*]{}, [**56,**]{} 301-319 (2004).
https://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/Community/Initiatives/Pages/CSPBlindTests.aspx
J.P. Lommerse, *et al.*, [*Acta Crystallogr. B*]{} [**56**]{}, 697-714 (2000).
D.A. Bardwell, *et. al.*, [*Acta Crystallogr. B*]{} [**67**]{}, 535-551 (2011).
Q. Zhu, A.R. Oganov, C.W. Glass, H.T. Stokes, [*Acta Cryst. B.*]{}, [**68**]{}, 215-226 (2012).
M. Dion, H. Rydberg, E. Schroeder, D.C. Langreth, B.I. Lundqvist, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{}, 236401 (2004).
O.A. Vydrov, T. Van Voorhis, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**133**]{}, 244103 (2010). R. Sabatini, E. Küçükbenli, B. Kolb, T. Thonhauser, S. de Gironcoli, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**24**]{}, 424209 (2012).
A.R. Oganov C.W. Glass, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**124**]{}, 244704 (2006). E.V. Boldyreva, S.N. Ivashevskaya, H. Sowa, H. Ahsbahs, H.-P. Weber, [*Z. Kristallogr.*]{} [**220**]{}, 50-57 (2005).
A.M. Lund, G.I. Pagola, A.M. Orendt, M.B. Ferraro, J.C. Facelli, [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**626**]{}, 20 (2015).
J.A. Chisholm, S. Motherwell, P.R. Tulip, S. Parsons, S.J. Clark, [*Cryst. Growth Des.*]{} [**5**]{}, 1437 (2005).
P. Giannozzi, *et al.*, [*J. Phys.:Condens. Matter*]{} [**21**]{}, 395502 (2009).
http://www.qe-forge.org/gf/project/pslibrary
S.L. Price, [*Chem. Soc. Rev.*]{} [**43**]{}, 2098-2111 (2014).
A.R. Oganov, M. Valle, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**130**]{}, 104504 (2009).
W.H. Baur, D. Kassner, [*Acta Cryst. B*]{} [**48**]{}, 356 (1992).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Volker Tresp, [J.]{} Marc Overhage, Markus Bundschus, Shahrooz Rabizadeh, Peter A. Fasching, Shipeng Yu [^1] [^2][^3] [^4] [^5] [^6]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEE-HC-BigData.bib'
title: 'Going Digital: A Survey on Digitalization and Large Scale Data Analytics in Healthcare'
---
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Volker Tresp acknowledges support by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, technology program “Smart Data” (grant 01MT14001).
[^1]: Volker Tresp is with Siemens AG, Corporate Technology and the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany.
[^2]: Markus Bundschus is with Roche Diagnostics, Germany.
[^3]: [J.]{} Marc Overhage is with Cerner Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
[^4]: Shahrooz Rabizadeh is with NantOmics, LLC and at NantBioScience, Inc, Culver City, CA, USA.
[^5]: Peter A. Fasching is with the University of California at Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Los Angeles, California, USA and the University Hospital Erlangen, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen, Germany.
[^6]: Shipeng Yu is with LinkedIn, Mountain View, California, USA.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The vacuum angle $\theta$ renormalization is studied for a toy model of a quantum particle moving around a ring, threaded by a magnetic flux $\theta$. Different renormalization group (RG) procedures lead to the same generic RG flow diagram, similar to that of the quantum Hall effect. We argue that the renormalized value of the vacuum angle may be observed if the particle’s position is measured with finite accuracy or coupled to additional slow variable, which can be viewed as a coordinate of a second (heavy) particle on the ring. In this case the renormalized $\theta$ appears as a magnetic flux this heavy particle sees, or the Berry phase, associated with its slow rotation.'
author:
- 'S. M. Apenko'
title: |
Renormalization of the vacuum angle in quantum mechanics,\
Berry phase and continuous measurements
---
In quantum field theories it is sometimes possible (e.g. in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) or non-linear $\sigma$ models) to add the so-called topological term to the action and to consider the coefficient $\theta$ in front of this term, usually called vacuum or topological angle, as an additional parameter of the theory (see, e.g. [@Pol]). Long ago it was suggested, that vacuum angle $\theta$ becomes scale dependent (as any other running coupling constant) if properly defined (non-perturbative) renormalization group (RG) transformation is introduced [@KM; @P], and flows to zero (mod $2\pi$) in the infrared limit (see also [@rec] for some recent works). Hence one might expect that the observable low energy $\theta$ should vanish, possibly solving the strong CP problem in QCD (i.e. why we do not observe CP violation due to the $\theta$-term while [*a priori*]{} there are no reasons to put $\theta=0$ [@Sh]). But such a renormalization is, in a sense, counter-intuitive, since $\theta$ more resembles some quantum number (and is related to a superselection rule) than usual coupling constant. Moreover, non-perturbative calculations, based on the sum rule approach [@Sum] (see also [@Sh] and references therein) have shown that CP violating effects actually depend on the bare $\theta$, so that it is not clear what does the $\theta$ renormalization actually mean in QCD and how it may be observed.
Perhaps the most known example where such renormalization have proved to be important is the quantum Hall effect (QHE). In this case, described by a matrix non-linear $\sigma$ model, the renormalized vacuum angle is in fact defined as the observable Hall conductivity, dependent on the sample’s size or temperature (see e.g. [@P; @H]).
Quite recently it became clear that charging effects in a single electron box (a metallic island coupled to the outside circuit by a tunnel junction), also described by a topological term, are closely related to the $\theta$ renormalization [@B; @A]. This last model is equivalent to ordinary quantum mechanics of a particle (with friction in general case) on a ring threaded by a magnetic flux $\theta$, which can serve as the simplest zero dimensional toy model to study the $\theta$ renormalization in more detail.
It is possible to introduce a RG transformation in quantum mechanics, similar in spirit to decimation procedure in one dimensional classical spin models and related to continuous measurements theory, which leads to the $\theta$ renormalization of the required type [@A], which manifest itself, as in QHE, as temperature dependence of a certain observable. Renormalization of $\theta$ is seen then to follow from the loss of information about the initial topological charge in the course of the RG transformation. The RG scheme of Ref. [@A] is, however, somewhat artificial, since as a first step it introduces a lattice (like time slices in the Trotter decomposition, used e.g. in path integral Monte Carlo calculations [@Cep]) to be removed in the end.
For this reason here we present a different RG approach, also inspired by an analogy between RG and continuous measurements, but with no lattice and at zero temperature. Now the renormalized $\theta$ appears as an effective magnetic flux seen by an additional slow variable (or Berry phase, related to its cyclic evolution, compare with [@AW]). The resulting RG flow diagram again has the typical QHE-like form with $\theta$ going to zero (mod $2\pi$) in the infrared limit. Physical reasons for such behaviour are also discussed.
Consider a particle of mass $m$ moving around a ring of unit radius threaded by a magnetic flux $\theta$ (in units $c=\hbar=e=1$). The corresponding (euclidian) action at finite temperature may be written in terms of a planar unit vector $\bf
{n}(\tau)$ (${\bf n}^2=1$) which depends on a one-dimensional coordinate (euclidean time) $$\label{A}
S_0[{\bf n}]=\frac{m}{2}\int_{0}^{\beta}\dot{\bf{n}}^2(\tau)d\tau-
i\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\beta}\epsilon_{ab}n_{a}(\tau)\dot{n}_{b}(\tau)d\tau,$$ where $\epsilon_{ab}$ is the two dimensional antisymmetric tensor and $\beta$ is the inverse temperature (we will assume $\beta\rightarrow\infty$ in what follows). Since ${\bf n}(0)={\bf
n}(\beta)$ the model is actually defined on a circle. The last term in (\[A\]) has the form $i\theta Q$ where $Q$ is the topological charge which distinguishes inequivalent mappings $S^1\rightarrow S^1$ and takes integer values (equal to a number of rotations the particle make in time $\beta$), making the theory periodic in $\theta$.
The magnetic flux $\theta$ explicitly breaks T invariance, the most obvious T-violating effect being the non-zero persistent current in the ground state. This is the analog of the CP problem in QCD and now one may ask, how the dependence on $\theta$ can be removed. One possible answer is that the magnetic flux could be screened, if we allow the back reaction of the current on $\theta$. This may be done by introducing an additional dynamical variable (axion), coupled to the topological charge density. Curiously, the model (\[A\]) with the axion have been introduced in a different context to describe a shunted Josephson junction [@J].
Suppose now that we perform a continuous monitoring of the particle position (in euclidean time) with a finite accuracy. If a continuous quantum measurement results in a smooth slowly varying trajectory ${\bf n}_0(\tau)$ then the corresponding amplitude may be obtained through the restricted path integral [@M] $$\label{P}
U[{\bf n}_0]=\int
D{\bf n}(\tau) \delta({\bf n}^{2}(\tau)-1)
w[{\bf n},{\bf n}_0]\exp(-S_0[{\bf n}]),$$ where the weight functional $w[{\bf n},{\bf n}_0]$ is usually taken in a simple Gaussian form $$\label{G}
w[{\bf n},{\bf n}_0]=\exp\left(-\frac{\lambda}{2}\int_0^{\beta}[{\bf n}(\tau)-{\bf
n}_0(\tau)]^2 d\tau \right)$$ and the constant $\lambda$ determines the accuracy of the measurement.
Integration in Eq. (\[P\]) defines an effective action $U\sim\exp(-S_{eff}[{\bf n}_0])$ and hence a generalized Wilsonian RG transformation with all coupling constants running with $\lambda$. If we e.g. apply the same prescription to the 2D $O(N)$ $\sigma$ model then in the one-loop calculation of Ref. [@N] $\lambda$ effectively acts as a mass squared for Goldstone modes, leading thus to the charge renormalization $\sim\ln(\Lambda/\sqrt{\lambda})$ ($\Lambda$ is the ultraviolet cutoff). Hence changing $\lambda$ is indeed similar to changing the scale. We now argue, that beyond the perturbation theory $\lambda$ also may be viewed as a scale parameter.
For $\lambda$ large enough only paths close to ${\bf n}_0(\tau)$ contribute to the path integral (\[P\]). But for the particle on the ring it is possible that a given path ${\bf n}(\tau)$ is close to ${\bf n}_0(\tau)$ for the most of the time, but suddenly makes a fast complete rotation around the ring in time $\tau_0$. For such instanton-like paths the weight factor (\[G\]) behaves as $w\sim\exp(-{\rm const}\times\lambda\tau_0)$, so that “instantons” with size $\tau_0>1/\lambda$ are strongly suppressed (very fast rotations with $\tau_0\ll m$ are suppressed by the kinetic term in Eq. (\[A\])). Then with decreasing $\lambda$ more and more instanton-like paths of larger scale contribute to the integral (\[P\]). Clearly, this is exactly what a physicist usually expects from the RG transformation in theories with instantons.
If we combine the action (\[A\]) with the exponential from (\[G\]) then the resulting action in (\[P\]) (up to a constant) $$\label{S}
S[{\bf n}]=S_0[{\bf n}]+\lambda\int_0^{\beta}{\bf n}(\tau){\bf
n}_0(\tau) d\tau$$ describes the particle on the ring in time dependent electric field $\lambda {\bf n}_0(\tau)$. For slowly varying ${\bf
n}_0(\tau)$ at zero temperature one can treat this problem in the adiabatic approximation. Then, if the electric field makes one complete revolution, the ground state will turn back to itself up to a phase factor (Berry phase [@Ber]) which we denote by $\exp(i\theta')$. If we introduce polar angles $\phi$ and $\phi_0$ instead of the vectors ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf n}_0$ then the corresponding Hamiltonian may be written as $$\label{H}
H=\frac{1}{2m}\left(-i\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial
}\phi}-\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\right)^2+\lambda\cos(\phi-\phi_0(t))$$ Let $\psi_0(\phi)=\psi_0(\phi-\phi_0)$ be the instantaneous ground state wavefunction for the Hamiltonian (\[H\]) with the energy $E_0$, which obviously does not depend on $\phi_0$. Then the Berry phase for the adiabatic change of $\phi_0$ from zero to $2\pi$ is given by [@Ber] $$\label{B}
\theta'=i\int_0^{2\pi}d\phi_0
\langle\psi_0|\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_0}|\psi_0\rangle$$ Since $\psi_0$ depends only on the difference $\phi-\phi_0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{av}
&&\langle\psi_0|\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi_0}|\psi_0\rangle=
-\langle\psi_0|\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}|\psi_0\rangle=\nonumber\\
&&-\langle\psi_0|\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}-i\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\right)|\psi_0\rangle
-i\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[av\]) is proportional to the average of the derivative $\partial H/\partial\theta$ and hence $$\label{b}
\theta'=\theta-4\pi^2 m\frac{\partial E_0}{\partial\theta}$$ The nontrivial Berry phase, different from $\theta$, means that the coarse grained continuously measured trajectory sees a “renormalized” magnetic field, as was discussed in [@A], due to unobservable fast instanton-like rotations. This implies that for slowly varying ${\bf n}_0$ we should have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U}
& U[{\bf n}_0]\sim &\exp\{-i\frac{\theta'}{2\pi}
\int_{0}^{\beta}\epsilon_{ab}n_0^{a}(\tau)\dot{n}_0^{b}(\tau)d\tau+
\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{m'}{2}\int_{0}^{\beta}\dot{{\bf n}}_0^2(\tau)d\tau+\ldots\},\end{aligned}$$ where dots indicate terms with higher derivatives of ${\bf n}_0$ and higher powers of $\dot{{\bf n}}_0$ and the renormalized mass will be determined below.
Similar origin of topological terms from a corresponding Berry phase was discussed in detail in Refs. [@AW] where fermions were coupled to the background vector field in various space-time dimensions (fermionic $\sigma$-models). Then integration over fermions results in Eq. (\[U\]) for planar vector ${\bf n}_0$ with $\theta'$, $m'$ dependent on the coupling constants. Here the fast mode which is integrated out is also the planar vector, so that it is more natural to speak of the $\theta$ renormalization rather than of the induced topological term.
![Renormalized parameters $1/g'=\sqrt{m'\lambda}$ and $\theta'$ from Eqs. (\[b\]), (\[m\]) for different values of initial $\theta$. $\lambda$ decreases from top to bottom.[]{data-label="fig1"}](renorm.eps){width="3in"}
There exists a simple heuristic way to derive the expansion of Eq. (\[U\]). Consider a reference frame rotating with an angular frequency $\omega=\dot{\phi}_0$, which is assumed to be small and almost constant. In this frame ${\bf n}_0$ is constant, but an additional magnetic field $2m\omega$ is present according to the Larmor’s theorem. Hence the hamiltonian $H'$ in the rotating frame should be taken at the shifted value of the vacuum angle $\theta+2m\pi\omega$, or more precisely, $$\label{er}
H'=H+i\omega\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}=
H(\theta+2m\pi\omega)-\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\omega-\frac{m}{2}\omega^2$$ (see e.g. [@ring]), where the last term is the centrifugal potential (for the thin ring of unit radius) and the second one is due to the presence of the magnetic flux $\theta$. Then if the particle is in its ground state the effective action (after Wick rotation $t\rightarrow -i\tau$ and expansion in powers of $\dot{\phi}_0$ ) may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eff}
&S_{eff}\simeq &\int_0^{\beta}d\tau \left[\frac{m}{2}\dot{\phi}_0^2-
i\frac{\theta}{2\pi}\dot{\phi}_0+E_0(\theta+2mi\pi\dot{\phi}_0)\right]=
\nonumber\\
&&={\rm const}+\int_0^{\beta}d\tau \left[\frac{m'}{2}\dot{\phi}_0^2-
i\frac{\theta'}{2\pi}\dot{\phi}_0+\ldots\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta'$ is given by the previously derived formula (\[b\]) and $$\label{m}
m'=m-4m^2\pi^2\frac{\partial^2E_0}{\partial\theta^2}$$ Clearly, this is the same action as in Eq. (\[U\]). Formulas (\[b\]) and (\[m\]) look very similar to the RG equations derived in [@A]. Note, that they are independent of the specific form of the coupling between ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf
n}_0$—all details are hidden in the ground state energy $E_0(\theta)$.
For large $\lambda$, when the effective electric field is strong, the $\theta$ dependence of $E_0$ is suppressed and $\theta'\simeq\theta$. In this case $E_0$ depends on $\theta$ only through instantons, as discussed in detail in [@R], and $$\label{E}
E_0(\theta)\simeq{\rm const}-2\sqrt{S_0}K{\rm e}^{-S_0}\cos\theta$$ where $S_0(\lambda)\sim \sqrt{m\lambda}$ is the classical instanton action and $K=K(\lambda)$ results from the ratio of determinants [@R]. Then in terms of dimensionless “coupling constants” $g=1/\sqrt{m\lambda}$ and $g'=1/\sqrt{m'\lambda}$ we finally have at $g\rightarrow 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ren}
\theta'\simeq \theta -D(g){\rm
e}^{-c/g}\sin\theta, \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{g'^2}\simeq \frac{1}{g^2}-\frac{1}{g^2}D(g){\rm
e}^{-c/g}\cos\theta\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is some numerical constant and $D(g)=8\pi^2
mK\sqrt{S_0}$. This equations are qualitatively similar to $\theta$ and charge renormalization due to instantons in QCD and $\sigma$ models [@KM; @P].
If, on the other hand, $\lambda$ tends to zero, then for the free motion on the ring $E_0=(1/2m)(\theta/2\pi)^2$ for $\theta<\pi$, $E_0=(1/2m)(\theta/2\pi-1)^2$ for $\theta>\pi$ and Eqs. (\[b\]), (\[m\]) imply that $m'\rightarrow 0$ while $\theta'\rightarrow
0$, $\theta<\pi$ and $\theta'\rightarrow 2\pi$, $\theta>\pi$. These results are almost obvious, because at $\lambda=0$ the slow field ${\bf n}_0$ is no longer coupled to ${\bf n}$.
In the close vicinity of the point $\theta=\pi$ the situation is more complicated. At $\lambda=0$ the ground state is degenerate, but the degeneracy is lifted by arbitrarily small external potential. At small $\lambda$ the energy gap may be expressed as $\delta E=a\sqrt{\lambda^2+b(\theta-\pi)^2}$, where $a$ and $b$ are some numerical constants, and after expanding in $(\theta-\pi)$ near the maximum of $E_0(\theta)$ at $\theta=\pi$ we have $$\label{pi}
E_0(\theta)\simeq {\rm const}
-\frac{\alpha}{2\lambda}(\theta-\pi)^2,$$ where $\alpha=ab$. Hence from Eq. (\[m\]) $m'\rightarrow
4m^2\pi^2\alpha/\lambda$ at $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ and $$\label{pig}
1/g'=\sqrt{m'\lambda}\rightarrow 2m\pi\sqrt{\alpha}={\rm
const},\quad\theta=\pi$$ Thus for $\theta=\pi$ the coupling constant $g'$ tends to a fixed value as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$. This is a kind of quantum mechanical anomaly (similar to “rotational anomaly” of Ref. [@ring]), since strictly at $\lambda=0$ there is no interaction and $m'$ should be equal to zero. Certainly, for very small $\lambda$ when $\delta E$ tends to zero near $\theta=\pi$ the adiabatic approximation used here becomes invalid.
Thus the dependence of $m'$ and $\theta'$ on $\lambda$ reproduces the main features of the famous QHE RG flow diagram. This can be seen from the Fig.\[fig1\], where the evolution of the renormalized parameters is shown with $\lambda$ decreasing from top to bottom for different initial values of the vacuum angle $\theta$. The points in Fig.\[fig1\] result from numerical calculation for a simplified model when the term $\lambda\cos\phi$ in Eq.(\[H\]) is replaced with $\lambda\delta(\phi)$ (qualitative features should not depend on the particular choice of the potential in Eq. (\[H\])). Clearly, Fig.(\[fig1\]) is similar to the upper half of the QHE RG flow diagram with the unstable fixed point at $\theta=\pi$ and the ultimate flow of the renormalized vacuum angle to zero (mod $2\pi$).
![Two particles with different masses ($M\gg m$) interacting via the harmonic potential on the ring with magnetic flux $\theta$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](ring.eps){width="2in"}
The quantum mechanical model discussed here enables, however, a transparent explanation of why the effective $\theta$ should vanish as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$. Let us add a kinetic term $(M/2)\dot{{\bf n}}^2_0$ for the field ${\bf n}_0$ with some large mass $M$ ($M\gg m$ to ensure the adiabatic approximation) to the Lagrangian of Eq. (\[A\]). Then the resulting action with $w[{\bf n},{\bf n}_0]$ from Eq. (\[G\]) taken into account describes two particles with masses $m$ and $M$ interacting via the harmonic potential, as shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. Note, that initially only the light particle interacts with the magnetic flux $\theta$. One can say that the light particle is charged with, say, unit charge, while the heavy one is neutral.
Now, if $\lambda$, which determines the interparticle interaction strength, is high enough, two particles form a tightly bound pair or an “atom”, exactly with unit total charge. Mathematically this means, that the topological term for the field ${\bf n}_0$ is induced with $\theta'\simeq\theta$ due to the condensation of charge near the point ${\bf n}_0$. When $\lambda$ decreases, the bound state gets more loose. When the size of the bound state is of the order of the ring’s radius, rotations of the light particle are allowed (“instantons”) and its charge is spread along the ring. So the effective charge of the heavy particle reduces, which is seen in the formalism as the magnetic flux $\theta$ renormalization.
In summary, we demonstrate how the $\theta$ renormalization may appear in quantum mechanics of a particle, moving around a thin ring threaded by a magnetic flux $\theta$. Renormalized $\theta$ is a coefficient in the effective action for the slow variable ${\bf n}_0(\tau)$, which has the meaning of the coarse grained outcome of the measurement of the particle’s position. That is, if the position is measured with finite accuracy, the observed flux, equal to the Berry phase associated with the adiabatic rotation of ${\bf n}_0$, will be smaller, than the true one. Formally this slow variable may be viewed as an additional degree of freedom, representing a second (heavy) particle on the ring, coupled to the first one with the harmonic force. Then renormalization of the flux $\theta$ may be also understood as arising from the change of the effective charge of the heavy particle when the interaction is changed.
This example shows, that while the renormalization of the vacuum angle is definitely a generic property of a system with instanton-like fluctuations (and the resulting RG flow is not particularly sensitive to the way the RG transformation is defined) it does not necessarily mean that observables are independent of $\theta$, but is revealed, when the system is being measured or coupled to some additional slow variable. This mechanism, leading to small $\theta$ in effective low energy theory, looks physically different from the direct screening of $\theta$, as e.g. in the case when the axion field is added, but it is still not clear whether it has any significance in QCD.
The author is grateful to V. Losyakov, A. Marshakov and especially to A. Morozov for valuable discussions. The work was supported in part by the RFBR grants No 06-02-17459 and No 07-02-01161.
[18]{} A.M. Polyakov, [*Gauge Fields and Strings*]{} (Harwood Academic Publishers, New York, 1987). V.G. Knizhnik and A.Yu. Morozov, Pis’ma v ZhETF [**39**]{}, 202 (1984). \[JETP Lett. [**39**]{}, 240 (1984)\], H. Levine, and S. Libby, Phys. Lett. B [**150**]{}, 182 (1985). H. Levine, S. Libbi, and A.M.M. Pruisken, Nucl. Phys. [**B240**]{} \[FS12\], 30, 49, 71 (1984), A.M.M. Pruisken, Nucl. Phys. [**B290**]{}, 61 (1987). J.I. Latorre and C.A. Lütken, Phys. Lett. B [**421**]{}, 217 (1998), A.M.M. Pruisken, M.A. Baranov, and M. Voropaev, cond-mat/0101003, L. Campos Venuti, C. Degli Esposti Boschi, E. Ercolessi, F. Ortolani, G. Morandi, S. Pasini, and M. Roncaglia, J. Stat. Mech. L02004 (2005), A.M.M. Pruisken, R. Shankar, and N. Surendran, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 035329 (2005), A.M.M. Pruisken and I.S. Burmistrov, Ann. of Phys. (N.Y.) [**316**]{}, 285 (2005). For a recent review see G. Gabadadze and M. Shifman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**17**]{}, 3689 (2002). M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [**B147**]{}, 385 (1979), M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [**B166**]{}, 493 (1980). A.M.M. Pruisken, in [*The Quantum Hall Effect*]{}, eds. R.E. Prange and S. Girvin (Springer, 1990), A.M.M. Pruisken and I.S. Burmistrov, Ann. Phys. [**322**]{}, 1265 (2007). S.A. Bulgadaev, Pis’ma v ZhETF [**83**]{}, 659 (2006), cond-mat/0605360, I.S. Burmistrov and A.M.M. Pruisken, cond-mat/0702400. S.M. Apenko, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 193311 (2007). D.M. Ceperley, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 279 (1995). M. Stone, Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{}, 1191 (1986), A.G. Abanov and P.B. Wigmann, Nucl. Phys. [**B570**]{}, 685 (2000). S.M. Apenko, Phys. Lett. A [**142**]{}, 277 (1989), G. Schön and A.D. Zaikin Phys. Rep. [**198**]{}, 237 (1990). R.P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**20**]{}, 367 (1948), M.B. Mensky, [*Continuous Quantum Measurements and Path Integrals*]{} (IOP Publishing, 1993). A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B [**59**]{}, 79 (1975). M. Berry, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, [**A392**]{}, 45 (1984). R. Merlin, Phys. Lett. A [**18**]{}, 421 (1993). R. Rajaraman, [*Solitons and Instantons*]{} (North Holland, 1982).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a broadly applicable technique to create nuclear spin singlet states in organic molecules and other many-atom systems. We employ a novel pulse sequence to produce a spin-lock induced crossing (SLIC) of the spin singlet and triplet energy levels, which enables triplet/singlet polarization transfer and singlet state preparation. We demonstrate the utility of the SLIC method by producing a long-lived nuclear spin singlet state on two strongly-coupled proton pairs in the tripeptide molecule phenylalanine-glycine-glycine dissolved in D$_2$O, and by using SLIC to measure the J-couplings, chemical shift differences, and singlet lifetimes of the proton pairs. We show that SLIC is more efficient at creating nearly-equivalent nuclear spin singlet states than previous pulse sequence techniques, especially when triplet/singlet polarization transfer occurs on the same timescale as spin-lattice relaxation.'
author:
- 'Stephen J. DeVience'
- 'Ronald L. Walsworth'
- 'Matthew S. Rosen'
bibliography:
- 'singlet\_bib.bib'
title: 'Preparation of Nuclear Spin Singlet States using Spin-Lock Induced Crossing'
---
There is great current interest in the controlled preparation and coherent manipulation of singlet states for nuclear spin pairs in molecules and other many-atom systems (e.g., spin networks in solids), as spin singlet states are largely decoupled from environmental perturbations that limit the spin state lifetime. For example, in liquid state experiments singlet states in nuclear spin pairs can exhibit lifetimes much longer than the single-spin polarization lifetime ($T_1$) [@Levitt1; @Levitt5; @Levitt6; @Levitt7; @Levitt11; @Ghosh1; @Bodenhausen4; @Bodenhausen5; @DeVience1; @Pileio3; @Warren1; @Warren2]. In addition, nuclear spin singlet states can be used as a resource for spectroscopic interrogation of couplings within many-spin systems, including J-couplings, dipolar, and hyperfine couplings in both organic molecules and spin networks in solids [@Levitt2; @Levitt8; @Levitt10]. Such singlet states exist naturally when nuclear spins are strongly J-coupled relative to their resonance frequency differences, $\Delta \nu$, i.e., $J >> \Delta \nu$. However, due to the differences in spin singlet and triplet state symmetries, it is not possible to transfer polarization from the triplet to the singlet state by directly driving a radiofrequency transition, which limits the control of singlet state preparation and manipulation. Tayler and Levitt demonstrated that triplet/singlet polarization transfer can instead be acheived using a series of $\pi$-pulse trains in which the pulse timing is synchronized to the J-coupling strength between nuclei [@Levitt11]. This “M2S” sequence takes advantage of the small amount of mixing between singlet and triplet states that is present whenever $\Delta \nu > 0$. Feng and Warren also showed that the M2S sequence can create singlet states in certain heteronuclear systems even when $\Delta \nu = 0 $ [@Warren2]. These results hold promise for creating hyperpolarized singlet states without the need for a symmetry-breaking chemical reaction or continuous spin-locking [@Warren1]. However, in all results to date, the polarization transfer to the spin singlet state only occurs during the final third of the M2S sequence time, and before this stage the spin polarization occupies states subject to conventional spin-lattice relaxation.
In this letter, we show that better triplet/singlet polarization transfer efficiency can be acheived by replacing the M2S pulse trains with a continuous spin-lock whose nutation frequency is matched to the J-coupling between the target nuclear spins. At this spin-locking strength, the energy levels of the singlet state and one triplet state become equal in the rotating frame, which we call the “spin-lock induced crossing” (SLIC). Polarization transfer can occur for the duration of spin-locking, which minimizes polarization loss from triplet state relaxation and thus provides better efficiency for singlet state creation than the M2S technique. SLIC is analogous to the Hartmann-Hahn condition for polarization transfer between two magnetically inequivalent nuclear spins, except that for SLIC the nuclei are nearly identical and their spin symmetry subspaces are inequivalent [@Hartmann].
We experimentally compare M2S and SLIC using liquid-state NMR of the tripeptide molecule phenylalanine-glycine-glycine (phe-gly-gly), which contains two nearly-equivalent proton spin pairs in which to prepare singlet states. We find that for these two proton spin pairs, singlet state creation with SLIC is 19% and 75% more efficient than with M2S. We also demonstrate the utility of SLIC for characterizing singlet state lifetimes as well as small J-couplings and chemical shift differences between nearly-identical nuclear spins.
{width="6.86in"}
Figure 1A shows the M2S experimental protocol used to create a nuclear spin singlet state from triplet-state polarization and then return the singlet state to transverse triplet-state (i.e., measurable) polarization after an evolution time, $\tau_{evolve}$. Figure 1B gives a simulation of spin state and coherence dynamics during singlet state preparation with M2S if relaxation is ignored [@spindynamica]. The first pulse train in Fig. 1A converts the triplet-state polarization into a singlet-triplet coherence with a relaxation time of $T_2/3 \approx T_1/3$ (for liquid-state NMR of small molecules), and the second pulse train creates a singlet population with relaxation time $T_S$ [@DeVience1; @Bodenhausen1]. The number of pulses required for the M2S sequence increases as the resonance frequency difference ($\Delta \nu$) between the two nearly-identical nuclear spins decreases and hence the singlet state becomes closer to ideal. In many cases, the required M2S pulse sequence time approaches or exceeds $T_1$ of the nuclear spins, and significant spin polarization can be lost before it is transferred to the singlet state, particularly during the first 2/3 of the sequence. For an ideal system, the time required for maximum singlet state creation is
$$t_{M2S,max} \approx \frac{3 \pi}{8 \Delta \nu} = \frac{1.18}{\Delta \nu}$$
Figure 1C shows the SLIC pulse sequence used to create a nuclear spin singlet state from triplet-state polarization and return the singlet state to transverse triplet-state polarization after an evolution time ($\tau_{evolve}$) in analogy to the M2S experiment. However, instead of pulse trains, continuous spin-locking is applied at a nutation frequency equal to the J-coupling between spins, i.e., $\nu_n = J$. The simulation shown in Fig. 1D illustrates that such spin-locking transfers triplet-state polarization directly from transverse polarization into singlet state population more quickly than in the M2S sequence. A density matrix analysis (detailed in the supplement) shows that selecting a nutation frequency $\nu_n = J$ matches the energies of the singlet state and one of the triplet states, creating a spin-lock induced crossing. At this energy, off-diagonal interaction terms $\Delta \nu / 2\sqrt{2}$ become significant and induce oscillatory triplet/singlet polarization transfer with a period of $\sqrt{2}/\Delta\nu$ and maximimum transfer to the singlet state at half this time:
$$t_{SL,max} = \frac{1}{\Delta \nu \sqrt{2}} = \frac{0.707}{\Delta \nu} .$$
Comparison with equation 1 shows that SLIC produces singlet state polarization about 40% faster than M2S, which results in fewer relaxation losses. To compare the effectiveness of the two sequences, we performed simulations using Bloch equations to model relaxation and singlet/triplet polarization transfer. M2S was modeled in two steps: first, polarization transfer from $I_{1x}+I_{2x}$ with lifetime $T_2 = T_1$ to $I_{1y}-I_{2y}$ with lifetime $T_1/3$; second, polarization transfer from $I_{1z}-I_{2z}$ with lifetime $T_1/3$ to singlet state $S_0$ with lifetime $T_S$. Only one polarization transfer needed to be modeled for SLIC, between $I_{1x}+I_{2x}$ with lifetime $T_2 = T_1$ and $S_0$ with lifetime $T_S$. A maximum of 50% polarization transfer to the singlet state can be achieved by both sequences, which we define to be an efficiency of 100%. Figure 2 plots the calculated polarization transfer efficiency for M2S and SLIC as a function of the product $T_1 \Delta \nu$. Two cases are considered, one in which $T_S >> T_1$, and one in which $T_S = 3 T_1$. SLIC is found to be significantly more efficient than M2S for all ranges of parameters, and particularly for $T_1 \Delta \nu < 1$. Note that both sequences are less efficient for smaller $T_S / T_1$ due to singlet relaxation.
{width="3.43in"}
To assess the relative utility of the SLIC and M2S sequences for producing nuclear spin singlet states, we performed NMR measurements at 4.7 T on a 20 mM solution of the phe-gly-gly molecule dissolved in D$_2$O, addressing a nearly-equivalent proton spin pair with chemical shift $\delta$ = 3.71 ppm and $T_1$ = 912 $\pm$ 7 ms. For the M2S sequence (Fig. 1A) we found optimized parameters for singlet creation to be n$_1$ = 10, n$_2$ = 5, and $\tau$ = 14.4 ms, which indicates $J = 17.4\pm 0.1$ Hz and $\Delta \nu = 2.8 \pm 0.3$ Hz. We also found a singlet lifetime of T$_S$ = 25.1 $\pm$ 0.8 s with no spin-locking applied during $\tau_{evolve}$. We measured the NMR signal intensity (x-axis magnetization,proportional to the transverse triplet-state polarization) at the end of the M2S sequence for $\tau_{evolve}$ = 5 s, which arises from the transfer of transverse triplet-state polarization to singlet-state population and then back to measurable transverse triplet-state polarization after $\tau_{evolve}$, and we then used the singlet lifetime to extrapolate the singlet-state population at $\tau_{evolve}$ = 0. During $\tau_{evolve}$, remaining triplet-state polarization is lost to relaxation, and it does not contribute to the final signal. We compared this M2S NMR signal magnitude to a reference measurement arising from a single 90 degree pulse applied to the sample, i.e., without singlet creation. From this analysis we estimate that 24% of the initial triplet-state polarization was transferred to the singlet state and back to triplet for $\tau_{evolve}$ = 0, out of a theoretical maximum of 50%, yielding an efficiency of 69% for each application of the M2S sequence.
{width="6.86in"}
For the SLIC technique, we determined the optimal spin-lock nutation frequency by performing a truncated SLIC pulse sequence in which the NMR signal (x-axis magnetization) was acquired directly after the first spin-locking period. As a function of nutation frequency, the measured NMR signal exhibited a dip centered at $\nu_n$ = 17.5 $\pm$ 0.3 Hz with a relative depth of $\approx 25\%$ (Fig. 3A), consistent with the SLIC condition of $\nu_n = J$ for optimal triplet/singlet polarization transfer. We then used this optimal spin-lock nutation frequency in the complete SLIC sequence with $\tau_{evolve}$ = 5 s (Fig. 1C) and optimized the spin-lock duration ($\tau_{SL}$) to produce the strongest NMR signal and hence maximal singlet state creation. The measured dependence of the SLIC NMR signal on the spin-lock duration (Fig. 3B) exhibits a flat maximum for $\tau_{SL} \approx$ 280 to 360 ms. Using $\tau_{SL}$ = 300 ms provided about 34% polarization transfer from the triplet to the singlet state and back when extrapolated to $\tau_{evolve}$ = 0, indicating an 82% polarization transfer efficiency for each application of SLIC spin-locking.
We next applied the SLIC technique to singlet state creation in a second proton spin pair in the phe-gly-gly molecule, with chemical shift $\delta$ = 3.20 ppm and $T_1$ = 430 $\pm$ 5 ms. This proton spin pair is coupled to a third proton that decreases both the singlet lifetime ($T_S$ = 2.15$\pm$ 0.05 s with no spin-locking applied) and the triplet/singlet polarization transfer efficiency. We followed the procedure outlined above to determine the optimal spin-lock nutation frequency $\nu_n = J = 13.5 \pm 0.2$ Hz, and the optimal spin-lock duration $\tau_{SL}$ = 332 $\pm$ 6 ms (Fig. 3C,D). We then applied the complete SLIC sequence with $\tau_{evolve}$ = 500 ms and found about 12% polarization transfer to the singlet state and back when extrapolated to $\tau_{evolve}$ = 0, which represents a transfer efficiency of 49% for each application of SLIC spin-locking. For comparison, we experimentally investigated singlet state creation with the M2S sequence. We determined optimized M2S parameters to be n$_1$ = 4, n$_2$ = 5, and $\tau$ = 17.9 ms, and measured that only 4% of the polarization was transferred from the triplet to the singlet state and back when extrapolated to $\tau_{evolve}$ = 0, which represents a 28% efficiency for each application of the M2S sequence.
In summary, we introduced an improved and broadly applicable method, known as SLIC for “spin-lock induced crossing,” for the creation of long-lived singlet states of nuclear spins in molecules and other many-atom systems. As an example, we applied our SLIC technique to two different nearly-equivalent proton spin pairs in the phe-gly-gly molecule and demonstrated that SLIC is 40% and 300% more efficient than the previous M2S technique for the transfer of triplet-state polarization to singlet-state population and then back to measurable transverse triplet-state polarization. SLIC is more effective than M2S primarily because the transfer to the long-lived singlet state begins immediately with SLIC, without the need for an initial transfer to a singlet-triplet coherence as with M2S. Though a singlet-triplet coherence can have an extended lifetime relative to a single-spin coherence time ($T_2$), it generally relaxes significantly faster than the singlet population lifetime ($T_S$), leading to greater polarization loss and less efficient singlet state creation for M2S than for SLIC. The relative advantage of SLIC grows for molecules with small resonance frequency difference $\Delta \nu$ between the nuclear spins, which in many cases can be much smaller than 1/$T_1$. These are the very molecules expected to possess the longest singlet lifetimes due to the high purity of their singlet states.
Beyond liquid-state NMR, we foresee applications of SLIC in long-lived quantum memories composed of nuclear spin pairs [@Maurer1], as well as selective nuclear spin state manipulation at low magnetic field [@DeVience2], and high-precision solid-state electronic spin measurements such as nitrogen vacancy (NV) diamond magnetometry [@Walsworth1; @Rugar1; @Wrachtrup1; @Zhao1]. For a nuclear spin quantum memory with singlet and triplet bases, SLIC may provide a straightforward way to prepare desired states on the singlet/triplet Bloch sphere. At low magnetic field, nuclear spins are strongly coupled and do not exhibit resolvable spectral features for manipulation using conventional single-spin NMR techniques. However, SLIC could be used to mix and thereby manipulate nuclear spin states by exploiting their weak chemical shift differences. SLIC may also provide a tool for improving the sensitivity of NV diamond magnetometry by allowing state-specific preparation and manipulation of the nearly-equivalent nitrogen electron spins that occur in the diamond lattice at about ten times the concentration of optically polarizable and detectable NV centers. These nitrogen electron spins could be prepared in singlet states to increase the NV coherence time, or in specific triplet states to serve as ancillary magnetic field sensors controllably coupled via dressed-state techniques to the optically detectable NV centers [@Cappellaro1; @Lukin1].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Computational searches for stable and metastable structures of water ice and other H:O compositions at TPa pressures have led us to predict that H$_2$O decomposes into H$_2$O$_2$ and a hydrogen-rich phase at pressures of a little over 5 TPa. The hydrogen-rich phase is stable over a wide range of hydrogen contents, and it might play a role in the erosion of the icy component of the cores of gas giants as H$_2$O comes into contact with hydrogen. Metallization of H$_2$O is predicted at a higher pressure of just over 6 TPa, and therefore H$_2$O does not have a thermodynamically stable low-temperature metallic form. We have also found a new and rich mineralogy of complicated water ice phases which are more stable in the pressure range 0.8–2 TPa than any predicted previously.'
author:
- 'Chris J. Pickard'
- 'Miguel Martinez-Canales'
- 'Richard J. Needs'
title: Decomposition and terapascal phases of water ice
---
Water ice under high pressures is an important component of gas giant planets, and it has been speculated that it is present in the core of Jupiter at pressures as high as 6.4 TPa [@Militzer_2008]. The pressures at the centers of massive exoplanets can reach 10 TPa or more [@exoplanets], and establishing the properties of materials at TPa pressures is a very difficult task. Knowledge of the equation of state and whether the high-pressure phases are insulating or metallic is particularly important.
Hydrogen and oxygen are, respectively, the most abundant and the third most abundant elements in the solar system [@Arnett_book]. The spatial distributions of elements within planets are understood to some extent, but it is not in general known what chemical compounds are stable at TPa pressures. H$_2$O is a stable stoichiometry of the binary H:O system at low temperatures and pressures, and the reaction $${\rm H}_2{\rm O} \rightarrow {\rm H}_y{\rm O}_z + {\rm H}_{2-y}{\rm O}_{1-z}$$ is endothermic for all $y$ and $z$, $0 < y < 2, 0 < z < 1$.
TPa pressures are becoming more accessible experimentally, but it is not currently possible to determine the stable stoichiometries of materials at TPa pressures experimentally, or the crystalline structures of any compounds formed. We can, however, make progress using theoretical approaches. The capability to search for thermodynamically stable crystal structures using density functional theory (DFT) methods has developed rapidly in recent years. Here we report searches for stable structures of various H:O stoichiometries using DFT methods, which have allowed us to investigate the stability of H$_2$O and of other stoichiometries at TPa pressures.
Static-compression diamond-anvil-cell experiments have given us a great deal of information about water ice up to pressures of 0.21 TPa [@Hemley_1987; @Goncharov_1996; @Loubeyre_1999], but this is far below the highest pressures to which water is subjected within planets. Shock wave experiments can reach much higher pressures, and sample precompression [@Lee_2006; @JeanlozCCELMBL07] and ramped compression [@Davis_2005; @HawreliakCEKLPRRSW07] techniques can reduce the resulting temperatures to those more appropriate for planetary science.
The low-pressure and temperature phases of ice consist of packings of hydrogen-bonded water molecules [@Salzmann_2009]. Compression of the high-pressure molecular ice VIII phase leads to a transition at about 0.1 TPa to the ice X structure, in which the H atoms move to the mid-points between neighbouring O atoms and the molecules lose their separate identities [@Polian_ice_X_1984]. Ice X is the highest-pressure phase that has been observed experimentally, but DFT studies have predicted further phase transitions at higher pressures [@Benoit_1996; @Militzer_2010; @McMahon_2011_ice; @Ji_2011; @Wang_2011]. The structural chemistry of some of these phases is discussed in Ref..
We have performed DFT calculations [@Supplemental] of structures with various H:O stoichiometries using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">castep</span> [@ClarkSPHPRP05] plane-wave code, the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) [@Perdew_1996_PBE] Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA) density functional, and ultrasoft pseudopotentials [@Vanderbilt90]. We searched for low enthalpy structures using the *ab initio* random structure searching (AIRSS) method [@PickardN06_silane; @Airss_review]. This method has been applied to many systems including H$_2$O at low pressures [@Pickard_2007_water], and hydrogen [@pickard-h; @McMahon_2011_hydrogen; @Pickard_2012_hydrogen] and oxygen [@Sun_2012_oxygen] at high pressures. AIRSS involves choosing starting structures and relaxing each of them to a minimum in the enthalpy. We have made extensive use of symmetry constraints in our searches. Starting structures were generated conforming to a particular space group symmetry, although they were otherwise random, and they were relaxed while maintaining the symmetry constraint. We performed searches for H$_2$O structures with up to 16 formula units (fu), and searches for other stoichiometries were performed with up to 98 atoms [@Supplemental].
The stability ranges of the most energetically favorable phases of H$_2$O are given in Table \[table:pressure\_stability\], including those found in earlier DFT studies [@Benoit_1996; @Militzer_2010; @McMahon_2011_ice; @Ji_2011; @Wang_2011]. The AIRSS calculations produced three water ice structures of symmetries $P3_121$ (or its chiral enantiomorph $P3_212$), $Pcca$ and $C2$, with lower static-lattice enthalpies within the pressure range 0.78–2.36 TPa than those known previously, see Table \[table:pressure\_stability\] and Ref. . We also found the $Pmc2_1$ structure reported by McMahon [@McMahon_2011_ice] and the $I\bar{4}2d$ phase of Ref., but they are metastable on our phase diagram. At higher pressures we found the $P2_1$ [@McMahon_2011_ice; @Wang_2011; @Ji_2011], $P2_1/c$ [@Ji_2011] and $C2/m$ [@McMahon_2011_ice] structures of earlier studies. Theoretical predictions of still higher pressure phases have been reported but, as we show below, they are not stable [@Zhang_2012]. We also performed calculations using the local density approximation (LDA) [@Perdew_1981] for the $Pbca \leftrightarrow P3_121$ and $P2_1/c \leftrightarrow C2/m$ transitions, which gave transition pressures similar to those using the PBE functional [@Supplemental]. The LDA and PBE functionals have been tested successfully in many high-pressure studies. The pseudo-valence electronic charge densities of materials become more uniform at very high pressures, and the LDA and PBE functionals are particularly appropriate under such conditions because they obey the uniform limit and give an excellent description of the linear response of the electron gas to an applied potential [@Perdew_1996_PBE]. Additional discussion of these issues for carbon at TPa pressures is presented in the Supplemental Material for Ref..
Space group Stability range (TPa) No. fu Source
------------- ----------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------
Ice X –0.30 2 Ref. [@Polian_ice_X_1984]
$Pbcm$ 0.30–0.71 4 Ref. [@Benoit_1996]
$Pbca$ 0.71–0.78 8 Ref. [@Militzer_2010]
$P3_121$ 0.78–2.01 12 This work
$Pcca$ 2.01–2.24 12 This work
$C2$ 2.24–2.36 12 This work
$P2_1$ 2.36–2.75 4 Ref. [@McMahon_2011_ice; @Wang_2011; @Ji_2011]
$P2_1/c$ 2.75–6.06 8 Ref. [@Ji_2011]
$C2/m$ 6.06– 2 Ref. [@McMahon_2011_ice]
: \[table:pressure\_stability\] Space group symmetries, calculated stability ranges, and numbers of fu per primitive unit cell for phases of H$_2$O. Nuclear vibrational motion is not included in this data. The right-hand column gives the source of the structure.
It is important to include the quantum nuclear zero-point (ZP) motion when considering the energetics of systems containing light atoms. We therefore calculated the vibrational modes of the most stable phases within the quasi-harmonic approximation and evaluated the corresponding contributions to the free energies and pressures. Technical details of the phonon calculations are given in the Supplemental Material [@Supplemental]. The enthalpy-pressure relations of the relevant phases, including ZP motion, are shown in Fig. \[fig:enthalpies\_with\_zpe\]. (The enthalpy reduction arising from the $Pbcm$ distortion is too small to be visible on the scale of Fig. \[fig:enthalpies\_with\_zpe\].) When ZP motion effects are included the $C2$ and $P2_1$ phases no longer have regions of thermodynamic stability, and our $P3_121$ and $Pcca$ phases become stable in the ranges 0.77–1.44 TPa and 1.44–1.93 TPa, respectively. Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\_with\_vib\] shows the computed phase diagram including vibrational motion up to 2000 K. Note that our predicted pressure for the onset of stability of $P3_121$ H$_2$O of 0.77 TPa is not much higher than that of 0.7 TPa achieved in recent shock compression of water [@Knudson_2012], and that static compression of rhenium up to 0.64 TPa was recently achieved in a secondary anvil diamond cell [@Dubrovinsky_2012], so that the pressures considered here are likely to become accessible in the future.
![(Color online) Variation of the enthalpies with pressure of high-pressure water-ice structures. Previously-known structures are indicated by dashed lines, and phases that we have predicted are shown as solid lines. ZP motion is included at the quasi-harmonic level.[]{data-label="fig:enthalpies_with_zpe"}](Fig1-Enthalpy.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The $Pbcm$, $Pbca$, $P2_1$, $P2_1/c$, $C2/m$, and $I\bar{4}2d$ structures have been described in previous work [@Benoit_1996; @Militzer_2010; @McMahon_2011_ice; @Ji_2011; @Wang_2011]. The O atoms of the $P3_121$ structure form hexagonal-close-packed (hcp) layers, which are stacked not in the middle of the triangles of the adjacent layers but mid-way along an edge, with a three-layer repeat, see Fig. \[fig:structures\]. The density increases by about 2% at the transition from $Pbca$ to $P3_121$, which is reflected in the substantial reduction in the gradient of the enthalpy-pressure curve at the transition apparent in Fig. \[fig:enthalpies\_with\_zpe\]. The O lattice of the layered $Pcca$ structure exhibits a quartz-like “bow-tie” motif [@Supplemental], and it is not particularly similar to any of the standard close packed structures. The primitive cells of the $P3_121$ and $Pcca$ structures are large, containing 12 fu, and they appear to be of previously-unknown structure types. The $C2$ structure also exhibits the bow-tie motif. Details of the $P3_121$, $Pcca$ and $C2$ structures are reported in the Supplemental Material [@Supplemental].
![(Color online) Phase diagram of water ice including vibrational motion.[]{data-label="fig:phase_diagram_with_vib"}](Fig2-PhaseDiagram.eps){width="50.00000%"}
![(Color online) (top) The $P3_121$ structure of water ice at 1 TPa and (bottom) the $Pa\bar{3}$ structure of H$_2$O$_2$ at 6 TPa. The O atoms are shown in red and the H atoms in gray.[]{data-label="fig:structures"}](Fig3a-P3121.eps "fig:"){width="27.50000%"} ![(Color online) (top) The $P3_121$ structure of water ice at 1 TPa and (bottom) the $Pa\bar{3}$ structure of H$_2$O$_2$ at 6 TPa. The O atoms are shown in red and the H atoms in gray.[]{data-label="fig:structures"}](Fig3b-H2O2.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"}
H$_2$O and H$_2$ readily form hydrogen clathrate compounds at low pressures [@Mao_2002]. Much denser structures are favored at high pressures, which can lead to changes in bonding and/or decomposition into compounds of other stoichiometries, and a recent study has shown that H:O compounds other than H$_2$O may be stable at TPa pressures [@Zhang_2012]. For example, we have identified a high-symmetry, well-packed, very stable and insulating structure of hydrogen peroxide (H$_2$O$_2$) of space group $Pa\bar{3}$, see Fig.\[fig:structures\], which contains O-O bonds and 3-fold coordinated H atoms. We have found that this phase plays an important role in determining the stability of H$_2$O at high pressures.
We have searched over various H:O stoichiometries to investigate the stability of H$_2$O to decomposition at TPa pressures. We found an instability of H$_2$O at pressures a little above 5 TPa to a decomposition of the form $$\label{eq:decomposition}
{\rm H}_2{\rm O} \rightarrow \frac{\delta}{1+\delta}
\frac{1}{2} \, {\rm H}_2{\rm O_2} + \frac{1}{1+\delta} \, {\rm
H}_{2+\delta}{\rm O},$$ with $\delta \geq 1/8$. The right hand side of this reaction equation is simply H$_2$O when $\delta=0$, but for $\delta>0$ it corresponds to the formation of H$_2$O$_2$ and a hydrogen rich H$_{2+\delta}$O compound.
This instability is illustrated in more detail in the convex hull diagram of Fig. \[fig:c2/m-like\_structures\](a). At high pressures the $Pa\bar{3}$ H$_2$O$_2$ structure is on the convex hull at $x=0$. At 4 TPa, which is below the instability to decomposition, the $P2_1/c$ phase of water ice is on the convex hull and is stable. At 6 TPa the $P2_1/c$ and $C2/m$ phases are almost degenerate and the convex hull passes below them, and all H$_2$O structures are unstable to decomposition. This decomposition is shown in Eq.\[eq:decomposition\], and it leads to the formation of H$_2$O$_2$ + H$_{2+1/8}$O, so that $\delta=1/8$. Note, however, that the enthalpies of hydrogen rich structures from $\delta=1/8$ up to about $\delta=5/12$ are on the convex hull and they are therefore also stable at 6 TPa. Some of the most stable structures that we have found with fractional values of $\delta$ have large unit cells containing up to 98 atoms. It is likely that a quasi-continuum of structures with different values of $\delta$ are stable at 6 TPa. We have also calculated the enthalpies of the structures at 5 TPa, and find that this pressure is close to, but just below the lowest pressure at which H$_2$O decomposes. We therefore conclude that, at low temperatures, H$_2$O becomes unstable to decomposition at pressures of a little above 5 TPa.
From $\delta = 0$ up to somewhere between $\delta = 1/4$ and $1/2$ the hydrogen-rich H$_{2+\delta}$O structures resemble the $C2/m$ phase, but with layers of H atoms inserted, see Fig.\[fig:c2/m-like\_structures\](b). We also found hydrogen deficient $C2/m$ variants, but they are not stable under the conditions studied here. The appearance of structures with $\delta \neq 0$ can be understood as a topotactic transition [@Shannon_topotaxy] to structures in which the O lattice is maintained, while the $C2/m$-like structures differ in the amount of hydrogen incorporated. These phases might be described as interstitial solid solutions.
The H$_{2+\delta}$O phases are weakly metallic [@Supplemental]. The relative enthalpies of the H$_{2+\delta}$O phases correlate with the density of electronic states at the Fermi energy (eDos($E_F$)). The eDos($E_F$) takes its minimum value at $\delta = 1/4$, which corresponds to the minimum in the convex hull of Fig. \[fig:c2/m-like\_structures\], see also Ref.. This suggests that the relative stability of the H$_{2+\delta}$O phases is connected with the Fermi surface/Bragg plane mechanism [@Jones_1934], in which the energy is reduced by the formation of a pseudo-gap in the eDos around $E_F$ arising from a symmetry breaking mechanism, which in this case involves the insertion of H atoms. It is possible that the true ground states of the H$_{2+\delta}$O phases could be incommensurate charge-density-wave metals with wavelengths related to the Fermi surface.
![(Color online) (a) Convex hull diagram and enthalpies of ($\frac{1}{2}$H$_{2}$O$_{2}$)$_{1-x}$H$_x$ structures. The red and black dotted lines show the convex hulls at 4 and 6 TPa, respectively. The solid lines show enthalpies of stable structures at 4 TPa (red) and 6 TPa (black). At 4 TPa the $P2_1/c$ phase (lower red dot at $x=0.5$) is more stable than $C2/m$ (upper red dot at $x=0.5$). At 6 TPa the $P2_1/c$ and $C2/m$ phases are almost degenerate (black dot at $x=0.5$). Six values of $\delta$ are labelled on the enthalpy curves, and the enthalpies of the corresponding structures for $\delta \simeq$ 1/8 to $\delta \simeq$ 5/12 lie on the convex hull at 4 and 6 TPa. (b) Six H$_{2+\delta}$O structures at 6 TPa with values of $\delta$ from 0 to 1/2. These structures have very similar arrangements of O atoms (red) for $\delta = 0$ to 1/4, but between $\delta = 1/4$ and $1/2$ the O packing changes to bcc.[]{data-label="fig:c2/m-like_structures"}](Fig4-ConvexHull.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![(Color online) (a) Convex hull diagram and enthalpies of ($\frac{1}{2}$H$_{2}$O$_{2}$)$_{1-x}$H$_x$ structures. The red and black dotted lines show the convex hulls at 4 and 6 TPa, respectively. The solid lines show enthalpies of stable structures at 4 TPa (red) and 6 TPa (black). At 4 TPa the $P2_1/c$ phase (lower red dot at $x=0.5$) is more stable than $C2/m$ (upper red dot at $x=0.5$). At 6 TPa the $P2_1/c$ and $C2/m$ phases are almost degenerate (black dot at $x=0.5$). Six values of $\delta$ are labelled on the enthalpy curves, and the enthalpies of the corresponding structures for $\delta \simeq$ 1/8 to $\delta \simeq$ 5/12 lie on the convex hull at 4 and 6 TPa. (b) Six H$_{2+\delta}$O structures at 6 TPa with values of $\delta$ from 0 to 1/2. These structures have very similar arrangements of O atoms (red) for $\delta = 0$ to 1/4, but between $\delta = 1/4$ and $1/2$ the O packing changes to bcc.[]{data-label="fig:c2/m-like_structures"}](Fig4-Structures_delta.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
If H$_2$O occurs under conditions of excess hydrogen, for example, at the core/mantle boundary in a gas giant planet, the metallic hydrogen-rich $C2/m$-like and bcc-like phases that we have found could act as “hydrogen sponges”, soaking up hydrogen from the mantle. We suggest that such a mechanism might play a role in erosion of the ice component in the core of gas giants as H$_2$O comes into contact with H$_2$. Entropic effects also favor dissolution of H:O compounds in hydrogen at high temperatures [@Wilson_2012].
In summary, we have found a new and rich mineralogy of complicated water ice phases of previously-unknown structure types, which lead to a revision of the predicted phase diagram of H$_2$O within the pressure range of about 0.8–2 TPa and above 5 TPa. We predict that H$_2$O decomposes into H$_2$O$_2$ and hydrogen rich phases based on the layered $C2/m$ structure of H$_2$O and on phases with a bcc O lattice at pressures a little above 5 TPa. This suggests that H$_2$O is not a stable compound at the highest pressures at which it has been suggested to occur within Jupiter. We suggest that the $C2/m$ structure might play a role in the erosion of icy cores of gas giant planets. The insulator/metal transition is predicted to occur at the transition from $P2_1/c$ to $C2/m$, but H$_2$O is unstable to decomposition at this pressure, and therefore it does not have a thermodynamically stable low-temperature metallic form. Our study supports previous suggestions that icy planetary cores could be strongly eroded by contact with a hydrogen-rich mantle [@Stevenson_1982; @Guillot_1999; @Wilson_2012].
We acknowledge financial support from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom, and the use of the UCL Legion High Performance Computing Facility, and associated support services. We thank Sian Dutton for helpful discussions.
[10]{}
B. Militzer, W. B. Hubbard, J. Vorberger, I. Tamblyn, and S. A. Bonev, Astrophys. J. Lett. **688**, L45 (2008).
*The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia*, http://exoplanet.eu/
D. Arnett, *Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis* (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996).
R. J. Hemley, A. P. Jephcoat, H.-K. Mao, C. S. Zha, L. W. Finger, and D. E. Cox, Nature (London) **330**, 737 (1987).
A. F. Goncharov, V. V. Struzhkin, M. S. Somayazulu, R. J. Hemley, and H.-K. Mao, Science **273**, 218 (1996).
P. Loubeyre, R. LeToullec, E. Wolanin, M. Hanfland, and D. Hausermann, Nature (London) **397**, 503 (1999).
K. K. M. Lee, L. R. Benedetti, R. Jeanloz, P. M. Celliers, J. H. Eggert, D. G. Hicks, S. J. Moon, A. Mackinnon, L. B. Da Silva, D. K. Bradley, W. Unites, G. W. Collins, E. Henry, M. Koenig, A. Benuzzi-Mounaix, J. Pasley, and D. Neely, J. Chem. Phys. **125**, 014701 (2006). R. Jeanloz, P. M. Celliers, G. W. Collins, J. H. Eggert, K. K. M. Lee, R. S. McWilliams, S. Brygoo, and P. Loubeyre, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **104**, 9172 (2007).
J.-P. Davis, C. Deeney, M. D. Knudson, R. W. Lemke, T. D. Pointon, and D. E. Bliss, Phys. Plasmas **12**, 056310 (2005). J. Hawreliak, J. Colvin, J. Eggert, D. H. Kalantar, H. E. Lorenzana, S. Pollaine, K. Rosolankova, B. A. Remington, J. Stölken, and J. S. Wark, Astrophys. Space Sci. **307**, 285 (2007).
C. G. Salzmann, P. G. Radaelli, E. Mayer, and J. L. Finney, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 105701 (2009).
A. Polian and M. Grimsditch, Phys. Rev. Lett. **52**, 1312 (1984).
M. Benoit, M. Bernasconi, P. Focher, and M. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 2934 (1996). B. Militzer and H. F. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 195701 (2010). J. M. McMahon, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 220104 (2011). M. Ji, K. Umemoto, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, R. M. Wentzcovitch, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 220105 (2011). Y. Wang, H. Liu, J. Lv, L. Zhu, H. Wang, and Y. Ma, Nature Commun. **2**, 563 (2011). A. Hermann, N. W. Ashcroft, and R. Hoffmann, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. **109**, 745 (2012). See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.245701 for more details of the calculations, structures, electronic structures and phonon dispersion relations.
S. J. Clark, M. D. Segall, C. J. Pickard, P. J. Hasnip, M. I. J. Probert, K. Refson, and M. C. Payne, Z. Kristallogr. **220**, 567 (2005).
J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 3865 (1996).
D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B **41**, 7892 (1990).
C. J. Pickard and R. J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 045504 (2006).
C. J. Pickard and R. J. Needs, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **23**, 053201 (2011).
C. J. Pickard and R. J. Needs, J. Chem. Phys. **127**, 244503 (2007).
C. J. Pickard and R. J. Needs, Nature Phys. **3**, 473 (2007).
J. M. McMahon and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 165302 (2011).
C. J. Pickard, M. Martinez-Canales, and R. J. Needs, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 214114 (2012); Phys. Rev. B **86**, 059902(E) (2012). J. Sun, M. Martinez-Canales, D. D. Klug, C. J. Pickard, and R. J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 045503 (2012). S. Zhang, H.F. Wilson, K.P. Driver, and B. Militzer, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 024112 (2013). J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B **23**, 5048 (1981). M. Martinez-Canales, C. J. Pickard and R. J. Needs, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 045704 (2012).
M. D. Knudson, M. P. Desjarlais, R. W. Lemke, T. R. Mattsson, M. French, N. Nettelmann, and R. Redmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 091102 (2012). L. Dubrovinsky, N. Dubrovinskaia, V. B. Prakapenka, and A. M. Abakumov, Nature Commun. **3**, 1163 (2012).
W. L. Mao, H.-k. Mao, A. F. Goncharov, V. V. Struzhkin, Q. Guo, J. Hu, J. Shu, R. J. Hemley, M. Somayazulu, and Y. Zhao, Science **297**, 2247 (2002). R. D. Shannon and R. C. Rossi, Nature **202**, 1000 (1964).
H. Jones, Proc. Roy. Soc. A **147**, 396 (1934). H. F. Wilson and B. Militzer, Astrophys. J., **745**, 54 (2012). D. J. Stevenson, Planet. Space Sci. **30**, 755 (1982).
T. Guillot, Science **286**, 72 (1999).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this article, we will show that the category of biset functors can be regarded as a reflective monoidal subcategory of the category of Mackey functors on the 2-category of finite groupoids. This reflective subcategory is equivalent to the category of modules over the Burnside functor. As a consequence of the reflectivity, we can associate a biset functor to any derivator on the 2-category of finite categories.'
address: 'Research and Education Assembly, Science and Engineering Area, Research Field in Science, Kagoshima University, 1-21-35 Korimoto, Kagoshima, 890-0065 Japan / LAMFA, Université de Picardie-Jules Verne, 33 rue St Leu, 80039 Amiens Cedex1, France'
author:
- Hiroyuki NAKAOKA
title: 'Biset functors as module Mackey functors, and its relation to derivators.'
---
[^1] [^2]
[^3]
Introduction and Preliminaries
==============================
A Mackey functor is a useful tool to describe how an algebraic system associated to finite groups (such as the Burnside rings or the representation rings, or the cohomology groups, etc.) behaves under the change of subgroups of a fixed group $G$. Recently, Bouc [@Bouc_biset] has defined the notion of a [*biset functor*]{}, which moreover enables us to deal with the behavior of algebraic systems named as above, with respect to [*bisets*]{} among [*all*]{} finite groups. The category of biset functors ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ becomes a symmetric closed monoidal category ([@Bouc_biset II.8]), and its monoid objects called [*Green biset functors*]{}, are also investigated in the literature [@Bouc_biset],[@Romero].
As shown in [@N_BisetMackey], a biset functor can be regarded as a special class of Mackey functor on some 2-category ${\mathbb{S}}$. This special Mackey functors are called [*deflative*]{} Mackey functors there. Indeed, the category of biset functors ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ has shown to be equivalent to the category ${{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$ of deflative Mackey functors on ${\mathbb{S}}$. Relations between (global) Mackey functors and biset functors are also investigated by several researchers such as [@Bouc_fused], [@Coskun], [@HTW], [@Ibarra].
We can also show that the 2-category ${\mathbb{S}}$ becomes biequivalent to the 2-category of finite groupoids. It allows us to relate ${\mathit{Mack}}({\mathbb{S}})$ to [*derivators*]{}. In fact, to any derivator on the 2-category of finite categories, we can associate a Mackey functor on ${\mathbb{S}}$. This gives a way to construct biset functors from derivators (since the inclusion ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}\hookrightarrow{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$ is shown to have a left adjoint, as below). We remark also that the theory of derivators is of recent interest by several researchers, as seen in [@Cisinski], [@Groth].
One of the motivations of this article is to pursue this interpretation, to describe Green biset functors in terms of ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$. By the result of Panchadcharam and Street [@PS], the category ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$ can be equipped with a symmetric monoidal structure. We will show that this monoidal structure restricts to ${{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$, and the equivalence ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}{\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$ constructed in [@N_BisetMackey] is in fact a monoidal equivalence. As a consequence, their categories of monoids become equivalent. Namely, we obtain an equivalence between the category of Green biset functors and the category of [*deflative Green functors*]{} on ${\mathbb{S}}$. Besides, we see that the inclusion ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}\hookrightarrow{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$ has a left adjoint, given by the tensor product with a monoid object.
This motivation comes from our ongoing work on [*Tambara biset functors*]{}. It is expected to be a framework for biset functors equipped with multiplicative inductions, such as the Burnside functor and the representation ring functor. This will be an analog of the notion of [*Tambara functors*]{} in the ordinary Mackey functor theory. In [@N_DerTam] and forthcoming works, we will formalize Tambara’ properties for biset functors, using our interpretation as Mackey functors on ${\mathbb{S}}$. In the analogy with the ordinary case, we expect that the underlying Mackey functor of any Tambara biset functor should naturally become a Green functor on ${\mathbb{S}}$. In this article, we develop what will be necessary for this purpose.
Throughout this article, $k$ denotes a commutative ring with multiplicative unit. Any group is assumed to be finite. The unit of a group is denoted by $e$. Abbreviately, trivial group is denoted by $e$. For a finite group $G$, let ${{}_G\mathit{set}}$ denote the category of finite $G$-sets, where morphisms are equivariant $G$-maps. The discrete category with only one object is denoted by ${\mathbf{e}}$. For any category ${\mathscr{K}}$ and any pair of objects $X$ and $Y$ in ${\mathscr{K}}$, the set of morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ in ${\mathscr{K}}$ is denoted by ${\mathscr{K}}(X,Y)$. Let ${\mathfrak{C}}({\mathscr{K}})$ denote the set of isomorphism classes of objects in ${\mathscr{K}}$. For a functor $F{\colon}{\mathscr{K}}\to{\mathscr{K}}{^{\prime}}$, let ${\mathfrak{C}}(F){\colon}{\mathfrak{C}}({\mathscr{K}})\to{\mathfrak{C}}({\mathscr{K}}{^{\prime}})$ denote the map induced from $F$.
For a strict 2-category ${\mathbb{K}}$, we use the following notation.
1. ${\mathbb{K}}^0$ denotes the class of 0-cells in ${\mathbb{K}}$.
2. For any pair of 0-cells $X,Y\in{\mathbb{K}}^0$, the set of 1-cells from $X$ to $Y$ is denoted by ${\mathbb{K}}^1(X,Y)$. Together with the 2-cells among them, they form a category ${\mathbb{K}}(X,Y)$ satisfying ${\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathbb{K}}(X,Y))={\mathbb{K}}^1(X,Y)$.
3. For any $X,Y\in{\mathbb{K}}^0$ and any $f,g\in{\mathbb{K}}^1(X,Y)$, the set of 2-cells from $f$ to $g$ is denoted by ${\mathbb{K}}^2(f,g)$. Namely, we put ${\mathbb{K}}^2(f,g)=({\mathbb{K}}(X,Y))(f,g)$.
Horizontal composition and vertical composition are denoted by ${\circ}$“ and $\cdot$” respectively.
Let ${\mathrm{Cat}}$ denote the 2-category of small categories ([@Borceux Example 7.1.4a]). Let ${\mathrm{finCat}}{\subseteq}{\mathrm{Cat}}$ denote the full 2-subcategory of finite categories (this is an example of [*category of diagrams*]{} ([@Groth Definition 1.12])), and let ${\mathrm{finGpd}}{\subseteq}{\mathrm{finCat}}$ denote the full 2-subcategory of finite groupoids.
Let us recall the definition and properties of ${\mathbb{S}}$ from [@N_BisetMackey]. For the generalities of 2-categries and bicategories, see [@MacLane],[@Borceux],[@Leinster].
\[DefS\]([@N_BisetMackey Definition 2.2.12]) 2-category ${\mathbb{S}}$ is defined as follows. (See [@N_BisetMackey section 2.2].)
1. A 0-cell is a pair of a finite group $G$ and a finite $G$-set $X$. We denote this pair by ${\frac{X}{G}}$.
2. For any pair of 0-cells ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{H}}$, a 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ is a pair of a map ${\alpha}{\colon}X\to Y$ and a family of maps $\{{\theta}_x{\colon}G\to H \}_{x\in X}$ satisfying
- ${\alpha}(gx)={\theta}_x(g){\alpha}(x)$
- ${\theta}_x(gg{^{\prime}})={\theta}_{g{^{\prime}}x}(g){\theta}_x(g{^{\prime}})$
for any $x\in X$ and any $g,g{^{\prime}}\in G$. We denote such a pair by ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}$.
If ${\theta}$ satisfies ${\theta}_x=f\ ({\forall}x\in X)$ for some group homomorphism $f{\colon}G\to H$, then the 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}$ is called $f$-[*equivariant*]{}, and simply written as $\frac{{\alpha}}{f}$. In particular when $G=H$, a 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{G}}$ is called $G$-[*equivariant*]{} or simply [*equivariant*]{}, if it is ${\mathrm{id}}_G$-equivariant. In this case, we denote this 1-cell by $\frac{{\alpha}}{{\mathrm{id}}_G}=\frac{{\alpha}}{G}$.
For any consecutive pair of 1-cells $${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\frac{\beta}{\tau}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Z}{K}},$$ we define their composition $({\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\circ}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}})=\frac{{\beta}{\circ}{\alpha}}{\tau{\circ}{\theta}}$ by
- ${\beta}{\circ}{\alpha}{\colon}X\to Z$ is the usual composition of maps of sets,
- $\tau{\circ}{\theta}$ is defined by $$(\tau{\circ}{\theta})_x(g)=\tau_{{{\alpha}(x)}}({\theta}_x(g))\quad({\forall}g\in G),$$ namely, $(\tau{\circ}{\theta})_x=\tau_{{{\alpha}(x)}}{\circ}{\theta}_x$ for any $x\in X$.
The identity 1-cell for ${\frac{X}{G}}$ is given by ${\mathrm{id}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}=\frac{{\mathrm{id}}_X}{G}$.
3. For any pair of 1-cells ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}},{\frac{\alpha{^{\prime}}}{\theta{^{\prime}}}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$, a 2-cell ${\varepsilon}{\colon}{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\Rightarrow}{\frac{\alpha{^{\prime}}}{\theta{^{\prime}}}}$ is a family of elements $\{ {\varepsilon}_x\in H\}_{x\in X}$ satisfying
- ${\alpha}{^{\prime}}(x)={\varepsilon}_x{\alpha}(x) $,
- ${\varepsilon}_{gx}{\theta}_x(g){\varepsilon}_x{^{-1}}={\theta}{^{\prime}}_x(g)$
for any $x\in X$ and $g\in G$.
If we are given a consecutive pair of 2-cells $$\xy
(-14,0)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="0";
(14,0)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
{\ar@/^2.0pc/^{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar|*+{_{{\frac{\alpha{^{\prime}}}{\theta{^{\prime}}}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@/_2.0pc/_{\frac{{\alpha}{^{\prime\prime}}}{{\theta}{^{\prime\prime}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@{=>}^{{\varepsilon}} (0,6);(0,3)};
{\ar@{=>}^{{\varepsilon}{^{\prime}}} (0,-3);(0,-6)};
\endxy$$ then their vertical composition ${\varepsilon}{^{\prime}}\cdot{\varepsilon}{\colon}{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\Rightarrow}\frac{{\alpha}{^{\prime\prime}}}{{\theta}{^{\prime\prime}}}$ is defined by $$({\varepsilon}{^{\prime}}\cdot{\varepsilon})_x={\varepsilon}{^{\prime}}_x{\varepsilon}_x\quad({\forall}x\in X).$$ The identity 2-cell ${\mathrm{id}}{\colon}{\mathrm{id}}_{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}}{\Rightarrow}{\mathrm{id}}_{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}}$ is given by ${\mathrm{id}}_x=e\ ({\forall}x\in X)$. With this definition, any 2-cell becomes invertible with respect to the vertical composition.
Horizontal compositions are given as follows. Let ${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\frac{\beta}{\tau}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Z}{K}}$ be a sequence of 1-cells.
1. For a 2-cell $$\xy
(-14,0)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="0";
(14,0)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
{\ar@/^1.2pc/^{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@/_1.2pc/_{{\frac{\alpha{^{\prime}}}{\theta{^{\prime}}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@{=>}^{{\varepsilon}} (0,2);(0,-2)};
\endxy,$$ define $({\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\circ}{\varepsilon}{\colon}({\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\circ}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}){\Rightarrow}({\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\circ}({\frac{\alpha{^{\prime}}}{\theta{^{\prime}}}})$ by $$\label{EqHor1}
(({\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\circ}{\varepsilon})_x=\tau_{{{\alpha}(x)}}({\varepsilon}_x)\quad({\forall}x\in X).$$
2. For a 2-cell $$\xy
(-14,0)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="0";
(14,0)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="2";
{\ar@/^1.2pc/^{{\frac{\beta}{\tau}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@/_1.2pc/_{{\frac{\beta{^{\prime}}}{\tau{^{\prime}}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@{=>}^{\rho} (0,2);(0,-2)};
\endxy,$$ define $\rho{\circ}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}){\colon}({\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\circ}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}){\Rightarrow}({\frac{\beta{^{\prime}}}{\tau{^{\prime}}}}){\circ}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}})$ by $$\label{EqHor2}
(\rho{\circ}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}))_x=\rho_{{{\alpha}(x)}}\quad({\forall}x\in X).$$
\[RemAbb\] In the following, a 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}$ is often abbreviately written as ${\alpha}$.
Define a 2-functor ${\mathbb{E}}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}\to{\mathrm{finGpd}}$ in the following way (Definition \[Def0to0\], Propositions \[Prop1to1\], \[Prop2to2\], Corollary \[Cor2Ftr\]).
On 0-cells, ${\mathbb{E}}$ is defined as follows.
\[Def0to0\] For any 0-cell ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$, associate the category of elements ${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})=e\ell_G(X)$ ([@AM Example A.14]) defined by
- ${\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))=X$.
- For any $x,x{^{\prime}}\in X$, define $({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))(x,x{^{\prime}})=\{ g\in G\mid gx=x{^{\prime}}\}$.
On 1-cells, ${\mathbb{E}}$ is given by the following.
\[Prop1to1\] Let ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$ be any pair of 0-cells. There is a bijective map on the set of 1-cells $${\mathbb{E}}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}^1({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathrm{finGpd}}^1({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}),{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}})),$$ which is given explicitly in the proof.
Any functor $F{\colon}{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})\to {\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}})$ should consist of a pair $(\alpha,\{ F_{x,x{^{\prime}}}\}_{x,x{^{\prime}}\in X})$ of
- a map on the set of objects ${\alpha}{\colon}X\to Y$,
- a family of maps $$\label{FamMorphMap}
\{ F_{x,x{^{\prime}}}{\colon}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))(x,x{^{\prime}})\to ({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}}))({\alpha}(x),{\alpha}(x{^{\prime}})) \}$$ preserving the identities and the composition.
A family of maps $(\ref{FamMorphMap})$ can be regarded as a map $$\begin{aligned}
&\Theta{\colon}X{\times}G{\overset}{\cong}{\to}\{(x,x{^{\prime}},g)\in X{\times}X{\times}G\mid x{^{\prime}}=gx \}\to H&\\
&(x,g)\mapsto(x,gx,g)\mapsto F_{x,gx}(g)=:{\theta}_x(g).&\end{aligned}$$ This family preserves the composition if and only if, for any sequence of morphisms $x{\overset}{g{^{\prime}}}{\to}g{^{\prime}}x{\overset}{g}{\to}gg{^{\prime}}x$ in ${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})$, it satisfies $${\theta}_x(gg{^{\prime}})={\theta}_{g{^{\prime}}x}(g){\circ}{\theta}_x(g{^{\prime}}).$$ This is nothing but the condition for a 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$. Preservation of the identities also follows automatically from this equation. Thus functors $F$ correspond bijectively to 1-cells ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}$ by the equation $$F_{x,gx}(g)={\theta}_x(g)\quad({\forall}x\in X,g\in G).$$
On 2-cells, ${\mathbb{E}}$ is given by the following.
\[Prop2to2\] Let ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}},{\frac{\beta}{\tau}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ be any pair of 1-cells in ${\mathbb{S}}$. There is a bijective map on the set of 2-cells $${\mathbb{E}}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}^2({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}},{\frac{\beta}{\tau}}){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathrm{finGpd}}^2({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}),{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{\beta}{\tau}})),$$ which is given explicitly in the proof.
Remark that each element in both hand sides is given as a family ${\varepsilon}=\{ {\varepsilon}_x\in H\}_{x\in X}$ satisfying some conditions.
For the left hand side, the conditions are
- ${\varepsilon}_x{\alpha}(x)={\beta}(x)\ \ ({\forall}x\in X)$.
- ${\varepsilon}_{gx}{\theta}_x(g)=\tau_x(g){\varepsilon}_x\ \ ({\forall}x\in X,g\in G)$.
For the right hand side, the conditions are
- ${\varepsilon}_x\in({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}}))({\alpha}(x),{\beta}(x))\ \ ({\forall}x\in X)$.
- For any $x\in X$ and any $g\in G$ (viewed as a morphism $g{\colon}x\to gx$), $$\xy
(-8,6)*+{{\alpha}(x)}="0";
(8,6)*+{{\beta}(x)}="2";
(-8,-6)*+{{\alpha}(gx)}="4";
(8,-6)*+{{\beta}(gx)}="6";
{\ar^{{\varepsilon}_x} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\theta}_x(g)} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{\tau_x(g)} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\varepsilon}_{gx}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ is commutative.
Obviously, these conditions are equivalent.
\[Cor2Ftr\] ${\mathbb{E}}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}\to{\mathrm{finGpd}}$ is a strict 2-functor $($[@Borceux Definition 7.2.1]$)$. This induces isomorphism of categories ${\mathbb{E}}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})\to{\mathrm{finGpd}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}),{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}}))$ for any ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$.
It is straightforward to check ${\mathbb{E}}$ is in fact a 2-functor. The latter part also follows from Propositions \[Prop1to1\], \[Prop2to2\] immediately.
\[DefInd\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Definition 3.1.1]$)$ Let $\iota{\colon}H\hookrightarrow G$ be a monomorphism of groups. For any $X\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_H\mathit{set}})$, we define ${\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_G\mathit{set}})$ by $${\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X=(G\times X)/\sim,$$ where the equivalence relation $\sim$ is defined by
- $(\xi,x)$ and $(\xi{^{\prime}},x{^{\prime}})$ in $G\times X$ are equivalent if there exists $h\in H$ satisfying $$x{^{\prime}}=hx,\ \ \xi=\xi{^{\prime}}\iota(h).$$
We denote the equivalence class of $(\xi,x)$ by $[\xi,x]\in{\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X$. The $G$-action on ${\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X$ is defined by $$g[\xi,x]=[g\xi,x]$$ for any $g\in G$ and $[\xi,x]\in{\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X$.
The following facts have been shown in [@N_BisetMackey].
\[PropIndEquiv\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Proposition 3.1.2]$)$ Let $\iota{\colon}H\hookrightarrow G$ be a monomorphism of groups. For any $X\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_H\mathit{set}})$, if we define a map ${\upsilon}{\colon}X\to{\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X$ by $${\upsilon}(x)=[e,x]\quad({\forall}x\in X),$$ then the 1-cell $$\frac{{\upsilon}}{\iota}{\colon}\frac{X}{H}\to \frac{{\mathrm{Ind}}_{\iota}X}{G}$$ becomes an equivalence $($cf. Remark \[RemImmed\]$)$.
\[Prop2CoprodEqui\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Proposition 3.2.13]$)$ Let $G$ be any finite group. For any $X,Y\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_G\mathit{set}})$, let $$X{\overset}{{\upsilon}_X}{\hookrightarrow}X{\amalg}Y{\overset}{{\upsilon}_Y}{\hookleftarrow}Y$$ be the coproduct in ${{}_G\mathit{set}}$. Then $$\label{Equ1}
{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{\frac{{\upsilon}_X}{G}}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{X{\amalg}Y}{G}{\overset}{\frac{{\upsilon}_Y}{G}}{{\longleftarrow}}\frac{Y}{G}$$ gives a bicoproduct of ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{G}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$.
\[Rema1\] ${\mathbb{E}}$ sends $(\ref{Equ1})$ to the coproduct of categories $${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})\hookrightarrow{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}){\amalg}{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}})\hookleftarrow{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{G}}).$$
\[Prop2CoprodVari\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Proposition 3.2.15]$)$ Let ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{H}}$ be any pair of 0-cells in ${\mathbb{S}}$. Denote the monomorphisms$$\begin{aligned}
&G\to G\times H\ ; \ g\mapsto (g,e)&\\
&H\to G\times H\ ; \ h\mapsto (e,h)&\end{aligned}$$ by ${\iota^{(G)}}$ and ${\iota^{(H)}}$ respectively, and denote the natural maps $$\begin{aligned}
&X\to{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(G)}}}X{\amalg}{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(H)}}}Y\ ;\ x\mapsto [e,x]\in{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(G)}}}X&\\
&Y\to{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(G)}}}X{\amalg}{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(H)}}}Y\ ;\ y\mapsto [e,y]\in{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(H)}}}Y&\end{aligned}$$ by ${\upsilon}_X$ and ${\upsilon}_Y$. Then $${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{\frac{{\upsilon}_X}{{\iota^{(G)}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(G)}}}X{\amalg}{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(H)}}}Y}{G\times H}{\overset}{\frac{{\upsilon}_Y}{{\iota^{(H)}}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}$$ gives a bicoproduct ${\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}}$ of ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{H}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$.
\[RemCCCCC\] As a consequence, for any ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$, its image ${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}})$ becomes equivalent to the coproduct of ${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})$ and ${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}})&=&{\mathbb{E}}(\frac{{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(G)}}}X{\amalg}{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(H)}}}Y}{G{\times}H})\\
&=&{\mathbb{E}}(\frac{{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(G)}}}X}{G{\times}H})\, {\amalg}\, {\mathbb{E}}(\frac{{\mathrm{Ind}}_{{\iota^{(H)}}}Y}{G{\times}H})\ \simeq\ {\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}){\amalg}{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}}).\end{aligned}$$
\[Prop2Pullback\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Proposition 3.2.17]$)$ Let ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Z}{K}}$ and ${\frac{\beta}{\tau}}{\colon}{\frac{Y}{H}}\to{\frac{Z}{K}}$ be any pair of 1-cells in ${\mathbb{S}}$. Denote the natural projection homomorphisms by $${{\mathrm{pr}}^{(G)}}{\colon}G\times H\to G,\ \ {{\mathrm{pr}}^{(H)}}{\colon}G\times H\to H.$$ If we
- put $F=\{(x,y,k)\in X\times Y\times K\mid {\beta}(y)=k{{\alpha}(x)}\}$, and put $$\begin{aligned}
&\wp_X{\colon}F\to X\ ;\ (x,y,k)\mapsto x,&\\
&\wp_Y{\colon}F\to Y\ ;\ (x,y,k)\mapsto y,&\end{aligned}$$
- equip $F$ with a $G\times H$-action $$\begin{aligned}
&(g,h)(x,y,k)=(gx,hy,\tau_y(h) k{\theta}_x(g){^{-1}})&\\
&({\forall}(g,h)\in G\times H,\ \ {\forall}(x,y,k)\in F),&\end{aligned}$$
- define a 2-cell $\kappa{\colon}{\alpha}{\circ}\wp_X{\Rightarrow}{\beta}{\circ}\wp_Y$ by $$\kappa_{(x,y,k)}=k,$$
then the diagram $$\label{Diag18_0}
\xy
(-10,7)*+{\frac{F}{G\times H}}="0";
(10,7)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="2";
(-10,-6)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="4";
(10,-6)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
{\ar^(0.52){\frac{\wp_X}{{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(G)}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\frac{\wp_Y}{{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(H)}}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\frac{\beta}{\tau}}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}^{\kappa} (2,2);(-2,-2)};
\endxy$$ gives a bipullback $($[@JS P.155]$)$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$.
In particular if ${\frac{Z}{K}}={\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{e}}$, then ${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{\frac{\wp_X}{{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(G)}}}}{{\longleftarrow}}\frac{F}{G{\times}H}{\overset}{\frac{\wp_Y}{{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(H)}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}$ gives a biproduct of ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{H}}$. Here ${\mathbf{1}}$ denotes a set with one element, with the trivial group action.
\[Rema2\] ${\mathbb{E}}$ sends $(\ref{Diag18_0})$ to the comma square $($[@Borceux Diagram 1.12], [@Groth Proposition 1.26]$)$ of categories $$\xy
(-10,7)*+{{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}})/{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{\beta}{\tau}})}="0";
(10,7)*+{{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})}="2";
(-10,-6)*+{{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="4";
(10,-6)*+{{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{Z}{K}})}="6";
{\ar^{} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}})} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{\beta}{\tau}})} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}^{} (2,2);(-2,-2)};
\endxy.$$
\[Bieq\] For any ${\mathcal{G}}\in{\mathrm{finGpd}}^0$, there is ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$ admitting an equivalence ${\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})\simeq{\mathcal{G}}$. In particular, ${\mathbb{E}}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}\to{\mathrm{finGpd}}$ is a biequivalence as in [@Leinster section 2.2], by Corollary \[Cor2Ftr\].
By Remark \[RemCCCCC\], we may assume ${\mathcal{G}}$ is connected. Take any $x\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{G}})$ and put ${\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(x)={\mathcal{G}}(x,x)$. Then the 0-cell $\frac{\{ x\}}{{\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(x)}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$ is sent by ${\mathbb{E}}$ to a full subcategory of ${\mathcal{G}}$.
For any $x{^{\prime}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{G}})$, there is an isomorphism $x\to x{^{\prime}}$ since ${\mathcal{G}}$ is connected groupoid. This means ${\mathbb{E}}(\frac{\{ x\}}{{\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(x)})$ is dense in (and hence equivalent to) ${\mathcal{G}}$.
\[DefC\] Category ${\mathscr{C}}={\mathbb{S}}/\text{2-cells}$ is defined as follows.
- ${\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})={\mathbb{S}}^0$, namely, an object in ${\mathscr{C}}$ is a 0-cell in ${\mathbb{S}}$.
- For any pair of objects ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{C}})$, define as $${{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})={\mathfrak{C}}({\mathbb{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})).$$ The isomorphism class of ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathbb{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}))={\mathbb{S}}^1({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ is denoted by ${\underline}{({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}})}$, or abbreviately by ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$.
\[RemImmed\] For any 1-cell ${\alpha}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$, the following are equivalent.
1. ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ is an isomorphism in ${\mathscr{C}}$.
2. ${\alpha}$ is an [*equivalence*]{} in ${\mathbb{S}}$. Namely, there is a 1-cell ${\beta}{\colon}{\frac{Y}{H}}\to{\frac{X}{G}}$ and 2-cells $\rho{\colon}{\beta}{\circ}{\alpha}{\Rightarrow}{\mathrm{id}}$, ${\lambda}{\colon}{\alpha}{\circ}{\beta}{\Rightarrow}{\mathrm{id}}$.
(As stated in Remark \[RemAbb\], 1-cells are abbreviated by ${\alpha},{\beta}$.)
\[DefNWP\] While biproducts and bicoproducts in ${\mathbb{S}}$ yield products and coproducts in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, remark that the image of a bipullback in ${\mathbb{S}}$ becomes only a weak pullback in ${\mathscr{C}}$.
A weak pullback in ${\mathscr{C}}$ $$\xy
(-8,6)*+{{\frac{W}{L}}}="0";
(8,6)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
(-8,-6)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="4";
(8,-6)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
{\ar^{{\underline}{\delta}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{\gamma}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{{\beta}}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ is called a [*natural weak pullback*]{} (of ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ and ${\underline}{{\beta}}$) if it comes from some bipullback $$\xy
(-8,6)*+{{\frac{W}{L}}}="0";
(8,6)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
(-8,-6)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="4";
(8,-6)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
{\ar^{\delta} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\gamma} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\beta}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\alpha}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}^{\kappa} (2,2);(-2,-2)};
\endxy$$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$. We write as $$\label{RCoeffAdd2}
\xy
(-8,6)*+{{\frac{W}{L}}}="0";
(8,6)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
(-8,-6)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="4";
(8,-6)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
(0,0)*+{{\mathrm{nwp}}}="10";
{\ar^{{\underline}{\delta}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{\gamma}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{{\beta}}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}} "4";"6"};
\endxy$$ to indicate it is a natural weak pullback. In this way, we can give ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ a class of natural weak pullbacks.
\[Property\_of\_C\] The category ${\mathscr{C}}$ has the following.
1. Initial object ${\emptyset}=\frac{{\emptyset}}{e}$, and terminal object ${\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{e}}$.
2. Any binary product and binary coproduct.
3. A class of natural weak pullbacks.
In particular by [(1),(2)]{}, ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ has any finite product and any finite coproduct.
\[Rem112\] Let ${\mathscr{K}}$ be any category. To give a functor $F{\colon}{\mathscr{C}}\to{\mathscr{K}}$ is equivalent to give a strict 2-functor $F{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}\to{\mathscr{K}}$, where ${\mathscr{K}}$ is regarded as a 2-category equipped only with identity 2-cells.
\[RemCandC\] If one define a category ${{\mathscr{C}}}{^{\prime}}={\mathrm{finGpd}}/\text{2-cells}$ in the same manner, then there is an equivalence ${{\mathscr{C}}}{\overset}{\simeq}{\hookrightarrow}{{\mathscr{C}}}{^{\prime}}$ which preserves the class of natural weak pullbacks, by Remark \[Rema2\] and Proposition \[Bieq\].
We define the notions of a (semi-)Mackey functor on ${\mathbb{S}}$ and on ${\mathscr{C}}$, which are the same by Remark \[Rem112\].
\[DefSemiMackC\]\[DefSemiMackS\] A [*semi-Mackey functor*]{} (respectively, a [*$k$-linear Mackey functor*]{}) $M=(M_{!},M^{\ast})$ on ${\mathscr{C}}$ is a pair of a contravariant functor $M^{\ast}{\colon}{\mathscr{C}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$ (resp. $M^{\ast}{\colon}{\mathscr{C}}\to{k{\mathit{Mod}}}$) and a covariant functor $M_{!}{\colon}{\mathscr{C}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$ (resp. $M_{!}{\colon}{\mathscr{C}}\to{k{\mathit{Mod}}}$) which satisfies the following.
(${\mathit{Set}}$ denotes the category of sets, where morphisms are maps of sets. ${k{\mathit{Mod}}}$ denotes the category of $k$-modules, where morphisms are $k$-linear maps.)
1. $M^{\ast}({\frac{X}{G}})=M_{!}({\frac{X}{G}})$ for any object ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{C}})$. We denote this simply by $M({\frac{X}{G}})$.
2. For any pair of objects ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{H}}$ in ${\mathscr{C}}$, if we take their coproduct $${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\upsilon}_X}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\upsilon}_Y}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}$$ in ${\mathscr{C}}$, then the natural map $$(M^{\ast}({\underline}{{\upsilon}_X}),M^{\ast}({\underline}{{\upsilon}_Y})){\colon}M({\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}})\to M({\frac{X}{G}})\times M({\frac{Y}{H}})$$ is isomorphism. Also, $M(\emptyset)$ is trivial (i.e., the terminal object).
3. For any natural weak pullback $$\xy
(-10,7)*+{{\frac{W}{L}}}="0";
(10,7)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
(-10,-7)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="4";
(10,-7)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
(0,0)*+{{\mathrm{nwp}}}="10";
{\ar^{{\underline}\delta} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\underline}\gamma} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{\beta}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{\alpha}} "4";"6"};
\endxy$$ in ${\mathscr{C}}$, the following diagram in ${\mathit{Set}}$ (resp. ${k{\mathit{Mod}}}$) becomes commutative. $$\xy
(-12,7)*+{M({\frac{W}{L}})}="0";
(12,7)*+{M({\frac{Y}{H}})}="2";
(-12,-7)*+{M({\frac{X}{G}})}="4";
(12,-7)*+{M({\frac{Z}{K}})}="6";
{\ar_{M^{\ast}({\underline}\delta)} "2";"0"};
{\ar_{M_{!}({\underline}\gamma)} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{M_{!}({\underline}{\beta})} "2";"6"};
{\ar^{M^{\ast}({\underline}{\alpha})} "6";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$
We can alternatively define a semi-Mackey functor by using ${\mathbb{S}}$. In the following, when we speak of a 2-functor from ${\mathbb{S}}$ to ${\mathit{Set}}$ or to ${k{\mathit{Mod}}}$, we regard it as a 2-category equipped only with identity 2-cells. (See Remark \[Rem112\].)
A [*semi-Mackey functor*]{} $M=(M_{!},M^{\ast})$ on ${\mathbb{S}}$ is a pair of a contravariant 2-functor $M^{\ast}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$ and a covariant 2-functor $M_{!}{\colon}{\mathbb{S}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$ which satisfies the following.
1. $M^{\ast}({\frac{X}{G}})=M_{!}({\frac{X}{G}})$ for any 0-cell ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$. We denote this simply by $M({\frac{X}{G}})$.
2. For any pair of 0-cells ${\frac{X}{G}}$ and ${\frac{Y}{H}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$, if we take their bicoproduct $${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\upsilon}_X}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\upsilon}_Y}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}$$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$, then the natural map $$\label{RCoeffAdd1}
(M^{\ast}({\upsilon}_X),M^{\ast}({\upsilon}_Y)){\colon}M({\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}})\to M({\frac{X}{G}})\times M({\frac{Y}{H}})$$ is isomorphism. Also, $M(\emptyset)$ is trivial.
3. For any bipullback $$\xy
(-10,7)*+{{\frac{W}{L}}}="0";
(10,7)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="2";
(-10,-7)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="4";
(10,-7)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
{\ar^{\delta} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\gamma} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\beta}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\alpha}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}^{\kappa} (2,2);(-2,-2)};
\endxy$$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$, the following diagram in ${\mathit{Set}}$ (resp. ${k{\mathit{Mod}}}$) becomes commutative. $$\label{RCoeffAdd3}
\xy
(-12,7)*+{M({\frac{W}{L}})}="0";
(12,7)*+{M({\frac{Y}{H}})}="2";
(-12,-7)*+{M({\frac{X}{G}})}="4";
(12,-7)*+{M({\frac{Z}{K}})}="6";
{\ar_{M^{\ast}(\delta)} "2";"0"};
{\ar_{M_{!}(\gamma)} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{M_{!}({\beta})} "2";"6"};
{\ar^{M^{\ast}({\alpha})} "6";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$
This is just a paraphrase of the definition using ${\mathscr{C}}$. With this view, for any morphism ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ in ${\mathscr{C}}$, we write $M^{\ast}({\underline}{{\alpha}})$ and $M_{!}({\underline}{{\alpha}})$ also as $M^{\ast}({\alpha})$ and $M_{!}({\alpha})$.
In [@N_BisetMackey], we used the notation $(M{^{\ast}},M{_{\ast}})$ to denote a Mackey functor, where $M{^{\ast}}$ is contravariant, and $M{_{\ast}}$ is covariant. In this article, we prefer to use $(M_{!},M{^{\ast}})$, because of the following reason.
In analogy with the ordinary Mackey functor theory, a [*Tambara biset functor*]{} is expected to be defined as a triplet of functors $(M_{!},M{^{\ast}},M{_{\ast}})$, consisting of an additive Mackey functor $(M_{!},M{^{\ast}})$ and a multiplicative semi-Mackey functor $(M{^{\ast}},M{_{\ast}})$. The additive part $(M_{!},M{^{\ast}})$ is expected to become a [*Green functor*]{} on ${\mathbb{S}}$. The aim of this article is to give a framework to deal with Green functors, which will serve to the study of this additive part.
If $M=(M_{!},M{^{\ast}})$ is a semi-Mackey functor on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, then each of $M{^{\ast}}$ and $M_{!}$ becomes a functor to ${\mathit{Mon}}$, as shown in [@N_BisetMackey Proposition 5.17]. Thus in the definition of a semi-Mackey functor, we may assume $M{^{\ast}},M_{!}$ are functors to ${\mathit{Mon}}$, from the beginning. (${\mathit{Mon}}$ denotes the category of commutative monoids with units, where morphisms are monoid homomorphisms preserving units.)
${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$ is a $k$-linear abelian category.
$($[@N_BisetMackey Example 5.4.1]$)$\[Abig\] A semi-Mackey functor ${{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}$ on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is defined as follows.
1. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$, the set ${{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})$ is defined to be the set of isomorphism classes of the slice category ${{\mathscr{C}}}/{\frac{X}{G}}$. Coproducts and natural weak pullbacks in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ give a commutative semi-ring structure on ${{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})$. We denote the isomorphism class of an object $({\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}})$ by $[{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}]$.
2. Let ${\underline}{{\alpha}}\in{{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ be any morphism.
- ${\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}\, !}({\alpha})={\underline}{{\alpha}}{\circ}-{\colon}{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})\to{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}})$ is defined by the composition with ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$.
- ${{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}{^{\ast}}({\alpha})={\frac{X}{G}}{\underset}{{\frac{Y}{H}}}{{\times}}-{\colon}{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}})\to{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})$ is defined by the natural weak pullback by ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$.
If we compose with the additive completion functor $K_0{\colon}{\mathit{Mon}}\to{\mathit{Ab}}$, we obtain a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-Mackey functor $${\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}=({\Omega}_{\mathrm{big\, !}},{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}{^{\ast}})=(K_0{\circ}{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}\,!},K_0{\circ}{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}{^{\ast}})\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{Mack}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$$ which we call the [*bigger Burnside functor*]{}. Furthermore, by composing the coefficient change functor $k{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}-{\colon}{\mathit{Ab}}\to{k{\mathit{Mod}}}$, we obtain a $k$-linear Mackey functor $${{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}=(\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\,!},{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast})=((k{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}-){\circ}\Omega_{\mathrm{big}\,!},(k{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}-){\circ}{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}{^{\ast}})\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})).$$
\[PropIndEquiv2\] Let ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{C}})$ be any object. For any $x\in X$, if we denote its stabilizer by $G_x$ and the orbit by $Gx$, then there is an isomorphism in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ $$\frac{Gx}{G}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_x}$$ by Fact \[PropIndEquiv\] and Remark \[RemImmed\]. If we take a set of representatives $x_1,\ldots,x_s\in X$ of $G$-orbits, thus we obtain an isomorphism $${\frac{X}{G}}=\frac{Gx_1}{G}{\amalg}\cdots{\amalg}\frac{Gx_s}{G}\simeq\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_{x_1}}{\amalg}\cdots{\amalg}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_{x_s}}.$$
\[DefSemiMackMorph\] Let $M$ and $N$ be semi-Mackey functors on ${\mathbb{S}}$. A [*morphism*]{} $\varphi{\colon}M\to N$ of semi-Mackey functors is a family of maps $$\varphi=\{ \varphi_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\colon}M({\frac{X}{G}})\to N({\frac{X}{G}}) \}_{{\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0}$$ compatible with contravariant and covariant parts. Namely, it gives natural transformations $$\varphi{\colon}M^{\ast}{\Rightarrow}N^{\ast}\ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \varphi{\colon}M_{!}{\Rightarrow}N_{!}.$$ With the usual composition of natural transformations, we obtain the category of semi-Mackey functors denoted by ${{\mathit{SMack}}({\mathbb{S}})}$ or ${{\mathit{SMack}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
Similarly, a [*morphism*]{} $\varphi{\colon}M\to N$ of $k$-linear Mackey functors is a family $\varphi=\{ \varphi_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\}_{{\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0}$ of $k$-homomorphisms compatible with contravariant and covariant parts. We denote the category of $k$-linear Mackey functors by ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathbb{S}})}$, or by ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
We can define Mackey functors on ${\mathrm{finGpd}}$ in the same way. This kind of generalization of a Mackey functor onto higher categories can be also found in [@Barwick]. By Remark \[RemCandC\], the category ${\mathit{SMack}}({\mathrm{finGpd}})={\mathit{SMack}}({{\mathscr{C}}}{^{\prime}})$ becomes equivalent to ${{\mathit{SMack}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$, and ${\mathit{Mack}}^k({\mathrm{finGpd}})={\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}}{^{\prime}})$ becomes equivalent to ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
\[DefStabsurj\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Definition 4.1.1]$)$ A 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$ is called [*stab-surjective*]{}, if the following conditions are satisfied.
- $Y=H{\alpha}(X)$ holds.
- If $x,x{^{\prime}}\in X$ and $h,h{^{\prime}}\in H$ satisfy $h{\alpha}(x)=h{^{\prime}}{\alpha}(x{^{\prime}})$, then there exists $g\in G$ which satisfies $x{^{\prime}}=gx$ and $h=h{^{\prime}}{\theta}_x(g)$.
Stab-surjectivity is stable under isomorphisms (by 2-cells) of 1-cells, and thus we can speak of the stab-surjectivity of a morphism ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$.
\[RemStabsurj\]$($[@N_BisetMackey section 4.1]$)$ The following holds for the stab-surjectivity.
1. Any isomorphism in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is stab-surjective.
2. Stab-surjectivity is closed under compositions. Namely, if ${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Z}{K}}$ is a sequence of stab-surjective morphisms, then so is ${\underline}{{\beta}}{\circ}{\underline}{{\alpha}}$.
3. Stab-surjectivity is stable under natural weak pullbacks. Namely, if $(\ref{RCoeffAdd2})$ is a natural weak pullback and if ${\underline}{{\beta}}$ is stab-surjective, then so is ${\underline}{\gamma}$.
\[DefSIm\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Definition 4.2.1]$)$ Let ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ be any 1-cell in ${\mathbb{S}}$.
1. Define ${\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})={\mathrm{SIm}}({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}})\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_H\mathit{set}})$ by ${\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})=(H{\times}X)/\sim$, where the relation $\sim$ is defined as follows.
- $(\eta,x),(\eta{^{\prime}},x{^{\prime}})\in H{\times}X$ are equivalent if there exists $g\in G$ satisfying $$x{^{\prime}}=gx\ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \eta=\eta{^{\prime}}{\theta}_x(g).$$
We denote the equivalence class of $(\eta,x)$ by $[\eta,x]$. The $H$-action on ${\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})$ is given by $h[\eta, x]=[h\eta,x]$ for any $h\in H$. We call ${\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})$ the [*stabilizerwise image*]{} of ${\alpha}={\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}$.
2. Define a map ${\upsilon}_{{\alpha}}{\colon}X\to{\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})$ by $${\upsilon}_{{\alpha}}(x)=[e,x]\quad({\forall}x\in X).$$ Then $\frac{{\upsilon}_{{\alpha}}}{{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to \frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})}{H}$ is a stab-surjective 1-cell.
\[DefSIm2\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Proposition 4.2.6]$)$ For any 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$, we have a commutative diagram of 1-cells $$\xy
(-20,0)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})}{H}}="2";
(0,-6)*+{}="3";
(20,0)*+{\frac{Y}{H}}="4";
{\ar^(0.46){\frac{{\upsilon}_{{\alpha}}}{{\theta}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.54){\frac{{\widetilde}{{\alpha}}}{H}} "2";"4"};
{\ar@/_0.8pc/_{{\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"3"};
\endxy$$ where ${\widetilde}{{\alpha}}$ is defined by ${\widetilde}{{\alpha}}([\eta,x])=\eta{\alpha}(x)$. We call this the [*${\mathrm{SIm}}$-factorization*]{} of ${\alpha}$. If ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ factorizes also as $$\xy
(-20,0)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{\frac{S}{H}}="2";
(0,-6)*+{}="3";
(20,0)*+{\frac{Y}{H}}="4";
{\ar^(0.46){{\underline}{{\upsilon}}{^{\prime}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.54){{\underline}{a}{^{\prime}}} "2";"4"};
{\ar@/_0.8pc/_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"3"};
\endxy$$ with stab-surjective ${\upsilon}{^{\prime}}$ and equivariant $a{^{\prime}}$, then there exists an $H$-equivariant equivalence $\frac{{\omega}}{H}{\colon}\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha})}{H}{\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{S}{H}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$ satisfying ${\underline}{{\upsilon}}{^{\prime}}={\underline}{{\omega}}{\circ}{\underline}{{\upsilon}_{{\alpha}}}$ and ${\underline}{{\widetilde}{{\alpha}}}={\underline}{a}{^{\prime}}{\circ}{\underline}{{\omega}}$. This ensures the uniqueness of the ${\mathrm{SIm}}$-factorization, up to isomorphisms in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$.
\[DefDeflMack\]$($[@N_BisetMackey Definition 5.3.1]$)$ A semi-Mackey functor (respectively, $k$-linear Mackey functor) $M$ on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is called [*deflative*]{} if it satisfies $$M_{!}({\alpha}){\circ}M^{\ast}({\alpha})={\mathrm{id}}_{M({\frac{Y}{H}})}$$ for any stab-surjective morphism ${\underline}{{\alpha}}\in{{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$. The full subcategory of deflative semi-Mackey functors is denoted by ${\mathit{SMack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}({\mathscr{C}})\subseteq{{\mathit{SMack}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$. Similarly, the full subcategory of deflative $k$-linear Mackey functors is denoted by ${{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}\subseteq{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
\[DefOrdBurn\] Let ${\frac{X}{G}}$ be any object in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. The set of isomorphism classes of the slice category ${{}_G\mathit{set}}/X$ is equipped with a commutative semi-ring structure, whose addition and multiplication are induced from coproducts and fibered products of finite $G$-sets. We denote this semi-ring by ${\mathfrak{A}}_G(X)$. By taking its additive completion, we obtain the ordinary Burnside ring $${\Omega}_G(X)=K_0({\mathfrak{A}}_G(X)).$$ Tensoring with $k$, we define ${{\Omega}^k}_G(X)$ by ${{\Omega}^k}_G(X)=k{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{Z}}}{\Omega}_G(X)$.
The following homomorphisms have been obtained in [@N_BisetMackey].
\[DefBurntoBig\]([@N_BisetMackey Proposition 5.4.10]) For any object ${\frac{X}{G}}$ in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, we have the following.
1. A ring homomorphism ${\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\colon}{{\Omega}^k}_G(X)\to{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})$ is obtained by extending the map $${\mathfrak{A}}_G(X)\to{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})\ ;\ [A{\overset}{p}{{\longrightarrow}}X]\mapsto [\frac{A}{G}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{p}{G})}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$$ by $k$-linearity.
2. A ring homomorphism ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})\to{{\Omega}^k}_G(X)$ is obtained by extending the map induced from ${\mathrm{SIm}}$-factorizations $${{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})\to{{\Omega}^k}_G(X)\ ;\ [{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}]\to [{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{a}}){\overset}{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}X],$$ by $k$-linearity.
These homomorphisms satisfy ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}={\mathrm{id}}_{{{\Omega}^k}_G(X)}$. In particular, ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$ is surjective.
\[RemStrOrdBurn\] ${{\Omega}^k}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})})$ is given by the following.
1. To any object ${\frac{X}{G}}$ in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, associate ${{\Omega}^k}({\frac{X}{G}})={{\Omega}^k}_{G}(X)$.
2. Let ${\underline}{{\alpha}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ be any morphism in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$.
- ${{\Omega}^k}_{!}({\alpha}){\colon}{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{X}{G}})\to{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{Y}{H}})$ is defined to be the composition of $${{\Omega}^k}_G(X){\overset}{{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}}){\overset}{\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\,!}({\alpha})}{{\longrightarrow}}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}}) {\overset}{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\Omega}^k}_H(Y).$$
- ${\Omega}^{k\ast}({\alpha}){\colon}{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{Y}{H}})\to{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{X}{G}})$ is defined to be the composition of $${{\Omega}^k}_H(Y){\overset}{{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}}){\overset}{{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}({\alpha})}{{\longrightarrow}}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}}){\overset}{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\Omega}^k}_G(X).$$
The fact that $({{\Omega}^k}_{!},{\Omega}^{k\ast})$ indeed belongs to ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$, can be checked according to the definition. Or, it also follows from the surjectivity of ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$ and the compatibilities obtained in the proof of the next proposition. Deflativity is obvious from the definition.
\[PropStrOrdBurn\] The natural surjections $${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})\to{{\Omega}^k}_G(X)\ \ \quad ({\forall}{\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$$ form a morphism of Mackey functors ${\mathbf{p}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\to{{\Omega}^k}$ on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. This is an epimorphism in ${{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
It suffices to show that ${\mathbf{p}}$ is natural with respect to the covariant and the contravariant parts. Epimorphicity of ${\mathbf{p}}$ is obvious from the surjectivity of ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\ ({\forall}{\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$.
Let ${\underline}{{\alpha}}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$ be any morphism.
[**\[Compatibility with the covariant parts\]**]{}
For any morphism ${\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}{\colon}{\frac{A}{K}}\to{\frac{X}{G}}$, take the ${\mathrm{SIm}}$-factorization of ${\mathfrak{a}}$ $$\xy
(-20,0)*+{{\frac{A}{K}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{a}})}{G}}="2";
(0,-6)*+{}="3";
(20,0)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="4";
{\ar^(0.46){{\upsilon}_{{\mathfrak{a}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.54){\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G}} "2";"4"};
{\ar@/_0.8pc/_{{\mathfrak{a}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"3"};
\endxy.$$ Then by definition we have ${\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])=[\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{a}})}{G}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$. By the stab-surjectivity of ${\upsilon}_{{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we obtain an isomorphism of $H$-sets $${\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha}{\circ}{\mathfrak{a}})={\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha}{\circ}\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G}{\circ}{\upsilon}_{{\mathfrak{a}}})\cong{\mathrm{SIm}}({\alpha}{\circ}\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G}),$$ which means $${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}{\circ}(\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\,!}({\alpha}))([{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])={\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}{\circ}(\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\,!}({\alpha}))([\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{a}})}{G}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]).$$ This implies the commutativity of the following diagram. $$\xy
(-20,18)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})}="0";
(20,18)*+{{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{X}{G}})}="2";
(2,6)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})}="4";
(2,-6)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="6";
(-20,-18)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="8";
(20,-18)*+{{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="10";
(-13,0)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="11";
(12,0)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="12";
{\ar^{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\, !}({\alpha})} "4";"6"};
{\ar_{\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\, !}({\alpha})} "0";"8"};
{\ar^{{{\Omega}^k}_{!}({\alpha})} "2";"10"};
{\ar_{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}} "6";"10"};
{\ar_{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}} "8";"10"};
\endxy$$
[**\[Compatibility with the contravariant parts\]**]{}
For any morphism ${\underline}{{\mathfrak{b}}}{\colon}{\frac{B}{L}}\to{\frac{Y}{H}}$, take the ${\mathrm{SIm}}$-factorization of ${\mathfrak{b}}$ $$\xy
(-20,0)*+{{\frac{B}{L}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{b}})}{H}}="2";
(0,-6)*+{}="3";
(20,0)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="4";
{\ar^(0.46){{\upsilon}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.54){\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{b}}}}{H}} "2";"4"};
{\ar@/_0.8pc/_{{\mathfrak{b}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"3"};
\endxy.$$ If we take natural weak pullbacks by ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ as $$\xy
(-8,14)*+{{\frac{B{^{\prime}}}{L{^{\prime}}}}}="0";
(8,14)*+{{\frac{B}{L}}}="2";
(-8,0)*+{\frac{S}{H{^{\prime}}}}="4";
(8,0)*+{\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{b}})}{H}}="6";
(21,0)*+{}="7";
(-8,-14)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="8";
(8,-14)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="10";
(0,7)*+{{\mathrm{nwp}}}="20";
(0,-7)*+{{\mathrm{nwp}}}="21";
{\ar^{{\underline}{{\alpha}}{^{\prime\prime}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{{\upsilon}}{^{\prime}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{{\upsilon}}_{{\mathfrak{b}}}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}{^{\prime}}} "4";"6"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{s}}}} "4";"8"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{b}}}}{H})}} "6";"10"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}} "8";"10"};
{\ar@/^2.8pc/^{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{b}}}} "2";"10"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "6";"7"};
\endxy,$$ then by definition, we have $${\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}({\alpha})([\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{b}})}{H}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{b}}}}{H})}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}])=[\frac{S}{H{^{\prime}}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{s}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$$ and $${\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}({\alpha})([{{\frac{B}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{b}}}}{\to}{\frac{Y}{H}}}])=[\frac{B{^{\prime}}}{L{^{\prime}}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{s}}{\circ}{\upsilon}{^{\prime}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}].$$ Since ${\upsilon}{^{\prime}}$ is stab-surjective by Remark \[RemStabsurj\], there is an isomorphism of $G$-sets ${\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{s}}{\circ}{\upsilon}{^{\prime}})\cong{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{s}})$, and thus we have $${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}([{{\frac{B}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{b}}}}{\to}{\frac{Y}{H}}}])={\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}([\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{b}})}{H}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{b}}}}{H})}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}]),$$ which implies the commutativity of the following diagram. $$\xy
(-20,18)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="0";
(20,18)*+{{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="2";
(2,6)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{Y}{H}})}="4";
(2,-6)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})}="6";
(-20,-18)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})}="8";
(20,-18)*+{{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{X}{G}})}="10";
(-10,0)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="11";
(16,0)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="12";
{\ar^{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}} "2";"4"};
{\ar^{{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}({\alpha})} "4";"6"};
{\ar_{{\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}({\alpha})} "0";"8"};
{\ar^{{\Omega}^{k\ast}({\alpha})} "2";"10"};
{\ar^{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}} "6";"10"};
{\ar_{{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}} "8";"10"};
\endxy$$
\[PropHHom\] For any deflative Mackey functor $N$ on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, the following holds.
1. For any $f\in{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},N)$, we have $$f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}=f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$$ for any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$.
2. ${\mathbf{p}}$ induces a bijection $$\label{HHom2}
-{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}{\colon}{{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}({{\Omega}^k},N){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},N).$$
[(1)]{} It suffices to show $$f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])=f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])$$ for any $[{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}]\in{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})$. If we take the ${\mathrm{SIm}}$-factorization ${\mathfrak{a}}=\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G}{\circ}{\upsilon}_{{\mathfrak{a}}}$, $$N_{!}({\mathfrak{a}})N{^{\ast}}({\mathfrak{a}})=N_{!}(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})N{^{\ast}}(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})$$ follows from the deflativity of $N$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
&{[}{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}{]}=\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\,!}({\mathfrak{a}}){\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}({\mathfrak{a}})([{{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}]),&\\
&{[}\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{a}})}{G}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}{]}=\Omega^k_{\mathrm{big}\,!}(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G}){\Omega_{\mathrm{big}}}^{k\ast}(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})([{{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])&\end{aligned}$$ hold in ${{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}({\frac{X}{G}})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])&=&N_{!}({\mathfrak{a}})N{^{\ast}}({\mathfrak{a}})f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])\\
&=&N_{!}(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})N{^{\ast}}(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G})f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}])\\
&=&f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([\frac{{\mathrm{SIm}}({\mathfrak{a}})}{G}{\overset}{{\underline}{(\frac{{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{G}})}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}])\ =\ f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}([{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}]).\end{aligned}$$
[(2)]{} Injectivity follows from the surjectivity of ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$ for each ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$. For any $f\in{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},N)$, if we put $$f{^{\prime}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}=f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{i}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\quad({\forall}{\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})),$$ then $f_{{\frac{X}{G}}}=f{^{\prime}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$ follows from [(1)]{}. By the surjectivity of ${\mathbf{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$ and the naturality of $f$, we can show $f{^{\prime}}=\{ f{^{\prime}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\}_{{\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$ is a morphism of Mackey functors. Thus $(\ref{HHom2})$ is surjective.
A biset functor $B$ is defined to be an additive functor $B{\colon}{\mathcal{B}}\to{k{\mathit{Mod}}}$, from the [*biset category*]{} ${\mathcal{B}}$ to ${k{\mathit{Mod}}}$. The biset category which we deal with in this article is the following one. Throughout this article, a biset is always assumed to be finite.
$($[@Bouc_biset Definitions 3.1.1, 3.1.6]$)$ The category ${\mathcal{B}}$ is defined as follows.
1. An object in ${\mathcal{B}}$ is a finite group.
2. For objects $G,H$ in ${\mathcal{B}}$, consider a set of the isomorphism classes of finite $H$-$G$-bisets. An isomorphism of $H$-$G$-bisets $U{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}U{^{\prime}}$ is a bijective map which preserves the left $H$-action and the right $G$-action.
This forms a commutative monoid with addition ${\amalg}$ and unit $\emptyset$, and thus we can take its additive completion ${\mathcal{B}}(G,H)$. This is the set of morphisms from $G$ to $H$ in ${\mathcal{B}}$.
An $H$-$G$-biset $U$ is written as ${}_HU_G$. The composition of two consecutive bisets ${}_{H}U_G$ and ${}_{K}V_H$ is given by $$V{\times}_HU=(V{\times}U)/\sim,$$ where the equivalence relation is defined as
- $(v,u),(v{^{\prime}},u{^{\prime}})\in V{\times}U$ are equivalent if there exists $h\in H$ satisfying $v=v{^{\prime}}h$ and $u{^{\prime}}=hu$.
This defines the composition of morphisms in ${\mathcal{B}}$, by additivity.
By the abelian group structure on ${\mathcal{B}}(G,H)$, category ${\mathcal{B}}$ is preadditive.
A biset functor is an additive functor ${\mathcal{B}}\to{k{\mathit{Mod}}}$. We denote the category of biset functors by ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}={\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{B}},{k{\mathit{Mod}}})$. Morphisms in ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ are natural transformations. The following has been shown in [@N_BisetMackey].
\[ThmBF\]([@N_BisetMackey Theorem 6.3.11]) There is an equivalence of categories ${{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}\simeq{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$. This enables us to regard a biset functor as a deflative Mackey functor on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$.
From derivators to Mackey functors
==================================
\[DefPrederiv\]([@Groth Definition 1.1]) A [*prederivator*]{} on ${\mathrm{finCat}}$ is a 2-functor $${\mathbb{D}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finCat}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}},$$ where ${\mathrm{CAT}}$ denotes the 2-category of categories.
More precisely, ${\mathbb{D}}$ consists of the following correspondences.
1. To any finite category ${\mathcal{I}}$, a category ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}})$ is associated.
2. To any 1-cell $u\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^1({\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}})$, a functor ${\mathbb{D}}(u)=u{^{\ast}}{\colon}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})\to{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}})$ is associated. This strictly preserves compositions and identities.
3. To any 2-cell ${\lambda}\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^2(u,v)$, a natural transformation ${\mathbb{D}}({\lambda})={\lambda}{^{\ast}}{\colon}u{^{\ast}}{\Rightarrow}v{^{\ast}}$ is associated. This strictly preserves compositions and identities.
For the detail, see [@Groth].
The reason why we use a bit larger 2-category ${\mathrm{finCat}}$ than ${\mathrm{finGpd}}$ is, just because ${\mathrm{finGpd}}$ is not allowed as ’ ([@Groth Definition 1.12]), while ${\mathrm{finCat}}$ is. The difference is that ${\mathrm{finCat}}$ contains any finite poset (viewed as a category) as 0-cell.
\[ExYoneda\]([@Groth Example 1.2], [@Cisinski Définitions 1.11, 1.23]) Let ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ be any category. Then a prederivator ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}$ on ${\mathrm{finCat}}$ is defined as follows.
1. For any ${\mathcal{I}}\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^0$, let ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}({\mathcal{I}})={{\mathscr{A}}}^{{\mathcal{I}}}$ be the functor category.
2. For any $u\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^1({\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}})$, define $u{^{\ast}}=-{\circ}u{\colon}{{\mathscr{A}}}^{{\mathcal{J}}}\to{{\mathscr{A}}}^{{\mathcal{I}}}$ by the composition with $u$.
3. For any ${\lambda}\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^2(u,v)$, define ${\lambda}{^{\ast}}=-{\circ}{\lambda}{\colon}u{^{\ast}}{\Rightarrow}v{^{\ast}}$ by the horizontal composition with ${\lambda}$.
\[DefDeriv\]([@Groth Definition 1.5]) Let ${\mathbb{D}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finCat}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$ be a prederivator. It is called a [*derivator*]{} if it satisfies the following condition.
1. The empty category ${\emptyset}$ satisfies ${\mathbb{D}}({\emptyset})\simeq{\mathbf{e}}$. For any ${\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}}\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^0$, $$(i^{\ast},j^{\ast}){\colon}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}}{\amalg}{\mathcal{J}}){\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}}){\times}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})$$ is an equivalence of categories, where $${\mathcal{I}}{\overset}{i}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{I}}{\amalg}{\mathcal{J}}{\overset}{j}{{\longleftarrow}}{\mathcal{J}}$$ is the coproduct of categories ${\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}}$.
2. Let ${\mathcal{J}}\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^0$ be any 0-cell in ${\mathrm{finCat}}$. For any morphism $f$ in ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})$, it is an isomorphism in ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})$ if and only if $c_X^{\ast}(f)$ is isomorphism in ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbf{e}})$ for any $X\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{J}})$. Here, $c_X{\colon}{\mathbf{e}}\to{\mathcal{J}}$ denotes the constant functor onto $X$.
3. For any $u\in{\mathrm{finCat}}^1({\mathcal{J}},{\mathcal{K}})$, the functor $u^{\ast}{\colon}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{K}})\to{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})$ has a left adjoint $u_{!}$ and a right adjoint $u_{\ast}$.
4. For any comma square $$\label{CommaSq}
\xy
(-7,6)*+{{\mathcal{I}}/{\mathcal{J}}}="0";
(7,6)*+{{\mathcal{I}}}="2";
(-7,-6)*+{{\mathcal{J}}}="4";
(7,-6)*+{{\mathcal{K}}}="6";
{\ar^{p_{{\mathcal{I}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{p_{{\mathcal{J}}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{I} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{J} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}^{{\lambda}} (2,2);(-2,-2)};
\endxy$$ in ${\mathrm{finCat}}$, the natural transformations $$\xy
(-9,7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}}/{\mathcal{J}})}="0";
(9,7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}})}="2";
(-9,-7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})}="4";
(9,-7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{K}})}="6";
{\ar_(0.4){p_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\ast}} "2";"0"};
{\ar_{(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{I_{!}} "2";"6"};
{\ar^{J^{\ast}} "6";"4"};
{\ar@{=>}^{{\lambda}_{!}} (-2,2);(2,-2)};
\endxy
\quad,\quad
\xy
(-9,7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}}/{\mathcal{J}})}="0";
(9,7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}})}="2";
(-9,-7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})}="4";
(9,-7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{K}})}="6";
{\ar^(0.56){(p_{{\mathcal{I}}})_{\ast}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{p_{{\mathcal{J}}}^{\ast}} "4";"0"};
{\ar_{I^{\ast}} "6";"2"};
{\ar_{J_{\ast}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}^{{\lambda}_{\ast}} (2,-2);(-2,2)};
\endxy$$ are isomorphisms. Here, ${\lambda}_{!}$ and ${\lambda}_{\ast}$ are defined by using the units and counits of the adjoint functors, by composing the following sequences of natural transformations, respectively. $$\begin{aligned}
&(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\ast}{\Rightarrow}(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\ast}{\circ}I^{\ast}{\circ}I_{!}{\overset}{(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}{\circ}{\lambda}^{\ast}{\circ}I_{!}}{\Longrightarrow}(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{J}}}^{\ast}{\circ}J^{\ast}{\circ}I_{!}{\Rightarrow}J^{\ast}{\circ}I_{!},&\\
&I^{\ast}{\circ}J_{\ast}{\Rightarrow}(p_{{\mathcal{I}}})_{\ast}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\ast}{\circ}I^{\ast}{\circ}J_{\ast}{\overset}{(p_{{\mathcal{I}}})_{\ast}{\circ}{\lambda}^{\ast}{\circ}J_{\ast}}{\Longrightarrow}(p_{{\mathcal{I}}})_{\ast}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{J}}}^{\ast}{\circ}J^{\ast}{\circ}J_{\ast}{\Rightarrow}(p_{{\mathcal{I}}})_{\ast}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{J}}}^{\ast}.&\end{aligned}$$
In the above definition, [(Der4)]{} is replaced by an equivalent (under the assumption of [(Der1),(Der2),(Der3)]{}) condition from the original one ([@Groth Proposition 1.26]).
([@Cisinski Example 1.12]) If a category ${{\mathscr{A}}}$ is finitely complete and finitely cocomplete, then $${\mathcal{Y}}_{{{\mathscr{A}}}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finCat}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$$ becomes a derivator.
Now we associate a semi-Mackey functor to any derivator on ${\mathrm{finCat}}$. In fact, we only need a 2-functor ${\mathrm{finGpd}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$ satisfying the following conditions[^4] [(i),(ii),(iii)]{}. Obviously, if we restrict a derivator ${\mathbb{D}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finCat}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$ to ${\mathrm{finGpd}}{\subseteq}{\mathrm{finCat}}$, these conditions are satisfied.
\[PropDerivtoMack\] Let ${\mathbb{D}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finGpd}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$ be a strict 2-functor. Suppose ${\mathbb{D}}$ satisfies the following properties.
- The empty category ${\emptyset}$ satisfies ${\mathbb{D}}({\emptyset})\simeq{\mathbf{e}}$. For any ${\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}}\in{\mathrm{finGpd}}^0$, $$(i^{\ast},j^{\ast}){\colon}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}}{\amalg}{\mathcal{J}}){\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{I}}){\times}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})$$ is an equivalence of categories, where $${\mathcal{I}}{\overset}{i}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{I}}{\amalg}{\mathcal{J}}{\overset}{j}{{\longleftarrow}}{\mathcal{J}}$$ is the coproduct of categories ${\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}}$.
- For any $u\in{\mathrm{finGpd}}^1({\mathcal{J}},{\mathcal{K}})$, the functor $u^{\ast}{\colon}{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{K}})\to{\mathbb{D}}({\mathcal{J}})$ has a left adjoint $u_{!}$.
- For any comma square $(\ref{CommaSq})$ in ${\mathrm{finGpd}}$, the natural transformation $\lambda_{!}{\colon}(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{I}}}{^{\ast}}{\Rightarrow}J{^{\ast}}{\circ}I_{!}$ is isomorphism[^5].
Then, we obtain a semi-Mackey functor $(M_{!},M^{\ast})$ on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ in the following way.
- For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$, put $$M({\frac{X}{G}})={\mathfrak{C}}({\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))).$$
- For any ${\underline}{{\alpha}}\in{{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$, put $$M^{\ast}({\underline}{{\alpha}})={\mathfrak{C}}({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})^{\ast}),\quad M_{!}({\underline}{{\alpha}})={\mathfrak{C}}({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})_{!}).$$
If 1-cells satisfy ${\underline}{{\alpha}}={\underline}{{\alpha}}{^{\prime}}$, then we have natural isomorphism ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})\cong{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}{^{\prime}})$. It follows ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}))\cong{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}{^{\prime}}))$, namely, ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}){^{\ast}}\cong{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}{^{\prime}}){^{\ast}}$, and thus ${\mathfrak{C}}({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}){^{\ast}})={\mathfrak{C}}({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}{^{\prime}}){^{\ast}})$. Thus $M{^{\ast}}({\underline}{{\alpha}})$ is independent from a representative 1-cell ${\alpha}$. Obviously, $M{^{\ast}}{\colon}{{\mathscr{C}}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$ becomes a functor.
From ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}){^{\ast}}\cong{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}{^{\prime}}){^{\ast}}$, it also follows ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})_{!}\cong{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}{^{\prime}})_{!}$. Similarly, this shows $M_{!}({\underline}{{\alpha}})$ is independent from a representative ${\alpha}$. For any sequence of 1-cells ${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\alpha}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\beta}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Z}{K}}$ in ${\mathbb{S}}$, $${\mathbb{E}}({\beta}{\circ}{\alpha})_{!}\cong({\mathbb{E}}({\beta}){\circ}{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}))_{!}\cong{\mathbb{E}}({\beta})_{!}{\circ}{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})_{!}$$ follows from ${\mathbb{E}}({\beta}{\circ}{\alpha}){^{\ast}}=({\mathbb{E}}({\beta}){\circ}{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})){^{\ast}}={\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}){^{\ast}}{\circ}{\mathbb{E}}({\beta}){^{\ast}}$. Thus we obtain $M_{!}({\underline}{{\beta}}{\circ}{\underline}{{\alpha}})=M_{!}({\underline}{{\beta}}){\circ}M_{!}({\underline}{{\alpha}})$. We can also confirm $M_{!}({\mathrm{id}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}})={\mathrm{id}}$ for any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$, in a similar way. Thus $M_{!}{\colon}{{\mathscr{C}}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$ becomes a functor.
Then the additivity of $M{^{\ast}}$ follows from condition [(i)]{} and Remark \[RemCCCCC\]. The Mackey condition follows from [(iii)]{} and Remark \[Rema2\]. Thus $(M_{!},M{^{\ast}})$ becomes a semi-Mackey functor as in Definition \[DefSemiMackC\].
The same proof works if we replace left adjoint in [(ii)]{} by right adjoint, and modify [(iii)]{} accordingly.
\[ExSemiBurn\] Let ${\mathit{set}}$ be the category of finite sets, whose morphisms are maps of sets. Since it is finitely complete and finitely cocomplete, the represented prederivator ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathit{set}}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finCat}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$ becomes a derivator. Applying Proposition \[PropDerivtoMack\] to ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathit{set}}}$, we obtain a semi-Mackey functor $M=(M_{!},M{^{\ast}})$, which satisfies the following.
1. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathbb{S}}^0$, remark that there is an equivalence of categories $${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathit{set}}}({\frac{X}{G}})={\mathit{Fun}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}),{\mathit{set}}){\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{{}_G\mathit{set}}/X,$$ where the codomain denotes the slice category of ${{}_G\mathit{set}}$ over $X$. (See [@MM P.24 Example [(iv)]{}] for the case $X={\mathbf{1}}$.) Indeed, this equivalence is given in the following way.
- For any $(A{\overset}{p}{\to}X)\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_G\mathit{set}}/X)$, define $F\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{Fun}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}),{\mathit{set}}))$ by
- for any object $x\in X={\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))$, put $F(x)=p{^{-1}}(x)\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{set}})$,
- for any morphism $g\in{\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}})(x,x{^{\prime}})$, let $F(g){\colon}p{^{-1}}(x)\to p{^{-1}}(x{^{\prime}})$ be the map given by the left action of $g$.
- Let $(A{\overset}{p}{\to}X),(A{^{\prime}}{\overset}{p{^{\prime}}}{\to}X)\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_G\mathit{set}}/X)$ be any pair of objects, and let $F,F{^{\prime}}$ be the corresponding objects in ${\mathit{Fun}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}),{\mathit{set}})$ by [(i)]{}. For any morphism $\phi{\colon}(A{\overset}{p}{\to}X)\to(A{^{\prime}}{\overset}{p{^{\prime}}}{\to}X)$ in ${{}_G\mathit{set}}/X$, a natural transformation $\varphi{\colon}F{\Rightarrow}F{^{\prime}}$ is given by $$\varphi_x=\phi|_{p{^{-1}}(x)}{\colon}p{^{-1}}(x)\to p^{\prime-1}(x)$$ for any $x\in X={\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))$.
This induces an isomorphism $M({\frac{X}{G}})\cong {\mathfrak{A}}_G(X)$. In particular if $X={\mathbf{1}}$, we have $M({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})\cong{\mathfrak{A}}_{G}({\mathbf{1}})$.
2. If $f{\colon}G\to H$ is a homomorphism between finite groups, then there is a natural isomorphism $$\xy
(-12,7)*+{{\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathit{set}}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}))}="0";
(12,7)*+{{{}_G\mathit{set}}}="2";
(-12,-7)*+{{\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathit{set}}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}))}="4";
(12,-7)*+{{{}_H\mathit{set}}}="6";
{\ar^{\simeq} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{{\mathbb{E}}(\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{f}){^{\ast}}} "4";"0"};
{\ar_{f{^{\ast}}} "6";"2"};
{\ar_{\simeq} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|{\cong} "0";"6"};
\endxy,$$ where $f{^{\ast}}{\colon}{{}_H\mathit{set}}\to{{}_G\mathit{set}}$ is the functor given by the pullback of the action along $f$. Here ${\mathbf{t}}$ denotes the unique map.
For a general 1-cell ${\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}$, we can give a functor $({\frac{\alpha}{\theta}}){^{\ast}}{\colon}{{}_H\mathit{set}}/Y\to{{}_G\mathit{set}}/X$ as in [@N_DerTam Definition 2.2]. We can also show that the semi-Mackey functor obtained in Example \[ExSemiBurn\] is isomorphic to the semi-Burnside functor on ${\mathbb{S}}$ ([@N_DerTam Definition 6.7]).
In a similar way as in Proposition \[PropDerivtoMack\], we obtain the following. Let ${\mathbb{C}}$ be the field of complex numbers, and let ${{\mathbb{C}}\mathrm{mod}}$ be the category of finite dimensional ${\mathbb{C}}$-vector spaces, where morphisms are ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear homomorphisms. Let ${\mathbb{D}}={\mathcal{Y}}_{{{\mathbb{C}}\mathrm{mod}}}{\colon}{\mathrm{finCat}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathrm{CAT}}$ be the derivator represented by ${{\mathbb{C}}\mathrm{mod}}$. Then, we obtain a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-Mackey functor $(M_{!},M^{\ast})$ on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ in the following way.
1. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$, put $$M({\frac{X}{G}})=K_0({\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{X}{G}}))).$$ Remark that we have an equivalence ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}))\simeq {\mathbb{C}}G\mathrm{mod}$, where the codomain ${\mathbb{C}}G\mathrm{mod}$ denotes the category of finite ${\mathbb{C}}G$-modules. Thus for any $G$, we have $M({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})\cong K_0({\mathbb{C}}G\mathrm{mod})$.
2. Let ${\underline}{{\alpha}}\in{{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ be any morphism.
- If ${\underline}{{\alpha}}$ is an isomorphism, then ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}){^{\ast}}$ and ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})_{!}$ are equivalences. Thus they induce homomorphisms $$M{^{\ast}}({\underline}{{\alpha}})=K_0({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}){^{\ast}}),\quad M_{!}({\underline}{{\alpha}})=K_0({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})_{!})$$ on Grothendieck groups, which are mutually inverses.
- If $X={\mathbf{1}}$ and $Y={\mathbf{1}}$, then ${\alpha}=\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{f}$ for some group homomorphism $f{\colon}G\to H$. Then the following diagram is commutative up to natural isomorphism. $$\xy
(-12,7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}))}="0";
(12,7)*+{{\mathbb{C}}G\mathrm{mod}}="2";
(-12,-7)*+{{\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{E}}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}))}="4";
(12,-7)*+{{\mathbb{C}}H\mathrm{mod}}="6";
{\ar^{\simeq} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{{\mathbb{E}}(\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{f}){^{\ast}}} "4";"0"};
{\ar_{{\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{C}}H}({}_{{\mathbb{C}}H}{\mathbb{C}}H_{{\mathbb{C}}G},-)} "6";"2"};
{\ar_{\simeq} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|{\cong} "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ Here ${}_{{\mathbb{C}}H}{\mathbb{C}}H_{{\mathbb{C}}G}$ is a ${\mathbb{C}}H$-${\mathbb{C}}G$-bimodule, whose right action is induced from $f$. The functor ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathbb{C}}H}({}_{{\mathbb{C}}H}{\mathbb{C}}H_{{\mathbb{C}}G},-)$ is exact. Moreover, since the characteristic of ${\mathbb{C}}$ is zero, its left adjoint ${}_{{\mathbb{C}}H}{\mathbb{C}}H_{{\mathbb{C}}G}{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{C}}G}-$ is also exact ([@Bouc_biset 1.1.4]). Thus we obtain $M^{\ast}({\underline}{{\alpha}})=K_0({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})^{\ast})$ and $M_{!}({\underline}{{\alpha}})=K_0({\mathbb{E}}({\alpha})_{!})$ also in this case.
- For a general case, we may take isomorphisms $$\zeta^{({\frac{X}{G}})}{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_1}{\amalg}\cdots{\amalg}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_s},\ \ \zeta^{({\frac{Y}{H}})}{\colon}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H_1}{\amalg}\cdots{\amalg}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H_t}.$$ For any $1\le i\le s$, there exists unique $j_{(i)}$ such that ${\alpha}$ sends the component $\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_i}$ to $\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H_{j_{(i)}}}$. Put ${\alpha}_i={\alpha}|_{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_i}}{\colon}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_i}\to\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H_{j_{(i)}}}$, and put $$A{^{\ast}}_{ij}=\begin{cases}{\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}_i){^{\ast}}& (j=j_{(i)})\\ 0 & (j\ne j_{(i)})\end{cases}$$ by [(ii)]{}. Then we define $M{^{\ast}}({\alpha})$ to be the composition of $$\begin{aligned}
M({\frac{X}{G}})\!\!\!\!&{\overset}{M_{!}(\zeta^{({\frac{X}{G}})})}{{\longrightarrow}}&\!\!\!\! M(\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_1})\oplus\cdots \oplus M(\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G_s})\\
&{\overset}{[A{^{\ast}}_{ij}]_{ij}}{{\longrightarrow}}&\!\!\!\! M(\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H_1})\oplus\cdots \oplus M(\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H_t}){\overset}{M{^{\ast}}(\zeta^{({\frac{Y}{H}})})}{{\longrightarrow}}M({\frac{Y}{H}}).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we can define $M_{!}({\alpha})$ by using ${\mathbb{E}}({\alpha}_i)_{!}$.
Functors on the span category
=============================
We introduce the [*span category*]{} ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$ of ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, to which we can apply the result of Panchadcharam and Street ([@PS]).
\[Def\_0519\_1\] Let ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$ be any pair of objects. A [*span from ${\frac{X}{G}}$ to ${\frac{Y}{H}}$*]{} is a pair of morphisms in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ $$S=({\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}_S}{{\longleftarrow}}\frac{W_S}{L_S}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}).$$ We abbreviate this to $S=({{\underline}{{\beta}}_S,{\frac{W_S}{L_S}},{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S})$.
Let $S=({{\underline}{{\beta}}_S,{\frac{W_S}{L_S}},{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S})$ and $T=({\underline}{{\beta}}_T,{\frac{W_T}{L_T}},{\underline}{{\alpha}}_T)$ be spans of morphisms in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ from ${\frac{X}{G}}$ to ${\frac{Y}{H}}$. $S$ and $T$ are said to be [*isomorphic*]{} and written as $S\cong T$, if there is an isomorphism ${\underline}{\gamma}\in{{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{W_S}{L_S}},{\frac{W_T}{L_T}})$ satisfying $$\label{Eqalbe}
{\underline}{{\alpha}}_T{\circ}{\underline}{\gamma}={\underline}{{\alpha}}_S \quad\text{and}\quad {\underline}{{\beta}}_T{\circ}{\underline}{\gamma}={\underline}{{\beta}}_S.$$ We denote the set of isomorphism classes by ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$. The isomorphism class $[S]=[{{\underline}{{\beta}}_S,{\frac{W_S}{L_S}},{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S}]$ of $S$ will be denoted by the corresponding lower case letter $s$.
The class of natural weak pullbacks allows us to define the span category of ${{\mathscr{C}}}$.
\[DefSpanCat\] Span category ${\mathcal{S}}={\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$ is defined as follows.
1. ${\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))={\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$.
2. For any ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$, the morphism set from ${\frac{X}{G}}$ to ${\frac{Y}{H}}$ is ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$.
When we want to emphasize $s$ is a morphism in ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$, we will denote it as $s{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}{\rightharpoonup}{\frac{Y}{H}}$. For a sequence of morphisms $$\begin{aligned}
&s=[{{\underline}{{\beta}}_S,{\frac{W_S}{L_S}},{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S}]{\colon}{\frac{X}{G}}{\rightharpoonup}{\frac{Y}{H}}&\\
&t=[{\underline}{{\beta}}_T,{\frac{W_T}{L_T}},{\underline}{{\alpha}}_T]{\colon}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\rightharpoonup}{\frac{Z}{K}},&\end{aligned}$$ their composition is defined to be $[{\frac{Z}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}_T{\circ}{\underline}{\wp}_T}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S{\circ}{\underline}{\wp}_S}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$ by using a natural weak pullback as follows. $$\xy
(0,12)*+{{\frac{W}{L}}}="0";
(-15,0)*+{\frac{W_T}{L_T}}="2";
(15,0)*+{\frac{W_S}{L_S}}="4";
(-30,-12)*+{{\frac{Z}{K}}}="6";
(0,-12)*+{{\frac{Y}{H}}}="8";
(30,-12)*+{{\frac{X}{G}}}="10";
(0,0)*+{{\mathrm{nwp}}}="12";
{\ar_(0.6){{\underline}{\wp}_T} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.6){{\underline}{\wp}_S} "0";"4"};
{\ar_(0.6){{\underline}{{\beta}}_T} "2";"6"};
{\ar_(0.4){{\underline}{{\alpha}}_T} "2";"8"};
{\ar^(0.4){{\underline}{{\beta}}_S} "4";"8"};
{\ar^(0.6){{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S} "4";"10"};
\endxy$$ The identity ${\mathrm{id}}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{X}{G}})$ is given by ${\mathrm{id}}=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$.
\[RemTRemT\] Category ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$ satisfies the following. (This agrees with ${\mathrm{Sp}}$ in [@N_BisetMackey Definition 5.2.10].)
1. ${\emptyset}$ is zero object.
2. For any ${\underline}{{\alpha}}\in{{\mathscr{C}}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$, we can associate morphisms ${\mathbf{R}}_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}},{\mathbf{T}}_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}$ in ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbf{R}}_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}]\in{\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{Y}{H}},{\frac{X}{G}}),&\\
&{\mathbf{T}}_{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}=[{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]\in{\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}).&\end{aligned}$$
3. Coproduct ${\amalg}$ in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ induces a product in ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$. Namely, for any ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$, if we take their coproduct $${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{\iota}_X}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{\iota}_Y}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}$$ in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, then ${\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\mathbf{R}}_{\iota_X}}{{\leftharpoonup}}{\frac{X}{G}}{\amalg}{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\mathbf{R}}_{\iota_Y}}{{\rightharpoonup}}{\frac{Y}{H}}$ gives a product in ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$.
4. ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$ is enriched by ${\mathit{Mon}}$. In fact, for any ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$ and any $s=[{{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}_S}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W_S}{L_S}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}}], t=[{{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}_T}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W_T}{L_T}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}_T}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}}]$, we can define their sum by $$s+t=[{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}_S\cup{\underline}{{\beta}}_T}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W_S}{L_S}}{\amalg}{\frac{W_T}{L_T}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}_S\cup{\underline}{{\alpha}}_T}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}],$$ which gives a structure of additive monoid on ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ compatibly with compositions. The zero element in ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}})({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ is given by $[{\frac{Y}{H}}\leftarrow{\emptyset}\rightarrow{\frac{X}{G}}]$.
For categories ${\mathcal{K}},{\mathcal{L}}$ with finite products, let ${\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{K}},{\mathcal{L}})$ be the category of functors preserving finite products, where morphisms are natural transformations.
The following has been shown in [@N_BisetMackey].
\[MackAdd\]([@N_BisetMackey Proposition 5.2.18]) There is an equivalence of categories $${{\mathit{SMack}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}\simeq{\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{\mathit{Set}}).$$
Details can be found in [@N_BisetMackey]. Since ${\mathcal{S}}$ is enriched by ${\mathit{Mon}}$, any $F\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{\mathit{Set}}))$ factors through the forgetful functor ${\mathit{Mon}}\to{\mathit{Set}}$. Thus we have equivalences $${\mathit{SMack}}({{\mathscr{C}}})\simeq{\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{\mathit{Set}})\simeq{\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{\mathit{Mon}}).$$ This equivalence induces an equivalence ${\mathit{Mack}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}({{\mathscr{C}}})\simeq{\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{\mathit{Ab}})$, and thus also $$\label{Equiv_Mack_Add}
{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})\simeq{\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{k{\mathit{Mod}}})$$ for any commutative ring $k$.
We briefly state how the objects correspond by the equivalence $(\ref{Equiv_Mack_Add})$. For any $M=(M_{!},M^{\ast})\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}}))$, the corresponding object $F_M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{k{\mathit{Mod}}}))$ is given by the following.
1. $F_M({\frac{X}{G}})=M({\frac{X}{G}})$ for any object ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$.
2. $F_M([{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}])=M_{!}({\beta}){\circ}M^{\ast}({\alpha})$ for any morphism $[{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]\in{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$.
\[DefCatM\] Denote the category ${\mathit{Add}}({\mathcal{S}},{k{\mathit{Mod}}})$ by ${\mathscr{M}^k}$.
We call $F\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ is [*deflative*]{} if it corresponds to a deflative Mackey functor by $(\ref{Equiv_Mack_Add})$. By the above correspondence, we see that $F\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ is deflative if and only if it satisfies $$F(s)={\mathrm{id}}$$ for any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$ and any morphism $s=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]\in{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{X}{G}})$ where ${\alpha}$ is stab-surjective. We denote the full subcategory of deflative objects in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ by ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\subseteq}{\mathscr{M}^k}$.
Because of the equivalence in Fact \[MackAdd\], we mainly work on ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ instead of ${\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})$. We will denote $F_M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ abbreviately by the same symbol $M$ in the following.
\[ExCatM\] For ${{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})})$ and ${{\Omega}^k}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathit{Mack}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})})$, we abbreviately denote $F_{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}}$ and $F_{{{\Omega}^k}}$ by ${{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ and ${{\Omega}^k}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
Similarly, we denote the morphism in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ corresponding to ${\mathbf{p}}\in{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},{{\Omega}^k})$ (obtained in Proposition \[PropStrOrdBurn\]) by the same symbol ${\mathbf{p}}\in{\mathscr{M}^k}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},{{\Omega}^k})$. This is an epimorphism in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$.
\[RemClosedMd\] ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\subseteq}{\mathscr{M}^k}$ is closed under isomorphisms and direct summands.
The category ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a compact closed category. More precisely, it satisfies the following.
1. The functor ${\mathfrak{i}}{\colon}{\mathcal{S}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}\to{\mathcal{S}}$ defined in the following way, is isomorphism of categories.
- ${\mathfrak{i}}({\frac{X}{G}})={\frac{X}{G}}$ for any object.
- ${\mathfrak{i}}([{\frac{Y}{H}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}])=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\beta}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{Y}{H}}]$ for any morphism.
Moreover, this isomorphism is involutive, i.e., it makes the following diagram commutative. $$\xy
(-12,0)*+{{\mathcal{S}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{{\mathcal{S}}}="2";
(0,-6)*+{}="3";
(12,0)*+{{\mathcal{S}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}}="4";
{\ar^(0.46){{\mathfrak{i}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.54){{\mathfrak{i}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}} "2";"4"};
{\ar@/_0.8pc/_{{\mathrm{Id}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"3"};
\endxy$$
2. ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a compact closed category $($[@PS sections 5,6]$)$, with the following structure.
- Tensor product $-{\times}-{\colon}{\mathcal{S}}{\times}{\mathcal{S}}\to{\mathcal{S}}$ is induced from the product in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, in a natural way.
- Unit for the tensor product is given by ${\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{e}}$.
- Dual of ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$ is given by ${\mathfrak{i}}({\frac{X}{G}})={\frac{X}{G}}$. Namely, for any ${\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}},{\frac{Z}{K}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathscr{C}}}))$, there is a natural bijection $${\mathcal{S}}({\frac{Y}{H}}{\times}{\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Z}{K}})\cong{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{Y}{H}},{\frac{X}{G}}{\times}{\frac{Z}{K}}).$$
This can be shown in a similar way as in [@PS section 2]. We only have to replace pullbacks by natural weak pullbacks.
Thus we can apply the results by Panchadcharam and Street [@PS], to obtain the following.
\[PropPS1\]$($[@PS sections 5,6]$)$ ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ is equipped with the following functors, which make $({\mathscr{M}^k},{\otimes},{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}})$ a symmetric closed monoidal category.
1. Tensor functor $-{\otimes}-{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}$.
2. Internal Hom functor ${\mathscr{H}}{\colon}({\mathscr{M}^k})^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}$, together with a natural isomorphism $${\mathscr{M}^k}(M{\otimes}N,P)\cong{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,{\mathscr{H}}(N,P))\quad({\forall}M,N,P\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})).$$
We use the following symbols for the natural isomorphisms which are part of the monoidal structure $($[@MacLane VII.1]$)$. For any $L,M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, $$\label{Name_as}
{\mathrm{as}}{\colon}L{\otimes}(M{\otimes}N){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}(L{\otimes}M){\otimes}N,$$ $$\label{Name_sym}
{\mathrm{sym}}{\colon}M{\otimes}N{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}N{\otimes}M$$ $($we abbreviately use the same symbol independently from $L,M,N$ as above$)$, and $$\label{Name_lr}
\ell_M{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}M,\quad r_M{\colon}M{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}M.$$
In the proceeding sections, we will show the following [(I),(II),(III)]{}.
1. Functors $-{\otimes}-$ and ${\mathscr{H}}$ restricts to yield $$-{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}-{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\quad\text{and}\quad {\mathscr{H}}_d{\colon}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d,$$ which make $({\mathscr{M}^k}_d,{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}},{{\Omega}^k})$ a symmetric closed monoidal category.
2. ${{\Omega}^k}$ is a monoid in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$. Moreover, the category ${{{\Omega}^k}{\mathit{Mod}}}$ of ${{\Omega}^k}$-modules is equivalent to ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$.
3. The equivalence $\Phi{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ given in [@N_BisetMackey] is a monoidal equivalence.
In the sequel, we sometimes refer to these [(I),(II),(III)]{}. To prove them, let us review the construction used in [@PS], in our terminology.
\[DefDressbyX\] $\ \ $
1. Let ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$ be any object. Then the functor $${\mathfrak{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}=-{\times}{\frac{X}{G}}{\colon}{\mathcal{S}}\to{\mathcal{S}}$$ preserves finite products (given by coproducts in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$) in ${\mathcal{S}}$, and thus gives a functor $${\mathbf{D}}({\frac{X}{G}},-)=-{\circ}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}.$$ For an object $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, we simply denote ${\mathbf{D}}({\frac{X}{G}},M)=M{\circ}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ by $M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$.
2. Let $s\in{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ be any morphism. This induces a natural transformation $${\mathfrak{p}}_s=-{\times}s{\colon}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\Rightarrow}{\mathfrak{p}}_{{\frac{Y}{H}}},$$ and thus it gives a natural transformation $${\mathbf{D}}(s,-){\colon}{\mathbf{D}}({\frac{X}{G}},-){\Rightarrow}{\mathbf{D}}({\frac{Y}{H}},-).$$ For any object $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, we denote ${\mathbf{D}}(s,M){\colon}{\mathbf{D}}({\frac{X}{G}},M)\to{\mathbf{D}}({\frac{Y}{H}},M)$ simply by $M_s{\colon}M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\to M_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}$.
In fact, we have a functor ${\mathbf{D}}{\colon}{\mathcal{S}}{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to {\mathscr{M}^k}$.
\[DefTensor\]([@PS section 5]) Let $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ be any pair of objects. Then $M{\otimes}N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ is defined in the following way.
1. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$, define a functor $T^{({\frac{X}{G}})}{\colon}({\mathscr{M}^k})^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}$ to be the composition of $$({\mathcal{S}})^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{\mathcal{S}}{\overset}{{\mathfrak{i}}{\times}{\mathrm{Id}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{S}}{\times}{\mathcal{S}}{\overset}{M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\times}N}{{\longrightarrow}}{k{\mathit{Mod}}}{\times}{k{\mathit{Mod}}}{\overset}{-\underset{k}{{\otimes}}-}{{\longrightarrow}}{k{\mathit{Mod}}}.$$ Define $(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{X}{G}})=\int^{{\frac{Y}{H}}}T^{({\frac{X}{G}})}({\frac{Y}{H}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$ to be its coend, equipped with the universal dinatural transformation $${\omega}^{({\frac{X}{G}})}{\colon}T^{({\frac{X}{G}})}{\overset}{..}{{\longrightarrow}}(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{X}{G}}).$$ For the notation related to coends, see [@MacLane IX.6].
2. For any morphism $s\in{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$, the morphism $M_s\in{\mathscr{M}^k}(M_{{\frac{X}{G}}},M_{{\frac{Y}{H}}})$ gives a natural transformation defined by the horizontal composition (= whiskering’ ([@MacLane P.275])) of the following. $$\label{EditAdd2}
\xy
(-46,0)*+{({\mathcal{S}})^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{\mathcal{S}}}="0";
(-20,0)*+{{\mathcal{S}}{\times}{\mathcal{S}}}="2";
(20,0)*+{{k{\mathit{Mod}}}{\times}{k{\mathit{Mod}}}}="4";
(46,0)*+{{k{\mathit{Mod}}}}="6";
{\ar^(0.56){{\mathfrak{i}}{\times}{\mathrm{Id}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar@/^1.2pc/^{M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\times}N} "2";"4"};
{\ar@/_1.2pc/_{M_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}{\times}N} "2";"4"};
{\ar^(0.6){-\underset{k}{{\otimes}}-} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{=>}_{M_s{\times}{\mathrm{id}}_N} (2,2);(2,-2)};
\endxy$$ The universal property of the coend induces a morphism $$(M{\otimes}N)(s){\colon}(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{X}{G}})\to(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{Y}{H}})$$ compatible with ${\omega}^{({\frac{X}{G}})}$ and ${\omega}^{({\frac{Y}{H}})}$.
This makes $M{\otimes}N$ into a functor $M{\otimes}N{\colon}{\mathcal{S}}\to{k{\mathit{Mod}}}$. This preserves finite products, and thus we obtain $M{\otimes}N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$.
For any $\varphi\in{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,M{^{\prime}})$ and $\psi\in{\mathscr{M}^k}(N,N{^{\prime}})$, the morphism $\varphi{\otimes}\psi{\colon}M{\otimes}N\to M{^{\prime}}{\otimes}N{^{\prime}}$ is also induced by the universal property of the coend.
\[DefTensorObjValue\] Explicitly, $(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{X}{G}})$ is given by the following way, in terms of ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. Let $M,N$ be objects in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{\mathscr{C}}})$, the $k$-module $(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{X}{G}})$ is given by $$(M{\otimes}N)({\frac{X}{G}})=(\underset{{{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}}{\bigoplus}M({\frac{A}{K}}){\otimes}_k N({\frac{A}{K}}))/{\mathscr{I}},$$ where
- the direct sum runs over objects $({{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}})$ in ${{\mathscr{C}}}/{\frac{X}{G}}$,
- ${\mathscr{I}}$ is a $k$-submodule generated by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Set{ M{^{\ast}}({\varphi})(m{^{\prime}}){\otimes}n-m{^{\prime}}{\otimes}N_{!}({\varphi})(n)\ |\ \begin{array}{c}{\underline}{{\varphi}}\in ({{\mathscr{C}}}/{\frac{X}{G}})({{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}},{{\frac{A{^{\prime}}}{K{^{\prime}}}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}{^{\prime}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}),\\ m{^{\prime}}\in M({\frac{A{^{\prime}}}{K{^{\prime}}}}),n\in N({\frac{A}{K}})\end{array}}\\
\cup &\Set{M_{!}({\varphi})(m){\otimes}n{^{\prime}}-m{\otimes}N{^{\ast}}({\varphi})(n{^{\prime}})\ |\ \begin{array}{c}{\underline}{{\varphi}}\in ({{\mathscr{C}}}/{\frac{X}{G}})({{\frac{A}{K}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}, {{\frac{A{^{\prime}}}{K{^{\prime}}}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\mathfrak{a}}{^{\prime}}}}{\to}{\frac{X}{G}}}),\\ m\in M({\frac{A}{K}}), n{^{\prime}}\in N({\frac{A{^{\prime}}}{K{^{\prime}}}})\end{array}}.\end{aligned}$$
Here, ${{\mathscr{C}}}/{\frac{X}{G}}$ denotes the slice category of ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ over ${\frac{X}{G}}$.
\[DefUnit\] The unit for the tensor is given by the composition of $${\mathcal{S}}{\overset}{{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{e}},-)}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathit{Mon}}{\overset}{K_0}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathit{Ab}}{\overset}{k\underset{{\mathbb{Z}}}{{\otimes}}-}{{\longrightarrow}}{k{\mathit{Mod}}},$$ which agrees with ${{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}$.
\[DefHH\]([@PS section 6]) Let $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ be any pair of objects. Then ${\mathscr{H}}(M,N)\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ is defined in the following way.
1. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$, define as $$({\mathscr{H}}(M,N))({\frac{X}{G}})={\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N_{{\frac{X}{G}}}).$$
2. For any $s\in{\mathcal{S}}({\frac{X}{G}},{\frac{Y}{H}})$, the morphism $N_s{\colon}N_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\to N_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}$ induces a morphism $$({\mathscr{H}}(M,N))(s)=N_s{\circ}-{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N_{{\frac{X}{G}}})\to{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N_{{\frac{Y}{H}}}).$$
This gives an object ${\mathscr{H}}(M,N)\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$.
For any $\varphi\in{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,M{^{\prime}})$ and $\psi\in{\mathscr{M}^k}(N,N{^{\prime}})$, the morphism ${\mathscr{H}}(\varphi,\psi){\colon}{\mathscr{H}}(M{^{\prime}},N)\to{\mathscr{H}}(M,N{^{\prime}})$ is defined by the composition of $${\mathscr{M}^k}(M{^{\prime}},N_{{\frac{X}{G}}}){\overset}{-{\circ}\varphi}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N_{{\frac{X}{G}}}){\overset}{{\mathbf{D}}({\frac{X}{G}},\psi){\circ}-}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{^{\prime}})$$ at any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$.
Monoidal structure on ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$
=========================================
In this section, we show [(I)]{}.
\[LemDressDefl\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, we have the following.
1. Let $s=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$ be any morphism in ${\mathcal{S}}$, where ${\alpha}$ is stab-surjective. Then we have $M_s={\mathrm{id}}{\colon}M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\to M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}$.
2. For any ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$, we have $M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
This is an immediate consequence of Remark \[RemStabsurj\] [(3)]{}, because products are (special case of) natural weak pullbacks.
\[PropTensorRestrict\] Let $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ be any pair of objects. If at least one of $M$ and $N$ belongs to ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$, then we have $M{\otimes}N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
By the symmetry, we may assume $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$. Let $s=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$ be any morphism in ${\mathcal{S}}$, where ${\alpha}$ is stab-surjective. By Lemma \[LemDressDefl\] [(1)]{}, we have $M_s={\mathrm{id}}$. Thus the corresponding natural transformation $(\ref{EditAdd2})$ in Definition \[DefTensor\] becomes identity. By the universal property of the coend, this implies $(M{\otimes}N)(s)={\mathrm{id}}$.
\[DefOtd\] By Proposition \[PropTensorRestrict\], the tensor functor on ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ restricts to yield a functor $$-{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}-{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d.$$
\[PropHomDefl\] Let $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ be any pair of objects. If $N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, then ${\mathscr{H}}(M,N)\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
Let $s=[{\frac{X}{G}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longleftarrow}}{\frac{W}{L}}{\overset}{{\underline}{{\alpha}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{X}{G}}]$ be any morphism in ${\mathcal{S}}$, where ${\alpha}$ is stab-surjective. By Lemma \[LemDressDefl\] [(1)]{}, we have $N_s={\mathrm{id}}$. This implies $({\mathscr{H}}(M,N))(s)={\mathrm{id}}$.
\[DefHd\] By Proposition \[PropHomDefl\], the functor ${\mathscr{H}}$ restricts to yield a functor $${\mathscr{H}}_d{\colon}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d.$$
\[CorHomDefl\] For any $M,N,P\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, we have a natural isomorphism $${\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N,P)\cong{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,{\mathscr{H}}_d(N,P)).$$ In particular, the endofunctor $-{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ is left adjoint to ${\mathscr{H}}_d(N,-)$, for any $N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
This immediately follows from Propositions \[PropHomDefl\], \[DefHd\] and Corollary \[PropPS1\].
\[RemEpiTensor\] Let ${\mathbf{p}}\in{\mathscr{M}^k}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},{{\Omega}^k})$ be the epimorphism in Example \[ExCatM\]. By the closedness, for any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, it follows that ${\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M$ is also an epimorphism. By the symmetry, so is $M{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}}$. In particular ${\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\to{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}$ is epimorphism, since ${\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}}=({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}){\circ}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}})$.
\[LemOmegapDefl\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, the epimorphism ${\mathbf{p}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\to{{\Omega}^k}$ induces an isomorphism $$-{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}({{\Omega}^k},M){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathscr{M}^k}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},M).$$
This follows from Proposition \[PropHHom\], via the equivalence ${\mathscr{M}^k}\simeq{{\mathit{Mack}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
\[PropEquivDefl\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, $${\mathscr{H}}({\mathbf{p}},M){\colon}{\mathscr{H}}({{\Omega}^k},M)\to{\mathscr{H}}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},M)$$ is isomorphism in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$.
By definition, for each ${\frac{X}{G}}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{S}})$, $$({\mathscr{H}}({\mathbf{p}},M))_{{\frac{X}{G}}}{\colon}({\mathscr{H}}({{\Omega}^k},M))({\frac{X}{G}})\to({\mathscr{H}}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},M))({\frac{X}{G}})$$ is given by ${\mathscr{M}^k}({\mathbf{p}},M_{{\frac{X}{G}}}){\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}({{\Omega}^k},M_{{\frac{X}{G}}})\to{\mathscr{M}^k}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},M_{{\frac{X}{G}}})$. This is isomorphism, by Lemma \[LemDressDefl\] and Proposition \[LemOmegapDefl\].
\[CorEquivDefl1\] Let $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ be any object. Let $\ell_M{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}M$ be the isomorphism $(\ref{Name_lr})$. Let $v_M{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\to{\mathscr{H}}(M,M)$ be the morphism corresponding to $\ell_M$ by the adjoint property. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
2. $\ell_M$ factors through ${\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M$. Namely, there exists $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\colon}{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M\to M$ satisfying $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)=\ell_M$.
3. $v_M$ factors through ${\mathbf{p}}$. Namely, there exists $v_M{^{\prime}}{\colon}{{\Omega}^k}\to {\mathscr{H}}(M,M)$ satisfying $v_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}{\mathbf{p}}=v_M$.
Remark that $v{^{\prime}}_M$ and $\ell_M{^{\prime}}$ in [(2),(3)]{} are unique if they exist, since ${\mathbf{p}}$ and ${\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M$ are epimorphisms.
$(1)\Rightarrow(3)$ follows from Propositions \[PropHomDefl\] and \[LemOmegapDefl\]. $(2){\Leftrightarrow}(3)$ follows from the adjoint property.
If $(2)$ holds, then $M$ becomes a direct summand of ${{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M$, which belongs to ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ by Proposition \[PropTensorRestrict\]. Thus $M$ satisfies $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$ by Remark \[RemClosedMd\].
For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, the morphism $\ell_M{^{\prime}}$ obtained in Corollary \[CorEquivDefl1\] [(2)]{} becomes isomorphism. More precisely, we have the following.
\[CorEquivDefl2\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, the following are equivalent.
1. $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
2. There is an isomorphism $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\colon}{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}} M$ satisfying $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)=\ell_M$.
3. There exists an isomorphism ${{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M\cong M$.
$(2)\Rightarrow(3)$ is trivial. $(3)\Rightarrow(1)$ follows from Remark \[RemClosedMd\] and Proposition \[PropTensorRestrict\].
Let us show $(1)\Rightarrow(2)$. Suppose $M$ belongs to ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$. By Corollary \[CorEquivDefl1\], we have a morphism $\ell_M{^{\prime}}$ satisfying $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)=\ell_M$. Let us show $\ell_M{^{\prime}}$ is isomorphism. Remark that ${{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M={{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M$ belongs to ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ by Proposition \[PropTensorRestrict\]. For any $N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, the following diagram is commutative. $$\xy
(-42,8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},{\mathscr{H}}(M,N))}="0";
(0,8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M,N)}="2";
(-42,-8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}({{\Omega}^k},{\mathscr{H}}(M,N))}="10";
(0,-8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M,N)}="12";
(12,6)*+{}="13";
(34,-8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N)}="14";
{\ar^{\cong} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{{\mathscr{M}^k}({\mathbf{p}},{\mathscr{H}}(M,N))} "10";"0"};
{\ar^{{\mathscr{M}^k}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M,N)} "12";"2"};
{\ar_{{\mathscr{M}^k}(\ell_M,N)}^{\cong} "14";"2"};
{\ar_{\cong} "10";"12"};
{\ar^(0.42){{\mathscr{M}^k}(\ell_M{^{\prime}},N)} "14";"12"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"12"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "12";"13"};
\endxy$$ If $N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, then ${\mathscr{M}^k}({\mathbf{p}},{\mathscr{H}}(M,N))$ is isomorphism by Propositions \[PropHomDefl\], \[LemOmegapDefl\]. By the above commutativity, it follows that ${\mathscr{M}^k}(\ell_M{^{\prime}},N)={\mathscr{M}^k}_d(\ell_M{^{\prime}},N)$ is an isomorphism for any $N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$. Thus $\ell_M{^{\prime}}\in{\mathscr{M}^k}_d({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M,M)$ is isomorphism by Yoneda’s lemma.
\[RemEquivDefl\] Since ${\mathscr{H}}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},-){\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}$ is isomorphic to the identity functor, Proposition \[PropEquivDefl\] implies the following. ([(ii)]{} also follows from Corollary \[CorEquivDefl2\].)
- ${\mathscr{H}}({{\Omega}^k},-)|_{{\mathscr{M}^k}_d}{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}$ is isomorphic to the inclusion functor ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d\hookrightarrow{\mathscr{M}^k}$.
- ${\mathscr{H}}_d({{\Omega}^k},-){\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ is isomorphic to the identity functor ${\mathrm{Id}}_{{\mathscr{M}^k}_d}$.
\[CorDefCor\] Tensoring with ${{\Omega}^k}$ gives a functor $$-{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d,$$ which is left adjoint to the inclusion ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d\hookrightarrow{\mathscr{M}^k}$.
This follows from Proposition \[PropTensorRestrict\], Corollary \[CorHomDefl\] and Remark \[RemEquivDefl\].
By Corollary \[CorEquivDefl2\], we have isomorphism $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\colon}{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}M$ for any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$. The commutativity $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)=\ell_M$ and the naturality of $\ell$ ensures the naturality of $\ell{^{\prime}}$ in $M$. (This is shown in a similar way as for the commutativity of $(\ref{TTTTT})$ below. See the proof of Proposition \[PropDeflMon\].)
\[Defr\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, define the isomorphism $r_M{^{\prime}}{\colon}M{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}M$ to be the composition of isomorphisms $$M{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}{\overset}{{\mathrm{sym}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M{\overset}{\ell_M{^{\prime}}}{{\longrightarrow}}M.$$ This is natural in $M$, and satisfies $r_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}(M{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}})=r_M$ where $r_M{\colon}M{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}M$ is the isomorphism $(\ref{Name_lr})$.
\[PropDeflMon\] $({\mathscr{M}^k}_d,{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}},{{\Omega}^k})$ is a symmetric closed monoidal category. In addition, the functor $-{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ is a monoidal functor.
First, we show that $({\mathscr{M}^k}_d,{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}},{{\Omega}^k})$ is a symmetric monoidal category. For any $L,M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, the isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{as}}{\colon}L{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}(M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}(L{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M){\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N,&\\
&{\mathrm{sym}}{\colon}M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}N{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M&\end{aligned}$$ are taken to be the same as those for ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ (i.e. $(\ref{Name_as}),(\ref{Name_sym})$). Thus the compatibility among them is inherited from that in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$. It remains to show the commutativity of $$\label{TTTTT}
\xy
(-15,8)*+{M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N)}="0";
(15,8)*+{(M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}{{\Omega}^k}){\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N}="2";
(0,-8)*+{M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N}="4";
(0,11)*+{}="5";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}}_{\cong} "0";"2"};
{\ar_(0.4){M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}\ell_N{^{\prime}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^(0.4){r_M{^{\prime}}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N} "2";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "4";"5"};
\endxy.$$ This follows from the commutativity of the following diagram and the epimorphicity of $M{\otimes}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}N)$. $$\xy
(-15,8)*+{M{\otimes}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}N)}="0";
(-44,20)*+{M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N)}="10";
(15,8)*+{(M{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}){\otimes}N}="2";
(44,20)*+{(M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}{{\Omega}^k}){\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N}="12";
(0,-8)*+{M{\otimes}N}="4";
(0,-24)*+{M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N}="14";
(0,11)*+{}="5";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}} "10";"12"};
{\ar_(0.4){M{\otimes}\ell_N} "0";"4"};
{\ar_(0.46){M{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}\ell_N{^{\prime}}} "10";"14"};
{\ar^(0.4){r_M{\otimes}N} "2";"4"};
{\ar^(0.46){r_M{^{\prime}}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}N} "12";"14"};
{\ar_{M{\otimes}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}N)} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{(M{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}}){\otimes}N} "2";"12"};
{\ar@{=} "4";"14"};
(-14,-6)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="-1";
(14,-6)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="-2";
(0,15)*+{_{\circlearrowright}}="-3";
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "4";"5"};
\endxy$$ Closedness follows from Corollary \[CorHomDefl\].
For any $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, we have isomorphisms $$(M{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}){\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}(N{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k})\cong (M{\otimes}N){\otimes}({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}{{\Omega}^k}){\overset}{{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}\ell{^{\prime}}_{{{\Omega}^k}}}{{\longrightarrow}}(M{\otimes}N){\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}$$ and $$\ell_{{{\Omega}^k}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\Omega}^k}.$$ With these isomorphisms, we can confirm $-{\otimes}{{\Omega}^k}{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ is a monoidal functor, in a straightforward way.
Equivalence ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d\simeq{{{\Omega}^k}{\mathit{Mod}}}$
=================================================================
In this section, we show [(II)]{}. Although this is a formal consequence of the epimorphicity of ${\mathbf{p}}$ and Corollary \[CorEquivDefl2\], we give a short proof for the sake of completeness.
As in the case of ordinary Mackey functors, we call a monoid object in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$ a Green functor.
\[DefGreenS\] A [*Green functor*]{} on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is an object ${\Gamma}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ equipped with morphisms $$m=m_{{\Gamma}}{\colon}{\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma}\to{\Gamma},\quad u=u_{{\Gamma}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\to{\Gamma}$$ which make the following diagrams commutative.
- $
\xy
(-32,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}({\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma})}="0";
(0,8)*+{({\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma}){\otimes}{\Gamma}}="2";
(32,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma}}="4";
(-32,-8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma}}="10";
(32,-8)*+{{\Gamma}}="14";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}}_{\cong} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.56){m{\otimes}{\Gamma}} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{{\Gamma}{\otimes}m} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{m} "4";"14"};
{\ar_{m} "10";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"14"};
\endxy
$
- $
\xy
(-24,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{\Gamma}}="-2";
(-11,-5)*+{}="-1";
(0,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma}}="0";
(11,-5)*+{}="1";
(24,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}}="2";
(0,-8)*+{{\Gamma}}="4";
{\ar^{u{\otimes}{\Gamma}} "-2";"0"};
{\ar_{{\Gamma}{\otimes}u} "2";"0"};
{\ar_{\ell_{{\Gamma}}}^{\cong} "-2";"4"};
{\ar^{r_{{\Gamma}}}_{\cong} "2";"4"};
{\ar|*+{_{m}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"-1"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"1"};
\endxy
$
A Green functor ${\Gamma}=({\Gamma},m,u)$ is [*commutative*]{}, if it satisfies $m{\circ}{\mathrm{sym}}=m$.
If ${\Gamma}=({\Gamma},m_{{\Gamma}},u_{{\Gamma}})$ and ${\Lambda}=({\Lambda},m_{{\Lambda}},u_{{\Lambda}})$ are two Green functors on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$, then a [*morphism*]{} $f{\colon}{\Gamma}\to{\Lambda}$ of Green functors is a morphism $f\in{\mathscr{M}^k}({\Gamma},{\Lambda})$ which satisfies $f{\circ}m_{{\Gamma}}=m_{{\Lambda}}{\circ}(f{\otimes}f)$ and $f{\circ}u_{{\Gamma}}=u_{{\Lambda}}$. The composition and the identities are naturally induced from those in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$. The category of Green functors on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is denoted by ${{\mathit{Green}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
A Green functor ${\Gamma}$ is called [*deflative*]{}, if it is deflative as an object in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$. We denote the full subcategory of ${{\mathit{Green}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$ consisting of deflative ones by ${{\mathit{Green}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$. Since ${{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}$ is the unit of the tensor, it gives a Green functor $({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}},\ell_{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}},{\mathrm{id}})$, which is initial in ${{\mathit{Green}}({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
\[DefModule\] Let ${\Gamma}=({\Gamma},m,u)$ be a Green functor on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. A ${\Gamma}$[*-module*]{} is an object $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$ equipped with a morphism ${\mathrm{ac}}={\mathrm{ac}}_{M}{\colon}{\Gamma}{\otimes}M\to M$ which makes the following diagrams commutative.
- $
\xy
(-32,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}({\Gamma}{\otimes}M)}="0";
(0,8)*+{({\Gamma}{\otimes}{\Gamma}){\otimes}M}="2";
(32,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}M}="4";
(-32,-8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}M}="10";
(32,-8)*+{M}="14";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.54){m{\otimes}M} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{{\Gamma}{\otimes}{\mathrm{ac}}} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{{\mathrm{ac}}} "4";"14"};
{\ar_{{\mathrm{ac}}} "10";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"14"};
\endxy
$
- $\xy
(-24,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M}="-2";
(-11,-5)*+{}="-1";
(0,8)*+{{\Gamma}{\otimes}M}="0";
(0,-8)*+{M}="4";
{\ar^{u{\otimes}M} "-2";"0"};
{\ar_{\ell_M} "-2";"4"};
{\ar^{{\mathrm{ac}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"-1"};
\endxy
$
If $M$ and $N$ are ${\Gamma}$-modules, then a [*morphism*]{} $f{\colon}M\to N$ of ${\Gamma}$-modules is $f\in{\mathscr{M}^k}(M,N)$ which satisfies $f{\circ}{\mathrm{ac}}_M={\mathrm{ac}}_N{\circ}({\Gamma}{\otimes}f)$. The compositions and the identities are naturally induced from those in ${\mathscr{M}^k}$. We denote the category of ${\Gamma}$-modules by ${\Gamma}{\mathit{Mod}}$.
\[CommutForMd\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, the following diagram is commutative. $$\label{CommForM}
\xy
(-32,8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M)}="0";
(0,8)*+{({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}{{\Omega}^k}){\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M}="2";
(32,8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M}="4";
(-32,-8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M}="10";
(32,-8)*+{M}="14";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.58){\ell_{{{\Omega}^k}}{^{\prime}}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}\ell_M{^{\prime}}} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{\ell_M{^{\prime}}} "4";"14"};
{\ar_{\ell_M{^{\prime}}} "10";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"14"};
\endxy$$
Remark that $$\xy
(-20,8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M)}="0";
(20,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M)}="2";
(-20,-8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M}="4";
(20,-8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M}="6";
{\ar_(0.52){{\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)} "2";"0"};
{\ar_{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}\ell_M{^{\prime}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}\ell_M} "2";"6"};
{\ar^{{\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M} "6";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ is commutative by the equality $\ell_M{^{\prime}}{\circ}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)=\ell_M$ and the functoriality of the tensor product. Similarly, $$\xy
(-18,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M)}="0";
(18,8)*+{({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}){\otimes}M}="2";
(-18,-8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}({{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M)}="4";
(18,-8)*+{({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}{{\Omega}^k}){\otimes}M}="6";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{{\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}}){\otimes}M} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{{\mathrm{as}}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy
\ \ \text{and}\ \
\xy
(-16,8)*+{({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}){\otimes}M}="0";
(16,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M}="2";
(-16,-8)*+{({{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}{{\Omega}^k}){\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M}="4";
(16,-8)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M}="6";
{\ar^(0.6){\ell_{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}}{\otimes}M} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}{\mathbf{p}}){\otimes}M} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{{\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M} "2";"6"};
{\ar_(0.6){\ell_{{{\Omega}^k}}{^{\prime}}{\underset{d}{{\otimes}}}M} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ are commutative. Now the commutativity of $(\ref{CommForM})$ follows from the commutativity of $$\xy
(-36,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M)}="0";
(0,8)*+{({{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}){\otimes}M}="2";
(36,8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M}="4";
(-36,-8)*+{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}M}="10";
(36,-8)*+{M}="14";
{\ar^{{\mathrm{as}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar^(0.6){\ell_{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}}{\otimes}M} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}{\otimes}\ell_M} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{\ell_M} "4";"14"};
{\ar_{\ell_M} "10";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"14"};
\endxy$$ and the epimorphicity of ${\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)$, by a similar argument as for the commutativity of $(\ref{TTTTT}$).
\[PropBurnside\] $({{\Omega}^k}, \ell_{{{\Omega}^k}}{^{\prime}}, {\mathbf{p}})$ is a deflative commutative Green functor on ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. Moreover, ${\mathbf{p}}{\colon}{{{\Omega}^k}_{\mathrm{big}}}\to{{\Omega}^k}$ is a morphism of Green functors.
This follows from the definition of $\ell{^{\prime}}$ and the commutativity of $(\ref{CommForM})$ applied to $M={{\Omega}^k}$.
\[PropActOmega\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k})$, the following are equivalent.
1. $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$.
2. $M$ has a $($unique$)$ structure of an ${{\Omega}^k}$-module.
By Corollary \[CorEquivDefl1\], $M$ belongs to ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$ if and only if there is a unique morphism $\ell{^{\prime}}_M{\colon}{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M\to M$ satisfying $\ell{^{\prime}}_M{\circ}({\mathbf{p}}{\otimes}M)=\ell_M$. This commutativity corresponds to the commutativity of [(ii)]{} in Definition \[DefModule\], for $({\Gamma},m,u)=({{\Omega}^k},\ell_{{{\Omega}^k}}{^{\prime}},{\mathbf{p}})$. Moreover, if $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, the commutativity of $(\ref{CommForM})$ means the commutativity of [(i)]{} in Definition \[DefModule\]. Uniqueness of the ${{\Omega}^k}$-module structure on $M$ follows from the uniqueness of $\ell{^{\prime}}_M$ in Corollary \[CorEquivDefl1\].
\[ThmEquivOModDefl\] There is an equivalence of categories ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d\simeq{{{\Omega}^k}{\mathit{Mod}}}$.
By Proposition \[PropActOmega\], each of these categories can be viewed as a subcategory of ${\mathscr{M}^k}$, whose class of objects is equal to ${\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$. What remains to show is that the inclusion $${{{\Omega}^k}{\mathit{Mod}}}\hookrightarrow{\mathscr{M}^k}_d$$ is full. Namely, it suffices to show the following.
- For any $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, any morphism $f\in{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N)$ makes the following diagram commutative. $$\xy
(-12,7)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}M}="0";
(12,7)*+{{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}N}="2";
(-12,-7)*+{M}="4";
(12,-7)*+{N}="6";
{\ar^{{{\Omega}^k}{\otimes}f} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\ell_M{^{\prime}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{\ell_N{^{\prime}}} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{f} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$
This follows from the naturality of $\ell{^{\prime}}$.
Monoidal equivalence ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d\simeq{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$
===============================================================================
In this section, we show [(III)]{}. The following has been shown in [@N_BisetMackey].
\[FactEquivN\]([@N_BisetMackey section 6, Theorem 6.3.11]) An equivalence of categories $\Phi{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d\to{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ is given in the following way.
1. Let $M$ be an object in ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$. Then an object $\Phi(M)$ in ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ is associated to $M$ as follows.
- For any finite group $G$, put $\Phi(M)(G)=M(\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G})$.
- For any $H$-$G$-biset $U$, put $\Phi(M)(U)=M(s_{(U)})$. Here, $s_{(U)}\in{\mathcal{B}}(G,H)$ is defined as $$s_{(U)}=[{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}{\overset}{\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(H)}}}}{{\longleftarrow}}\frac{U}{H{\times}G}{\overset}{\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(G)}}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}]$$ where $U$ is regarded as an $H{\times}G$-set by $(h,g)u=hug{^{-1}}$ $({\forall}(h,g)\in H{\times}G)$.
By the linearity, this is extended to any morphism in ${\mathcal{B}}$.
2. Let $\varphi{\colon}M\to N$ be a morphism in ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$. Then a morphism $\Phi(\varphi){\colon}\Phi(M)\to \Phi(N)$ is defined by $$\Phi(\varphi)=\{ \varphi_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}{\colon}M({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})\to N({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}) \}_{G\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})}.$$
$\Phi$ sends ${{\Omega}^k}\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$ to the Burnside biset functor, i.e., the unit for the tensor product in ${{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$.
\[PropPermBF\] For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$ and $G\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})$, we have an isomorphism $$\varpi^{(M,G)}{\colon}\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\Phi(M)_G$$ natural in $M$, where the right hand side is given by the Yoneda-Dress construction for biset functors defined in [@Bouc_biset Definition 8.2.3].
Moreover, this makes the following diagram commutative for any $G{^{\prime}}$-$G$-biset $V$. $$\label{XYZ}
\xy
(-14,7)*+{\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})}="0";
(14,7)*+{\Phi(M)_G}="2";
(-14,-7)*+{\Phi(M_{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G{^{\prime}}}})}="4";
(14,-7)*+{\Phi(M)_{G{^{\prime}}}}="6";
{\ar^{\varpi^{(M,G)}}_{\cong} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\Phi(M_{s(V)})} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{\Phi(M)_V} "2";"6"};
{\ar_{\varpi^{(M,G{^{\prime}})}} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ Here, $\Phi(M)_V$ denotes the morphism of biset functors given by $$\{ \Phi(M)(H{\times}V){\colon}\Phi(M)(H{\times}G)\to\Phi(M)(H{\times}G{^{\prime}}) \}_{H\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})}.$$
By definition, $\Phi(M)_G$ and $\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})$ are given as follows.
- For any $H\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})$, we have $$\Phi(M)_G(H)=M(\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H{\times}G}),\quad \Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})(H)=M({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}).$$
- For any $K$-$H$-biset $U$, we have $$\Phi(M)_G(U)=M(s_{(U{\times}G)}),\quad \Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})(U)=M(s_{(U)}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}),$$ where $U{\times}G$ is the $(K{\times}G)$-$(H{\times}G)$-biset with an action given by $$\begin{aligned}
&(k,g_1)(u,g)(h,g_2)=(kuh,g_1gg_2)&\\
&({\forall}(k,g_1)\in K{\times}G,\ {\forall}(u,g)\in U{\times}G,\ {\forall}(h,g_2)\in H{\times}G).&\end{aligned}$$
Denote the isomorphism in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ $${\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H{\times}G}$$ by ${\underline}{\gamma}_{H,G}$. This is natural in $G$ and $H$. It induces $$\varpi^{(M,G)}_H=M({\mathbf{T}}_{{\underline}{\gamma}_{H,G}}){\colon}\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})(H){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\Phi(M)_G(H).$$ (For the symbol ${\mathbf{T}}$, see Remark \[RemTRemT\].)
There exists an isomorphism in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ (i.e. the composition of the following) $$\frac{U}{K{\times}H}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{U}{K{\times}H}{\times}\frac{G}{G{\times}G}{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\frac{U{\times}G}{(K{\times}G){\times}(H{\times}G)}$$ which fits into the following commutative diagram in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. $$\xy
(-28,8)*+{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{\frac{U}{K{\times}H}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}="2";
(28,8)*+{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}="4";
(-28,-8)*+{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K{\times}G}}="10";
(0,-8)*+{\frac{U{\times}G}{(K{\times}G){\times}(H{\times}G)}}="12";
(28,-8)*+{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H{\times}G}}="14";
{\ar_{\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(K)}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}} "2";"0"};
{\ar^(0.56){\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(H)}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{\gamma}_{K,G}}^{\cong} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{\cong} "2";"12"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{\gamma}_{H,G}}_{\cong} "4";"14"};
{\ar^(0.6){\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(K{\times}G)}}} "12";"10"};
{\ar_(0.6){\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(H{\times}G)}}} "12";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"12"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"14"};
\endxy$$ This makes the following diagram commutative, $$\xy
(-18,8)*+{\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})(K)}="0";
(18,8)*+{\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})(H)}="2";
(-18,-8)*+{\Phi(M)_G(K)}="4";
(18,-8)*+{\Phi(M)_G(H)}="6";
{\ar_{\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})(U)} "2";"0"};
{\ar_{\varpi^{(M,G)}_K}^{\cong} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{\varpi^{(M,G)}_H}_{\cong} "2";"6"};
{\ar^{\Phi(M)_G(U)} "6";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ and thus gives isomorphism $\varpi^{(M,G)}=\{\varpi^{(M,G)}_H\}_{H\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})}{\colon}\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}\Phi(M)_G$. Naturality in $M$ can be checked in a straightforward way.
Similarly, the commutativity of $(\ref{XYZ})$ follows from the existence of the following commutative diagram in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. $$\xy
(-28,8)*+{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K}}{\times}{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}="0";
(0,8)*+{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K}}{\times}\frac{V}{G{\times}G{^{\prime}}}}="2";
(28,8)*+{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K}}{\times}\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G{^{\prime}}}}="4";
(-28,-8)*+{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K{\times}G}}="10";
(0,-8)*+{\frac{K{\times}V}{(K{\times}G){\times}(K{\times}G{^{\prime}})}}="12";
(28,-8)*+{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K{\times}G{^{\prime}}}}="14";
{\ar_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K}}{\times}\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(G)}}} "2";"0"};
{\ar^(0.56){{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{K}}{\times}\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(G{^{\prime}})}}} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{{\underline}{\gamma}_{K,G}}^{\cong} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{\cong} "2";"12"};
{\ar^{{\underline}{\gamma}_{K,G{^{\prime}}}}_{\cong} "4";"14"};
{\ar^(0.6){\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(K{\times}G)}}} "12";"10"};
{\ar_(0.6){\frac{{\mathbf{t}}}{{\mathrm{pr}}^{(K{\times}G{^{\prime}})}}} "12";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"12"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"14"};
\endxy$$
\[PropMonMB\] For any $M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, there is a natural isomorphism of biset functors $$\xi^{(M,N)}{\colon}\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(M,N))){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N)).$$ Here, ${\mathcal{H}}{\colon}({{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k})^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\times}{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}\to{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ denotes the internal Hom functor for biset functors defined in [@Bouc_biset Definition 8.3.1].
Put $P=\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(M,N))$ and $Q={\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N))$ for simplicity. For any $G\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})$, we define $\xi^{(M,N)}_G$ to be the composition of $$\begin{aligned}
P(G)&=&{\mathscr{H}}_d(M,N)({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})\ =\ {\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})\\
&\underset{\Phi}{{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}}&{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}))\underset{\varpi^{(N,G)}{\circ}-}{{\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}}{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N)_G)=Q(G),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}){\overset}{\cong}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}))$ is the isomorphism between the sets of morphisms induced from the equivalence $\Phi{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$.
It remains to show the compatibility with respect to morphisms in ${\mathcal{B}}$. Let $U$ be any $H$-$G$-biset. The homomorphisms $$P(U){\colon}P(G)\to P(H)\quad\text{and}\quad Q(U){\colon}Q(G)\to Q(H)$$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathscr{H}}_d(M,N)(s_{(U)})=(N_{s_{(U)}}{\circ}-)&{\colon}&{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})\to{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}}),\\
{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N))(U)=(\Phi(N)_U{\circ}-)&{\colon}&{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N)_G)\to{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N)_H)\end{aligned}$$ by their definitions. Thus the diagram $(\ref{XYZ})$ induces the following commutative diagram. $$\xy
(-42,8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})}="0";
(-4,8)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}))}="2";
(42,8)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N)_G)}="4";
(-42,-8)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}})}="10";
(-4,-8)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{H}}}))}="12";
(42,-8)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N)_H)}="14";
{\ar^(0.44){\Phi}_(0.44){\cong} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{\varpi^{(N,G)}{\circ}-}_{\cong} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{P(U)}^{=(N_{s_{(U)}}{\circ}-)} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{\Phi(N_{s_{(U)}}){\circ}-} "2";"12"};
{\ar_{Q(U)}^{=(\Phi(N)_U{\circ}-)} "4";"14"};
{\ar_(0.44){\Phi}^(0.44){\cong} "10";"12"};
{\ar_{\varpi^{(N,H)}{\circ}-}^{\cong} "12";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"12"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"14"};
\endxy$$ This means $Q(U){\circ}\xi^{(M,N)}_G=\xi^{(M,N)}_H{\circ}P(U)$. By linearity, it follows that $\xi^{(M,N)}$ is compatible with any morphism in ${\mathcal{B}}$.
\[ThmMonMB\] The equivalence $\Phi{\colon}{\mathscr{M}^k}_d{\overset}{\simeq}{{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}$ is a monoidal equivalence.
Since $\Phi({{\Omega}^k})$ is equal to the Burnside biset functor, $\Phi$ preserves the units for the tensor products. By the adjoint property, it remains to confirm that $\Phi$ satisfies the following compatibility conditions.
1. For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, for the natural morphisms $${{\Omega}^k}{\overset}{v}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathscr{H}}_d(M,M),\quad\Phi({{\Omega}^k}){\overset}{v{^{\prime}}}{{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(M),\Phi(M)),$$ the following diagram is commutative. $$\xy
(-16,6)*+{\Phi({{\Omega}^k})}="0";
(16,6)*+{\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(M,M))}="2";
(-2,-6)*+{}="3";
(16,-8)*+{{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(M),\Phi(M))}="4";
{\ar^(0.4){\Phi(v)} "0";"2"};
{\ar_(0.4){v{^{\prime}}} "0";"4"};
{\ar^(0.4){\xi^{(M,M)}}_{\cong} "2";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "2";"3"};
\endxy$$
2. For any $M\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, for the natural morphisms $${\mathscr{H}}_d({{\Omega}^k},M){\overset}{j}{{\longrightarrow}}M,\quad{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi({{\Omega}^k}),\Phi(M)){\overset}{j{^{\prime}}}{{\longrightarrow}}\Phi(M),$$ the following diagram is commutative. $$\xy
(-18,6)*+{\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d({{\Omega}^k},M))}="0";
(18,6)*+{\Phi(M)}="2";
(2,-6)*+{}="3";
(-18,-8)*+{{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi({{\Omega}^k}),\Phi(M))}="4";
{\ar^{\Phi(j)} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\xi^{({{\Omega}^k},M)}}^{\cong} "0";"4"};
{\ar_{j{^{\prime}}} "4";"2"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"3"};
\endxy$$
3. For any $L,M,N\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathscr{M}^k}_d)$, the following diagram is commutative. $$\xy
(-40,8)*+{\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(M,N))}="0";
(0,22)*+{\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d({\mathscr{H}}_d(L,M),{\mathscr{H}}_d(L,N)))}="2";
(40,8)*+{{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(L,M)),\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(L,N)))}="4";
(-40,-8)*+{{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(M),\Phi(N))}="10";
(0,-22)*+{{\mathcal{H}}({\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(L),\Phi(M)),{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(L),\Phi(M))))}="12";
(40,-8)*+{{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(L,M)),{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(L),\Phi(N)))}="14";
{\ar^{} "0";"2"};
{\ar^{} "2";"4"};
{\ar_{\xi^{(M,N)}} "0";"10"};
{\ar^{{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi({\mathscr{H}}_d(L,M)),\xi^{(L,N)})} "4";"14"};
{\ar^{} "10";"12"};
{\ar_{\qquad{\mathcal{H}}(\xi^{(L,M)},{\mathcal{H}}(\Phi(L),\Phi(M)))} "12";"14"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"14"};
\endxy$$
[(1)]{} It suffices to show the commutativity of $$\label{LastA}
\xy
(-22,6)*+{{{\Omega}^k}({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})}="0";
(22,6)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}_d(M,M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})}="2";
(-22,-6)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(M)_G)}="4";
(22,-6)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi(M),\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}))}="6";
{\ar^{v_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{v{^{\prime}}_G} "0";"4"};
{\ar^{\Phi} "2";"6"};
{\ar^{\varpi^{(M,G)}{\circ}-} "6";"4"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ for any $G\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})$. For any $A\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({{}_G\mathit{set}})$, those $v_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}(A)$ and $v_G{^{\prime}}(A)$ are given by $$v_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}(A)=M_{s_{(A)}},\quad v{^{\prime}}_G(A)=\Phi(M)_A$$ where $A$ is viewed as an $G$-$e$-biset. Thus the commutativity of $(\ref{LastA})$ follows from the commutativity of $(\ref{XYZ})$.
[(2)]{} It suffices to show the commutativity of $$\label{LastB}
\xy
(-24,6)*+{{\mathscr{M}^k}_d({{\Omega}^k},M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})}="0";
(24,6)*+{M({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})}="2";
(-24,-6)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi({{\Omega}^k}),\Phi(M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}))}="4";
(24,-6)*+{{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi({{\Omega}^k}),\Phi(M)_G)}="6";
{\ar^{j_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}} "0";"2"};
{\ar_{\Phi} "0";"4"};
{\ar_{j{^{\prime}}_G} "6";"2"};
{\ar_{\varpi^{(M,G)}{\circ}-} "4";"6"};
{\ar@{}|\circlearrowright "0";"6"};
\endxy$$ for any $G\in{\mathrm{Ob}}({\mathcal{B}})$. For any $\varphi\in{\mathscr{M}^k}_d({{\Omega}^k},M_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}})$ and any $\psi\in{{\mathcal{F}}_{{\mathcal{B}}}^k}(\Phi({{\Omega}^k}),\Phi(M)_G)$, those $j_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}(\varphi),j{^{\prime}}_G(\psi)\in M({\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}})$ are given by $$j_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{G}}}(\varphi)=\varphi_{{\frac{{\mathbf{1}}}{e}}}({{\mathbf{1}}}),\quad j{^{\prime}}_G(\psi)=\psi_e({\mathbf{1}}),$$ where ${\mathbf{1}}\in{{\Omega}^k}(e)$ denotes the trivial one-point set as before. Thus the commutativity of $(\ref{LastB})$ follows from the definition of $\Phi(\varphi)$.
[(3)]{} is also shown by the evaluation.
\[Cor2\] The category of Green biset functors is equivalent to ${{\mathit{Green}}_{{\mathrm{dfl}}}^k({{\mathscr{C}}})}$.
By Proposition \[PropDeflMon\], a deflative Green functor is nothing but a monoid object in the monoidal category ${\mathscr{M}^k}_d$. Thus this immediately follows from Theorem \[ThmMonMB\], since a monoidal equivalence induces an equivalence between the categories of monoids.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This article has been written when the author was staying at LAMFA, l’Université de Picardie-Jules Verne, by the support of JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad. He wishes to thank the hospitality of Professor Serge Bouc, Professor Radu Stancu and the members of LAMFA.
[10]{} Aguiar, M.; Mahajan, S.: *Monoidal functors, species and Hopf algebras*. With forewords by Kenneth Brown and Stephen Chase and André Joyal. CRM Monograph Series, **29**. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010.
Barwick, C.: *Spectral Mackey functors and equivariant algebraic $K$-theory [(I)]{}*, arXiv:1404.0108.
Borceux, F.: *Handbook of categorical algebra. 1. Basic category theory*, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, **50**. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. xvi+345 pp.
Bouc, S.: *Fused Mackey functors*, Geom. Dedicata **176** (2015) 225–240. .
Bouc, S.: *Biset functors for finite groups*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1990, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2010).
Bouc, S.: *Green functors and $G$-sets*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1671, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1997).
Cisinski, D-C.: *Images directes cohomologiques dans les catégories de modèles*. (French) \[Cohomological direct images in model categories\] Ann. Math. Blaise Pascal **10** (2003) no. 2, 195–244.
Coşkun, O.: *Inducing native Mackey functors to biset functors*. J. Pure Appl. Algebra **219** (2015) no. 6, 2359–2380.
Groth, M.: *Derivators, pointed derivators and stable derivators*. Algebr. Geom. Topol. **13** (2013) no. 1, 313–374.
Hambleton, I.; Taylor, L.R.; Williams, E.B.: *Mackey functors and bisets*. Geom. Dedicata **148** (2010) 157–174.
Ibarra, J.: *A generalization of the category of biset functors*, preprint.
Joyal, Street.: *Pullbacks equivalent to pseudopullbacks*, Cahiers Topologie Géom. Différentielle Catég. **34** (1993) no. 2, 153–156.
Leinster, T.: *Basic bicategories*, arXiv:math/9810017.
Mac Lane, S.: *Categories for the working mathematician*. Second edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, **5**. Springer-Verlag, New York, (1998). xii+314 pp.
Mac Lane, S.; Moerdijk, I.: *Sheaves in geometry and logic. A first introduction to topos theory*. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. xii+629 pp.
Nakaoka, H.: *A Mackey-functor theoretic interpretation of biset functors*, Adv. Math. **289** (2016) 603–684.
Nakaoka, H.: *Partial Tambara structure on the Burnside biset functor, induced from a derivator-like system of adjoint triplets*, J. Algebra **451** (2016) 166–207.
Panchadcharam, E.; Street, R.: *Mackey functors on compact closed categories*. J. Homotopy Relat. Struct. **2** (2007) no. 2, 261–293.
Romero, N.: *Simple modules over Green biset functors*. J. Algebra **367** (2012) 203–221.
[^1]: The author wishes to thank Professor Serge Bouc for his comments and advices
[^2]: The author wishes to thank Professor Ivo Dell’Ambrogio, for his interest and stimulating discussions
[^3]: This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 25800022, 24540085.
[^4]: These conditions are similar to [(Der1),(Der3g),(Der4g)]{} for [*dérivateur faible à gauche*]{} in [@Cisinski Définition 1.11]. However, we remark that [(iii)]{} is stronger than [(Der4g)]{}, since we do not assume [(Der2)]{}.
[^5]: As the proof suggests, the existence of an isomorphism $(p_{{\mathcal{J}}})_{!}{\circ}p_{{\mathcal{I}}}{^{\ast}}\cong J{^{\ast}}{\circ}I_{!}$ (not specifying the isomorphism used) is enough to show Proposition \[PropDerivtoMack\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We probe acoustic phonon mediated relaxation between tunnel coupled exciton states in an individual quantum dot molecule in which the inter-dot quantum coupling and energy separation between exciton states is continuously tuned using static electric field. Time resolved and temperature dependent optical spectroscopy are used to probe inter-level relaxation around the point of maximum coupling. The radiative lifetimes of the coupled excitonic states can be tuned from $\sim2$ ns to $\sim10$ ns as the spatially *direct* and *indirect* character of the wavefunction is varied by detuning from resonance. Acoustic phonon mediated inter-level relaxation is shown to proceed over timescales comparable to the *direct* exciton radiative lifetime, indicative of a relaxation bottleneck for level spacings in the range $\Delta E\sim3-6$ meV.'
author:
- 'T. Nakaoka$^{1,2}$, H. J. Krenner$^1$, E. C. Clark$^1$, M. Sabathil$^1$, M. Bichler$^1$, Y. Arakawa$^2$, G. Abstreiter$^1$, and J. J. Finley$^1$'
title: Direct observation of acoustic phonon mediated relaxation between coupled exciton states in a single quantum dot molecule
---
The charge and spin degrees of freedom of localized charges in quantum dot (QD) nanostructures currently attract significant interest due to their potential to form quantum bits for an inherently scalable quantum processor based on solid-state hardware. The implementation of such coherent devices using QDs can be traced to the strong three dimensional confinement that gives rise to relatively long coherence times for charge[@zrenner; @hayashi] and spin[@kroutvar; @lossnano] excitations when compared to the time required for quantum state manipulation. Very recently, advances in QD fabrication have allowed the realization of self-assembled double dot nanostructures in which the quantum coupling between electronic states, and the spatial localization of the exciton wavefunctions, can be continuously varied by varying the potential applied to a metal gate contact.[@krenner; @krenner2; @ortner2] Such tunable QD-molecules (QDMs) may allow ultrafast coherent manipulation using electro-optical techniques and may exhibit *conditional* coherent dynamics.[@VilasBoas]\
A main obstacle to the realization of coherent QDM devices is decoherence caused by coupling to phonons.[@climente; @muljarov; @borri01; @borriQDM] In pioneering work by Bockelmann[@bockelmann1] phonon mediated relaxation between discrete electronic states in QDs was predicted to occur over timescales comparable to the radiative lifetime, an effect commonly termed the phonon *bottleneck*. However, experiments quickly revealed little or no evidence for bottleneck effects for level spacings of a few $10$´s of meV. These findings were explained by the participation of multi phonon processes [@sakaki], Coulomb scattering [@ohnesorge] or polaron formation.[@polaron2] In contrast, for level spacings of only a *few* meV, acoustic phonons have been shown to be the dominant source of decoherence for both single [@fujisawa02; @borri01] and vertically coupled[@ortner1; @hayashi; @borriQDM; @climente; @muljarov] quantum dots. In this case the inter-level scattering rate can be strongly suppressed *or* enhanced, depending on the spatial extent of the carrier wavefunction.[@climente] Therefore, experimental information on the phonon mediated coupling of the discrete states of a QDM is of fundamental importance for comparison with theory.\
In this paper we probe acoustic phonon mediated inter-level relaxation between molecular-like coupled single exciton ($e+h$) states in an individual self-assembled QDM. The inter-dot tunnel coupling is controlled by varying the axial electric field, enabling us to tune the coupled state energy splitting in the range $\Delta E\sim 3$ - $6$ meV and control the mixing between spatially *direct* ($e$ + $h$ localized in upper dot) and *indirect* ($e$ in lower dot, $h$ in upper dot) excitons. By combining continuous wave (CW), time resolved and temperature dependent spectroscopy we demonstrate the ability to control the exciton spontaneous emission lifetime and probe acoustic phonon mediated relaxation as the level spacing and spatial character of the exciton wavefunction is varied.
![(color online) (a) PL spectra of a single QDM as a function of the electric field. (Inset) schematic of the $n-i$ Schottky diodes studied.(b) Upper panel: Experimental (symbols) and calculated (dashed lines) exciton energies for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{}. Middle panel: Energy splitting between [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} and fitting (see text). Lower panel: Relative intensities $I_{A,B}/(I_A + I_B)$ and the resonant field (dashed line). []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="\textwidth"}
The QDMs studied consisted of two layers of stacked InGaAs QDs with a nominal inter-dot separation of $d=10$ nm. The molecules were embedded in an $n-i$ Schottky photodiode structure to control the static electric field $(F)$ along the growth axis and Al shadow masks were defined to optically isolate single QDMs. A schematic of the device structure is presented in the inset of Fig. 1(a). Further details of the InGaAs-GaAs QDM epitaxial layer sequence and sample fabrication can be found elsewhere.[@krenner2; @krenner] Time resolved studies were performed using a gated Si-APD and time-correlated single photon counting techniques that provided a temporal resolution of $\lesssim0.2$ ns. Carriers were photogenerated by a mode-locked Ti:Sapphire laser tuned at 1.48 eV to excite the QDM wetting layer that delivers $\sim$2 ps duration pulses with an energy of 6 fJ.\
A series of time integrated photoluminescence (PL) spectra recorded as a function of electric field ($F$) are presented in the main panel of Fig. 1(a). A clear anti-crossing between two transitions, labeled $X_A$ and $X_B$, can clearly be observed. These two peaks, which will be the focus of this paper, arise due to the coupling of spatially direct and indirect neutral excitons as discussed in our previous publications.[@krenner; @krenner2] Other peaks observed, even at the lowest excitation powers investigated ($P_{ex}$ $\sim$ 0.1 W/cm$^2$) also arise from the same QDM and arise from *negatively* charged excitons as discussed in ref. [@krenner3]. At a low field ($F \lesssim$ 14 kV/cm) $X_B$ is predominantly an unmixed state with spatially direct character. Thus, it shifts weakly with field and has a high electron-hole overlap and, consequently, a large oscillator strength. In contrast, [$X_A$]{} is a state with predominantly indirect character over this low field range and, thus, shifts strongly with $F$ and has a weak oscillator strength.[@krenner] As the electric field increases, [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} shift closer to one another and become increasingly mixed until, for $F_{crit}\sim 15.8$ kV/cm, they anticross. At this point the *electron* component of the exciton wavefunction hybridizes over both dots to produce exciton states with bonding ([$X_B$]{} ) and anti-bonding ([$X_A$]{} ) character. The measured peak positions are compared with effective mass calculations of the coupled exciton states that include strain, quantum tunneling coupling, and Coulomb interaction for a model QDM with $d = 11$ nm. [@krenner2] The results of this calculation are shown by the dashed lines on Fig 1(b) (top panel), reproducing well both the field dependence of the transition energies of [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} and the coupling energy at $F_{crit}$ marked by a vertical line. Below, we use these effective mass calculations to obtain the $F$-dependence of the relative oscillator strengths of [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} and compare them to the results of our time resolved and CW spectroscopy. As expected for a coupled quantum system, the energy splitting between [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} is well represented by $\Delta E= \sqrt{ (2\Delta E_{e-e})^2 + (\delta_{e-e}\cdot (F - F_{crit}))^2}$ with $\delta_{e-e}\cdot(F - F_{crit})$ being the detuning from the point of maximum coupling \[Fig. 1(b) - middle panel\].\
The lower panel of Fig. 1(b) shows the relative intensities $I_{A,B}/(I_A+I_B)$ of the upper and lower exciton branches as the resonance field is traversed. Clearly, the field at which the two exciton branches have equal relative intensities is *larger* than the critical electric field of $F_{crit}$=15.8 kV/cm. This observation contrasts strongly with the simple expectation that the radiative rates and populations are similar for both states at $F_{crit}$.[@similar-recom] Moreover, it indicates the presence of a relaxation process from [$X_A$]{} to [$X_B$]{} which is active over timescales comparable to the radiative lifetime. We note that the observed intensity ratio of $I_{A}/I_{B}\sim 1:5$ does not reflect a thermal population distribution since only the lower exciton branch would be significantly populated $[\exp(-2\Delta E_{e-e}/k_{B}T)< 10^{-4}]$.
![ (color online) (a) Normalized PL decay curves for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{}, measured at $F-F_{crit}=2.6 $kV/cm. Dashed and the solid lines are fits with a mono-exponential function and a bi-exponential function, respectively. (b) The PL decay rates for [$X_A$]{} ($D_a$) (solid circles) and [$X_B$]{} (solid squares) obtained by the mono-exponential fittings. Total population decay rates for [$X_B$]{} ($D_b$) (open squares) based on the rate equation model discussed in the text are also shown.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="\textwidth"}
In order to obtain further information about the nature of the relaxation process we performed time resolved spectroscopy on the two exciton branches as a function of electric field. Typical PL decay traces recorded for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} are presented in Fig. 2(a) for an electric field *detuned* ($F-F_{crit}=+2.6$ kV/cm) from the critical field. Under these conditions [$X_B$]{} exhibits a much slower decay than [$X_A$]{} since the spatial overlap of the electron and the hole is much weaker for the mixed exciton state due to its stronger fraction of indirect character.
Before entering into detailed analysis we present a summary of the decay lifetimes as a function of positive and negative detuning, either side of $F_{crit}$. From fitting the observed decay transients using single exponential decay functions we obtain the decay rates for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} presented in Fig. 2(b). With increasing the electric field the decay rate measured for [$X_A$]{} increases by a factor of $\sim3\times$ whilst the [$X_B$]{} decay rate decreases by a similar factor. This distinct anti-correlation between the field dependent PL-decay rates recorded for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} demonstrates clearly that the electric field *tunes* the direct-indirect character of the two mixed excitonic states. States with strong *indirect* character have lower decay rates, increasing as the *direct* admixture becomes larger.
![ (color online) (a) Experimental (solid squares) and calculated (solid line) radiative recombination rates plotted as a function of $F$. (Inset) schematic processes for radiative recombinations of the exciton states [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{}, relaxation between them, and electron capture. (b) Phonon relaxation rate $\gamma=\gamma_0$ at 4.2 K from [$X_A$]{} to [$X_B$]{}obtained from the time-resolved PL and rate-equation model.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="\textwidth"}
Surprisingly we find that [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} do *not* have the same decay rate at $F_{crit}$ despite our simple expectation that the two states should carry similar oscillator strength. Instead, the observation of a different decay rate for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} at $F_{crit}$ strongly indicates the existence of a non-radiative relaxation channel from the antibonding ([$X_A$]{}) to the bonding state ([$X_B$]{}) with a rate comparable to the pure radiative lifetime. In order to quantify the relaxation rate and radiative lifetime, we consider a simplified rate equation model illustrated by the 3 level system presented in the inset of Fig. 3(a). In this model, the two neutral exciton levels [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} decay radiatively with electric field dependent rates $R_a$ and $R_b$, respectively. The non-radiative relaxation between the upper and lower exciton branches are taken into account by down ($\gamma$) and up ($\gamma'$) scattering rates due to phonon emission. In addition, a phenomenological electron capture process with rate $\nu$ is included due to the prominence of negatively charged excitons in the PL spectra presented in Fig. 1(a). The rate equations for the population of [$X_A$]{} ([$N_a$]{}) and [$X_B$]{} ([$N_b$]{}) subject to the processes discussed above can be set in the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rate}
\frac{dN_a}{dt} & = & -R_aN_a - \gamma N_a + \gamma 'N_b - \nu N_a + G, \\
\frac{dN_b}{dt} & = & -R_bN_b - \gamma 'N_b + \gamma N_a - \nu N_b + G,\end{aligned}$$
where $G$ is the neutral exciton generation rate which is the same for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{}. In order to simplify further our analysis, we note that $\gamma' \ll \gamma=\gamma_0$ at 4.2 K since the phonon population is negligible ($< 10^{-4}$) and solve the rate equations to obtain the time dependence of [$N_a$]{} and [$N_b$]{}, viz. $$\begin{aligned}
N_a & = & \exp(-D_at) \\
N_b & = & (1+\alpha)\exp(-D_bt)-\alpha \exp(-D_at).\end{aligned}$$ Here $D_a = R_a + \nu + \gamma_0$ and $D_b = R_b + \nu $ are the measured decay rates for [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} and $\alpha = \gamma_0/(D_a - D_b)$. The decay rates extracted from a least squares fitting of mono- ($N_a$) and bi-exponential ($N_b$) transients are presented in Fig. 2(b) from which we estimate $\gamma_0\sim 0.6 \pm 0.5$ ns$^{-1}$. Here, the error is large as $\gamma_0$ is extracted from the relative amplitudes of the bi-exponential fit. Thus, we also estimated $\gamma_0$ by measuring the difference between [$D_a$]{} and [$D_b$]{} \[Fig. 2(b)\] at $F_{crit}$. This provides a direct measure of the inter-level relaxation rate since $R_a(F_{crit})\approxeq R_b(F_{crit})$ providing that the charged exciton formation rate is the same for both [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} . This approach yields $\gamma_0(F_{crit})=D_a(F_{crit}) - D_b(F_{crit}) \sim 0.7\pm 0.3$ ns$^{-1}$, in good agreement with the value obtained by fitting the bi-exponential decay transient.\
In order to investigate the $F$-dependence of $\gamma_0$ we need to estimate $\nu$, the electron capture rate. To do this we focus on the field range $-1$ kV/cm $<(F-F_{crit})< 3$ kV/cm, since the charged excitons are pronounced at lower field and [$D_b$]{} can be directly measured in this region. We expect that the recombination rate of the *indirect* exciton $R_b$ is much smaller than $\nu$ in the high field range ($F > 18$ kV/cm), since [$X_B$]{} is much weaker than other lines arising from charged exciton recombination \[Fig. 1(a)\]. We then estimate $\nu = 0.9$ ns$^{-1}$ from [$D_b$]{}, constant in this narrow field range since the field dependence of the charged exciton intensity is much weaker than the neutral exciton transitions. Using this value for $\nu$, we deduce the radiative recombination rate $R_b$. The results of this analysis is presented in Fig. 3(a) and compared with the calculated recombination rate obtained in the dipole approximation, i.e. $R={n_{r}e^2E_{exc}E_P}\left| \langle f_e|f_h\rangle\right| ^2/{2\pi \epsilon m_0c^3\hbar^2}$ where $n_r=3.4$ is the refractive index, $E_p=25.7$ eV is the Kane matrix element, $E_{exc}$ is the emission energy, and $\langle f_e|f_h\rangle$ is the overlap integral of the envelope functions obtained from the effective mass calculations used to fit the transition energies in Fig. 1(b). Fairly good quantitative agreement is obtained between these calculations and the values of $R_b$ extracted from our rate equation analysis, strongly supporting the general validity of the analysis. The radiative lifetime can be tuned from $\sim 2$ to $\sim 10$ ns as the fraction of direct character in the mixed exciton state is tuned, in good quantitative agreement with previous reports for vertically stacked QDs.[@bardot; @gerardot] From the extracted values of $R_b$ and $\nu$ we obtain the electric field dependence of $\gamma_0$ presented in Fig. 3(b). Typical values are of the order of $\gamma_0\sim1$ ns$^{-1}$ for a level separation $\Delta E= 3-4$ meV, consistent with recent theory for phonon mediated relaxation in QDMs with properties similar to those investigated here.[@muljarov; @climente]
![(a) Experimental and (b) calculated relative intensities of [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} at 4.2 K and 45 K. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="\textwidth"}
At elevated temperatures both relaxation and activation processes determine the steady state populations $N_a$ and $N_b$ and, thus, the resulting intensities of [$X_A$]{} and [$X_B$]{} ($I_{A}$ and $I_{B}$). Fig. 4(a) shows the measured field dependence of the relative intensities at 4.2 K ($\Delta E\gg k_BT$, $\gamma \gg \gamma^{'}$) and 45 K ($\Delta E \sim k_BT$, $\gamma\sim \gamma^{'}$). At 45 K, $I_{A}\sim I_{B}$ for $F\sim F_{crit}$ as expected since $R_a\sim R_b$ at $F_{crit}$ \[Fig 3(b)\] and the activation process results in $N_a\sim N_b$. This processes is reproduced by our rate equation model with single phonon scattering processes. Solving eqns. (1) and (2) in steady state we obtain the PL intensity ratio for a CW excitation at zero temperature, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{I_{A}}{I_B}= \frac{1+(\nu + 2\gamma')/R_b}{1+(\nu + 2\gamma)/R_a}. \end{aligned}$$
At finite temperature, one-phonon emission (absorption) rates are given by $\gamma(T)=\gamma_0\{ N_{ph}(T)+1\}$ $[\gamma'(T)=\gamma_0 N_{ph}(T)]$, where $N_{ph}(T)$ is the phonon occupation factor. The intensity ratios and their temperature dependence obtained by substituting the calculated $R_a$, $R_b$ and the estimated $\nu $ into the above equation are presented in Fig. 4(b), producing fairly good qualitative agreement with experiment. In particular, the shift of the equal intensity point towards $F\sim F_{crit}$ is reproduced. The broad agreement between the intensity ratios obtained from the CW PL measurement and calculation strongly supports the validity of our rate equation analysis and the assumptions made. In summary, we have demonstrated the existence of inter-level phonon relaxation between the molecular-like exciton states in an individual self-assembled QDM. The relaxation rate is found to be comparable to the radiative recombination rates of the direct excitons demonstrating the existence of a phonon bottleneck in the meV range.Furthermore, we tune the radiative recombination rates of a single molecule as the fraction of the direct exciton character is varied. The observation and the calculation of the thermal evolutions of the exciton populations suggests a dominance of one-phonon processes for the inter-level relaxation in the QDM, with an intrinsic rate $\sim0.5-1.5$ ns$^{-1}$. This work was supported in part by the IT program (RR2002) from the MEXT (Japan) and by the DPG via SFB631 (Germany).
A. Zrenner, E. Beham, S. Stufler, F. Findeis, M. Bichler, and G. Abstreiter, Nature (London) **418**, 612 (2002).
T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H. D. Cheong, Y. H. Jeong, and Y. Hirayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 226804 (2003).
M. Kroutvar, Y. Ducommun, D. Heiss, M. Bichler, D. Schuh, G. Abstreiter, and J. Finley, Nature (London) **432**, 81 (2004).
For a review, see, V. Cerletti, W. A. Coish, O. Gywat and D. Loss, Nanotechnology **16**, R27 (2005).
H. J. Krenner, S. Stufler, M. Sabathil, E. C. Clark, P. Ester, M. Bichler, G. Abstreiter, J. J.Finley and A. Zrenner, New J. Phys. **7**, 184 (2005).
H. J. Krenner, M. Sabathil, E. C. Clark, A. Kress, D. Schuh, M. Bichler, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 057402 (2005).
G. Ortner, M. Bayer, Y. Lyanda-Geller, T. L. Reinecke, A. Kress, J. P. Reithmaier, and A. Forchel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 157401 (2005).
J. M. Villas-Bôas, A. O. Govorov, and S. E. Ulloa, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 125342, (2004). J. I. Climente, A. Bertoni, G. Goldoni and E. Molinari, cond-mat/0604655.
E. A. Muljarov, T. Takagahara, and R. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 177405 (2005).
P. Borri, W. Langbein, U. Woggon, M. Schwab, M. Bayer, S. Fafard, Z. Wasilewski, and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 267401 (2003).
P. Borri, W. Langbein, S. Schneider, U. Woggon, R. L. Sellin, D. Ouyang, and D. Bimberg Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 157401 (2001).
U. Bockelmann, G. Bastard, Phys. Rev. B **42**, 8947 (1990).
T. Inoshita and H. Sakaki, Phys. Rev. B **46**, 7260 (1992).
B. Ohnesorge, M. Albrecht, J. Oshinowo, A. Forchel and Y. Arakawa, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 11532 (1996).
V. Preisler, T. Grange, R. Ferreira, L. A. de Vaulchier, Y. Guldner, F.J. Teran, M. Potemski, and A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 075320 (2006).
T. Fujisawa, D. G. Austing, Y. Tokura, Y. Hirayama and S. Tarucha, Nature (London) 419, 278, (2002).
G. Ortner, R. Oulton, H. Kurtze, M. Schwab, D. R. Yakovlev, M. Bayer, S. Fafard, Z. Wasilewski, and P. Hawrylak Phys. Rev. B **72**, 165353 (2005).
H. J. Krenner, E. C. Clark, T. Nakaoka, M. Bichler, C. Scheurer, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, submitted for publication, cond-mat/0604659.
Our calculation gives the recombination-rate difference of 4 % between $R_a$ and $R_b$ at $F_{crit}$.
C. Bardot, M. Schwab, M. Bayer, S. Fafard, Z. Wasilewski, and P. Hawrylak, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 035314 (2005).
B. D. Gerardot, S. Strauf, M. J. A. de Dood, A. M. Bychkov, A. Badolato, K. Hennessy, E. L. Hu, D. Bouwmeester, and P. M. Petroff, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 137403 (2005).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The $a_0$(980) and $f_0$(980) resonances are two well established states in the excited meson spectrum. We review the most prominent theoretical models which try to explain the structure of these states. It is discussed whether data from COSY on $a_0$ and $f_0$ production in $pp$, $pn$, $pd$ and $dd$ collisions allow to distinguish between the different approaches. Very promising in this respect seems to be the measurement of the reaction $dd \rightarrow
(\mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0 \rightarrow) \,\mathrm{^4He}\, \pi^0\eta$ which violates isospin conservation and can be related to $a_0$-$f_0$ mixing.
address:
- 'Institut für Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum Jülich, 52425 Jülich, Germany'
- 'Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Sobolev Institute for Mathematics, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia'
- 'Institute of Theoretical and Experimental physics, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, 117259 Moscow, Russia'
author:
- 'M.Büscher, F.P.Sassen'
- 'N.N.Achasov,'
- 'L.Kondratyuk'
title: Investigation of light scalar resonances at COSY
---
Overview of theoretical models
==============================
So far a final consensus on the nature of the light scalar mesons has not been reached. In contrast to the case of the $\sigma$ where new data on the in-medium modifications [@TAPS] support the picture of two correlated pions the subject remains quite open concerning the nature of the $a_0$ and $f_0$. In the following a short list of some interpretations given.
$q\bar{q}$-state:
: Despite the very successful mass predictions, e.g. for vector mesons, coming from relativistic constituent quark models, mass predictions in the scalar sector still vary considerably. The predictions depend strongly on the choice for the Dirac structure of the confining potential and the models cannot explain the reason for the $a_0$/$f_0$-mass degeneracy. In Ref. [@RRicken] either the mass of the $a_0$ or the $f_0$ is reproduced depending on the spin parametrisation of confinement. Other authors [@LSCelenza] deduce from their relativistic quark model the need for a glueball mixing with the calculated states to reproduce experimental data. Within those mixing schemes interpretations vary from minimal gluonic admixture to the $q\bar{q}$-states $f_0$ and $a_0$ [@VVAnisovich] up to large gluonic components [@SNarison]. Thus the answers coming from $q\bar{q}$-models are not conclusive yet.
$(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$-states:
: This structure allows for two configurations in colour space: $\{\bar{3}3\}$ and $\{6\bar{6}\}$. Of course those two configurations may mix/ rearrange to form a state like $(q\bar{q})(q\bar{q})$ with colour configuration $\{11\}$. Therefore, the number of expected tetraquark states and their interpretation vary for different calculations and it is difficult to distinguish a mesonic molecule from a tetraquark state. In Ref. [@JVijande] for example 5 tetraquarks are found. From those two are nearly mass degenerate and obtain the mass of the $a_0$ and $f_0$ when a fudge factor is used to account for neglected three and four body forces. This opposes the complete tetraquark nonet expected in Ref. [@FEClose], which might result from the authors considering pure $(qq)_{\bar{3}}(\bar{q}\bar{q})_3$ and only allowing $(q\bar{q})_1(q\bar{q})_1$ admixture for large distances, whereas this component might occur at small distances by mixing of $\{\bar{3}3\}$, $\{6\bar{6}\}$ configurations, resulting in a less attractive interaction. This was for example pointed out in Ref. [@JWeinstein]. In the latter paper it was observed, that the four quarks in the confining potential are mainly arranged as two colour singlets at large $(1.5$ fm$)$ distance and the notion of a mesonic molecule was introduced.
Mesonic molecules:
: Inspired by the original mesonic molecule in Ref. [@JWeinstein] (see the $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ case) a second molecule picture [@DLohse] was developed in which only mesonic degrees of freedom (i.e. colour singlets) were considered. Since $\rho$-exchange between the $K\bar{K}$-pair sets the scale for the bound state identified as $f_0$, it might be even more compact than the molecule of Ref. [@JWeinstein]. This is why radiative $\phi$ decays exclude the extended molecule of Ref. [@JWeinstein] while still giving strong evidence in favour of a compact $K\bar{K}$-state or, as it is phrased in Ref. [@NNAchasov], a compact four-quark state. Furthermore the chiral unitary approach, which in its structure is very close to the mesonic model, has no problems to describe radiative $\phi$-decays [@JAOller], which is a hint that the discussed $K\bar{K}$ state really is compact.
Chiral unitary approach:
: Inspired by chiral perturbation theory, schemes have been developed to deal with unitarity. As above those methods generate bound states from two mesons [@JAOller2]. These states differ from mesonic molecules only by the theoretical framework used to calculate them and not by physical content.
Semi-bound states:
: In some models the attraction for the mesonic sector is not sufficient to generate bound states. One example for this is the cusp-effect in Ref. [@DLohse] which is identified with a $a_0$ signal. Another example would be the model of Ref. [@EvanBeveren]. Here the light scalar mesons do not stem from the confining potential but they have their origin in the $^3P_0$-barrier, which is just too low to generate bound meson-meson states.
Mixing-schemes:
: A different approach to explain the abundance of observed scalar states is to introduce a scalar glueball around $1.4$–$1.8$ GeV as predicted by lattice calculations. This glueball then mixes with the other scalar states to form the observed resonances. Depending on the predicted masses of the glueball and the bare states different mixings are obtained, e.g. [@AKirk].
Vacuum scalars:
: This idea of identifying $f_0$ and $a_0$ as systems formed of negative kinetic energy $u$ and $d$ flavours [@VNGribov] seems to be ruled out by experiment even though the predictive power of this model was plagued by the complexity of the calculations. The predicted compact size of the object contrasts too much with the decay constant ratio of $a_0$ and $K_0^*$ as shown in [@KMaltman].
During the discussion in the workshop, tetraquark models were favoured whereas no conclusion was drawn on the characteristic of the different four-quark states. No key observables have been identified to discriminate mesonic molecules, chiral unitarity effects and $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$-states. It was pointed out that the available data set on the production of the light scalars in hadronic interactions needs to be extended. Measurements of as many observables as possible with different beam($p,\vec{p},d$)-target($p,n,d$) combinations and tests of isospin ratios should be performed. In particular, the observation of the process $dd\to\, ^4\mathrm{He}
\pi^0\eta$ which is forbidden by isospin conservation might yield information about the strength of the $a_0^0$-$f_0$ mixing.
Available data from COSY
========================
Data about the production and decay of the light scalar resonances from COSY are rather scarce yet. Some information about the $a_0^0/f_0$-production cross sections in $pp$ and $pd$ reactions can be deduced model dependently [@Brat01] from data on $K^+K^-$ production. Such measurements have been performed at the COSY-11 and MOMO facilities at beam energies close to the $K^+K^-$-production threshold, see Table \[tab:data\].
------------------- ---------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------ ------------------------
Experiment Reaction $Q$ $\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$ contribution
(MeV) (nb) via $a_0^0/f_0$
COSY-11 [@COSY11] $pp \to pp\,K^+K^-$ 17 $1.8\pm0.27^{+0.26}_{-0.35}$ small [@Brat01]
MOMO [@MOMO] $pd \to\, ^3\mathrm{He}\,K^+K^-$ 40 $9.6\pm1.0$ ?
56 $17.5\pm1.8$ ?
ANKE $pp \to\, d\,K^+\bar{K}^0$ 44 $45\pm6\pm16$ $\sim70$% [@MESON2002]
[*(preliminary)*]{}
------------------- ---------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------ ------------------------
: Overview over the available data from COSY[]{data-label="tab:data"}
According to the model calculations outlined in Ref. [@Brat01], the fraction of resonantly produced $K\bar{K}$ pairs (via the $a_0^0/f_0$) in $pp \to pn\,K^+\bar{K}^0$ reactions is significantly larger than for the $pp \to pp\,K^+K^-$ case. Following this idea, two measurements of the reactions $pp \to d\,K^+\bar{K}^0/\pi^+\eta$ have been performed at the ANKE spectrometer for $Q=44$ and 104 MeV. The total $pp \to d\,K^+\bar{K}^0$ cross section at $Q{=}44$ MeV is about $\sim$45 nb [@Fedorets_QNP2002], in excelent agreement with the model predictions ($\sim$40 nb). The same model predicts a resonant contribution of $\sim$70% for this $Q$ value [@MESON2002]. This interpretation is in line with a preliminary analysis of the $\pi^+\eta$ decay channel where a resonant structure around 980 MeV/c$^2$ is seen in the invariant $\pi^+\eta$-mass distribution with a width of $\Gamma\sim 40$ MeV/c$^2$ [@Fedorets_QNP2002]. From these data it can be concluded that systematic studies of the light scalar mesons are possible with ANKE.
Planned measurements
====================
It was suggested long ago that the coupling of the $a_0(980)$- and $f_0(980)$-resonances to the $K \bar K$ continuum should give rise to a significant $a_0^0$-$f_0$ mixing in the vicinity of the $K \bar K$ threshold [@Achasov]. Different aspects of this mixing, the underlying dynamics, and the possibilities to measure this effect have been discussed in Refs.[@Krehl; @Achasov2; @Grishina2001; @Kudryavtsev; @Kudryavtsev2]. It has been suggested by Close and Kirk [@Clo] that new data from the WA102 collaboration at CERN [@WA102] on the central production of $a_0$ and $f_0$ in the reaction $pp\to p_{\mathrm s} X p_{\mathrm f}$ provide evidence for a significant $a_0$-$f_0$-mixing intensity $|\xi|^2=8\pm 3$%.
Possible experimental tests of isospin violation due to $a_0$-$f_0$ mixing based on a combined analysis of the reactions $$\begin{aligned}
pp \to d\,a_0^+\ \ \ &\mathrm{and}&\ \ pn \to d\,a_0^0\ \\
pd \to\,^3\mathrm{H}\,a_0^+\ \ \ &\mathrm{and}&\ \ pd \to\,^3\mathrm{He}\,a_0^0\end{aligned}$$ are discussed in Ref. [@Grishina2001]. A corresponding proposal for measurements at ANKE [@a0f0_proposal] has already been approved by the COSY-PAC and the measurements are planned for winter 2003/04.
Direct production of the $a_0$ resonance in the reaction $dd
\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0$ is forbidden if isospin is conserved. It can, for example, be observed due to $a_0$-$f_0$ mixing $$\sigma(dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0)
= |\xi|^2\ \cdot \sigma(dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, f_0).
\label{eq:dd2hef0}$$ Therefore it is very interesting to study the reaction $$dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, (\pi^0~ \eta) \label{dd}$$ at $m^2_{\pi\eta}\sim(980\, \mathrm{MeV})^2$. Any signal of reaction (\[dd\]) will be related to isospin breaking, which is expected to be more pronounced near the $f_0$ threshold as compared to the region below (or above).
An important point for the feasibility of such measurements is the magnitude of the cross sections $\sigma (dd \rightarrow
\mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0)$ and $\sigma (dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\,
f_0)$. Experimental data are not available yet and we try to give a qualitative estimate of these cross sections: According to Refs. [@Frascaria; @Willis; @Zlomanchuk], the cross-section ratio $\sigma (dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, \eta )/ \sigma (dd \rightarrow
\mathrm{^3He}\, \eta)$ is about 0.04 at $Q \simeq 10$ MeV. We assume an approximately equal ratio for the case of $K^+ K^-$ production near the threshold: $$\sigma(dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, K^+ K^-) =0.04\cdot
\sigma(pd \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}\, K^+ K^-)\ .$$
Using the MOMO data [@MOMO] on the reaction $pd\rightarrow
\mathrm{^3He}\, K^+ K^-$ (see Table \[tab:data\]) we find: $$\sigma(dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, K^+ K^-)\simeq 0.4~\mathrm{nb}
\label{ddalfaKK}$$ at $Q{=}40$ MeV. The MOMO collaboration notes that their invariant $K^+K^-$-mass distributions follow phase space. However, as it was shown for the case of the $a_0$ resonance in Ref. [@Brat01], the shape of the invariant mass spectrum following phase space cannot be distinguished from resonance production at $Q \leq \Gamma \leq 70$ MeV.
Therefore, the broad mass distribution of the MOMO data may also be related to the $f_0$ (or $a_0$ ). This statement is supported by a two-step model where the amplitude of the reaction $pd \rightarrow
\mathrm{^3He}\, f_0$ can be constructed from the subprocesses $pp
\rightarrow d \pi^+$ and $\pi^+ n \rightarrow p\, f_0$ (cf. Refs. [@Faldt; @Uzikov]). As it is known from the available experimental data [@Landolt] the cross section of the reaction $\pi N \to N K \bar K$ near threshold has an essential contribution from the $f_0$ resonance in the case of isoscalar $K \bar K$ production. Thus the cross section of the reaction $pd \rightarrow
\mathrm{^3He}\,f_0 \rightarrow \mathrm{^3He}\,K^+K^-$ near threshold is expected to be not significantly smaller than the upper limit from MOMO of about $10\div 20$ nb at $Q=40\div60$ MeV.
For an estimate of $\sigma(dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, \pi^+ \pi^-$) at $m_{\pi\pi}\sim m_{f_o}$ we assume that the cross section $\sigma(dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, K^+ K^-)$ is also dominated by resonant $f_0$ production at $m_{K\bar{K}}\sim m_{f_o}$ , and that $\Gamma_{f_0\to K \bar K}=(0.1\div0.4) \cdot \Gamma_{f_0 \to \pi \pi}$ [@PDG]. This yields $$\sigma(dd\rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, f_0 \rightarrow
\mathrm{^4He}\, \pi^+ \pi^-)=
1\div4~ \mathrm{nb}\ .
\label{ddalfaf0}$$ Finally, using Eq.(\[eq:dd2hef0\]), we get for $|\xi|^2 \simeq 0.05$: $$\sigma(dd \rightarrow \mathrm{^4He}\, a_0^0) \simeq 0.05 \div 0.2~
\mathrm{nb}.
\label{csest}$$
The measurement of reactions (\[ddalfaKK\]) and (\[ddalfaf0\]) with cross sections in the sub-nb range are possible at the ANKE spectrometer. Using a cluster-jet target with Hydrogen as target material luminosities of $\sim 2.7\cdot10^{31}\
\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ have been achieved [@Fedorets_QNP2002]. Assuming that comparable luminosities can be reached with Deuterium, about 10–40 ($\mathrm{^4He}\, K^+ K^-$) events can be detected within one week of beam time (based on the experience of the previous $a_0^+$ beam times). The pions from reaction (\[ddalfaf0\]) have broader angular distributions and, thus, the acceptance of ANKE is about one order of magnitude smaller which is partially compensated by the larger cross section.
It is planned that within a few years ANKE will be equipped with a frozen-pellet target [@pellet] and a large-acceptance photon detector [@photon]. Since the achievable luminostities then will be roughly one order of magnitude higher, the isospin-violating process (\[dd\]) can be investigated by detecting the decay photons $\pi^0\rightarrow2\gamma$ and $\eta\rightarrow2\gamma$ in coincidence with the $\mathrm{^4He}$. The latter will be again identified and momentum reconstructed with ANKE. Based on our cross section estimate (\[csest\]) we conclude that a few weeks of beam time will be sufficient to collect several 100 events.
[**Acknowledgment**]{} The authors are grateful for stimulating discussions with V. Grishina, C. Hanhart, J. Speth and all other participants of the working group during the workshop.
[99]{} J. G. Messchendorp [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:nucl-ex/0205009. R. Ricken [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**9**]{}, 221 (2000). L.S. Celenza [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**61**]{}, 035201 (2000). V.V. Anisovich [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [ **480**]{}, 19 (2000).
S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**96**]{}, 244 (2001).
J. Vijande [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:hep-ph/0206263. F.E. Close and N.A. Tornqvist, arXiv:hep-ph/0204205. J.D. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D [ **27**]{}, 588 (1983). D. Lohse [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**516**]{}, 513 (1990). N.N. Achasov, arXiv:hep-ph/0201299. J.A. Oller, arXiv:hep-ph/0205121. J.A. Oller [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**45**]{}, 157 (2000). E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, arXiv:hep-ph/0201006. F.E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B [**483**]{}, 345 (2000). F.E. Close [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**319**]{}, 291 (1993). K. Maltman, Nucl. Phys. A [**680**]{}, 171 (2000). E.L. Bratkovskaya [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**28**]{}, 2423 (2002).
C. Quentmeier [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**515**]{}, 276 (2001).
F. Belleman [*et al.*]{}, in: “IKP Annual Report 2000”, Berichte des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Jül-3852, ISSN 0944-2952, p.62.
V.Yu. Grishina [*et al.*]{}, Proc. Int. Workshop MESON 2002, May 24–28, 2002, Cracow, Poland; World Scientific Publishing ([*in print*]{}).
P. Fedorets and V. Kleber, Proc. Int. Conf. on Quarks and Nuclear Physics 2002 (QNP2002), Jülich, Germany, June 9–14, 2002 ([*in print*]{}).
N.N. Achasov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**88**]{}, 367 (1979); Yad. Fiz. [**33**]{}, 1337 (1981), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 715 (1981).
O. Krehl, R. Rapp, J. Speth, Phys. Lett. B [**390**]{} 23 (1997).
N.N. Achasov and G.N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 212 (1997).
V.Yu. Grishina [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**521**]{}, 217 (2001).
A.E. Kudryavtsev and V.E. Tarasov, JETP Lett. [**72**]{}, 410 (2000).
A.E. Kudryavtsev [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{} 015207 (2002).
F.E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B [**489**]{}, 24 (2000).
D. Barberis [*et al.*]{} (WA102 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**440**]{}, 225 (1998).
M. Büscher (spokesperson) [*et al.*]{}, COSY proposal \#97 “Investigation of neutral scalar mesons with ANKE”, (2001).
R. Frascaria [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [ **50**]{}, R537 (1994).
N. Willis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B406**]{}, 14 (1997).
J. Zlomanchuk [*et al.*]{}, Acta Physica Polonica [**33**]{}, 883 (2002).
G. Fäldt and C. Wilkin, Phys. Lett. B [**354**]{}, 20 (1995).
L.A. Kondratyuk and Yu.N. Uzikov, JETP Lett. [ **63**]{}, 1 (1996).
Landolt-Börnstein 1988 [*New Series*]{} Ed. H. Schopper (Berlin, Springer) I/12.
C. Caso [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**15**]{}, 1 (2000).
V. Balanutsa [*et al.*]{}, “Hydrogen droplet production with the ANKE pellet target”, Annual Report 2001 of the IKP, http://www.fz-juelich.de/ikp/ publications/AR2001/CHAP1-e.html
V. Hejny (spokesperson) [*et al.*]{}, COSY proposal \#83.2 “A Photon Detector for COSY”, (2000).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper is concerned with the concept of [*information state*]{} and its use in optimal feedback control of classical and quantum systems. The use of information states for [*measurement*]{} feedback problems is summarized. Generalization to fully quantum coherent feedback control problems is considered.'
author:
- 'M.R. James[^1]'
date: 2012
title: |
Information States in Control Theory:\
From Classical to Quantum [^2]
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
This paper is dedicated to Bill Helton, with whom I had the honor and pleasure of collaborating in the topic area of nonlinear $H^\infty$ control theory, [@HJ99]. We developed in some detail the application of information state methods to the nonlinear $H^\infty$ control problem, [@JBE94; @JB95; @BB95]. In this paper I review the information state concept for classical output feedback optimal control problems, and then discuss extensions of this concept to quantum feedback control problems, [@J04; @J05; @JNP08].
[*Feedback*]{} is the most important idea in control engineering, and feedback is a critical enabler for technological development, Figure \[fig:timeline1\]. From its origins in steam engine governors, through applications in electronics, aerospace, robotics, telecommunications and elsewhere, the use of feedback control has been essential in shaping our modern world. In the 20th century, quantum technology, through semiconductor physics and microchips, made possible the information age. New developments in quantum technology, which include quantum information and computing, precise metrology, atom lasers, and quantum electromechanical systems, further exploit quantum phenomena and hold significant promise for the future.
![Feedback control timeline.[]{data-label="fig:timeline1"}](timeline2){width="12cm"}
[*Optimization*]{} is basic to many fields and is widely used to design control systems. Optimization based control system design requires specification of (i) the [*objective*]{} of the control system, and (ii) the [*information*]{} available to the control system. In a feedback system, Figure \[fig:feedback1\], control actions are determined on the basis of information gained as the system operates. A key issue is how to represent information in a feedback loop. The concept of [*information state*]{} was introduced for this purpose, [@KV86]. An information state is a statistic[^3] that takes into account the performance objective in a feedback loop.
In quantum science and technology, the extraction of information about a system, and the use of this information for estimation and control, is a topic of fundamental importance. The postulates of quantum mechanics specify the random nature of quantum measurements, and over a period of decades quantum measurement theory has led to a well developed theory of quantum conditional expectation and quantum filtering, [@VPB92; @VPB92a; @HC93; @BHJ07; @WM10]. Quantum filtering theory may be used as a framework for [*measurement feedback*]{} optimal control of quantum systems, and we summarize how this is done in Section \[sec:quantum\]. In particular, we highlight the role of information states in this context. However, quantum measurement necessarily involves the loss of quantum information, which may not be desirable. Fortunately, feedback in quantum systems need not involve measurement. In fully quantum coherent feedback, the physical system being controlled, as well as the device used for the controller, are quantum systems. For instance, optical beams may be used to interconnect quantum devices and enable the transmission of quantum information from one system to another, thereby serving as . To my knowledge, to date there has been no extension of information states to fully quantum coherent feedback optimal control, although it has been a topic of discussion. Instead, direct methods have been employed for special situations, [@JNP08; @NJP09]. One of the key obstacles that makes optimal fully quantum coherent feedback control challenging is the general difficulties of conditioning onto non-commuting physical observables, a difficulty of fundamentally quantum mechanical origin (conditioning works successfully when measurements are used as then commuting observables are involved). Section \[sec:quantum-coherent\] discusses a possible means for abstracting the notion of information state may provide a suitable means for approaching the solution of optimal fully quantum feedback control problems in the context of a concrete example.
![Information flow in a feedback loop.[]{data-label="fig:feedback1"}](feedback1.pdf){width="10cm"}
Classical Output Feedback Optimal Control {#sec:classical}
=========================================
In many situations, information available to the controller is often partial, and subject to noise. In this section we look at a standard scenario using stochastic models, and show how information states can be found for two types of performance criteria.
Consider the following Ito stochastic differential equation model $$\begin{aligned}
d x &=& f(x,u) dt + g(x) dw
\\
dy &=& h(x) dt + dv\end{aligned}$$ where (i) $u$ is the control input signal, (ii) $y$ is the observed output signal, (iii) $x$ is a vector of internal state variables, and (iv) $w$ and $v$ are independent standard Wiener processes. Note that $x(t)$ is a Markov process (given $u$) with generator $$\mathcal{L}^u(\phi) = f(\cdot,u) \phi' + \frac{1}{2} g^2 \phi^{\prime\prime}$$ The system is shown schematically in Figure \[fig:system1\]
![A partially observed stochastic system with control input $u$ and observed output $y$. The internal state $x$ is not directly accessible.[]{data-label="fig:system1"}](system2){width="10cm"}
The control signal $u$ is determined by the controller $K$ using information contained in the observation signal $y$. The controller is to operate in real-time, so the controller is [*causal*]{}:
> $u(t)$ depends on $y(s)$, $0 \leq s \leq t$
In other words, $u(t)$ is adapted to $\mathscr{Y}_t = \sigma \{ y(s), 0\leq s \leq t\}$, and we may write $u(t) = K_t( y(s), 0 \leq s \leq t)$, as in Figure \[fig:controller1\].
![A controller maps measurement records to control actions in a causal manner.[]{data-label="fig:controller1"}](controller2){width="10cm"}
For a controller $K$ define the performance objective $$J(K) = \mathbf{E}[ \int_0^T L(x(s), u(s)) ds + \Phi(x(T)) ]$$ where (i) $L(x,u)$ and $\Phi(x)$ are suitably chosen cost functions reflecting the desired objective (e.g. regulation to a nominal state, say $0$), and (ii) $\mathbf{E}$ denotes expectation with respect to the underlying probability distributions.
The optimal control problem is to minimize $J(K)$ over all admissible controllers $K$. This is a [*partially observed*]{} stochastic optimal control problem: $J(K)$ is expressed in terms of the state $x$ which is not directly accessible. In order to solve this problem, we now re-express $J(K)$ in terms of a new ‘state’ that is accessible. Using basic properties of conditional expectation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
J(K) &=& \mathbf{E}[ \int_0^T L(x(s), u(s)) ds + \Phi(x(T)) ]
\\
&= & \mathbf{E}[ \mathbf{E}[ \int_0^T L(x(s), u(s)) ds + \Phi(x(T)) \vert \mathscr{Y}_T ] ]
\\
&=&
\mathbf{E}[ \int_0^T \tilde L(\pi_s, u(s)) ds + \tilde \Phi(\pi_T) ]\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_t$ is the [*conditional state*]{} $$\pi_t(\phi) = \mathbf{E}[ \phi(x(t)) \vert \mathscr{Y}_t ]$$ and $$\tilde L(\pi, u) = \pi( L(\cdot, u) ), \ \tilde \Phi(\pi) = \pi(\Phi).$$
The conditional state $\pi_t$ has the following relevant properties: (i) $\pi_t$ is adapted to $\mathscr{Y}_t$, (ii) the objective is expressed in terms of $\pi_t$, (iii) $\pi_t$ is a Markov process (given $u$), with dynamics $$d \pi_t( \phi) = \pi_t( \mathcal{L}^{u(t)}(\phi)) dt + (\pi_t(\phi h) - \pi_t(\phi) \pi_t(h) ) (dy(t) - \pi_t(h) dt),$$ the equation for nonlinear filtering [@RE82 Chapter 18]. The conditional state $\pi_t$ is an example of an [*information state*]{}, [@KV86].
An information state enables [*dynamic programming*]{} methods to be used to solve the optimization problem. Indeed, the [*value function*]{} is defined by $$V(\pi,t) = \inf_K \mathbf{E}_{\pi,t} [ \int_t^T \tilde L(\pi_s, u(s)) ds + \tilde \Phi( \pi_T ) ],$$ for which the corresponding dynamic programming equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} V(\pi,t) + \inf_u \{ \tilde{\mathcal{L}}^u V(\pi ,t) + \tilde L(\pi,u) \} = 0 ,
\\
V(\pi,T) = \tilde \Phi(\pi) .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $ \tilde{\mathcal{L}}^u$ is the generator for the process $\pi_t$.
If the dynamic programming equation has a suitably smooth solution, then the optimal [*feedback*]{} control function $$\mathbf{u}^\star(\pi,t) = \displaystyle{\mathrm{argmin}_u} \{ \tilde{\mathcal{L}}^u V(\pi,t) + \tilde L(\pi,u) \}$$ determines the optimal controller $K^\star$: $$\begin{aligned}
d \pi_t( \phi) &=& \pi_t( \mathcal{L}^{u(t)}(\phi)) dt + (\pi_t(\phi h) - \pi_t(\phi) \pi_t(h) ) (dy(t) - \pi_t(h) dt)
\label{eq:pi-rs-2}
\\
u(t) &=& \mathbf{u}^\star(\pi_t,t)
\label{eq:u-star-rs-2}\end{aligned}$$
The optimal controller $K^\star$ has the well-known [*separation structure*]{}, where the dynamical part (the filtering equation (\[eq:pi-rs-2\]) for the information state $\pi_t$) is concerned with estimation, and an optimal control part $\mathbf{u}^\star$ (\[eq:u-star-rs-2\]), which determines control actions from the information state. In the special case of Linear-Quadratic-Gaussian control, the conditional state is Gaussian, with conditional mean and covariance given by the Kalman filter, while the optimal feedback $\mathbf{u}^\star$ is linear with the gain determined from the control LQR Riccati equation.
An alternative performance objective is the [*risk-sensitive*]{} performance objective [@J73; @W81; @BV85; @JBE94], defined for a controller $K$ by $$J(K) = \mathbf{E}[ \exp( \mu \{ \int_0^T L(x(s), u(s)) ds + \Phi(x(T)) \} ) ] ,
\label{eq:JK-rs-classical}$$ where $\mu > 0$ is a risk parameter. Due to the exponential we cannot use the conditional state as we did above. Instead, we define an unnormalized [*risk-sensitive conditional state*]{} $$\sigma^\mu_t(\phi)= \mathbf{E}^0[ \exp( \mu \{ \int_0^t L(x(s), u(s)) ds \}) \Lambda_t \phi(x(t)) \vert \mathscr{Y}_t ]$$ which includes the cost function $L(x,u)$. Here, the reference expectation is defined by $$\mathbf{E}^0[ \cdot ] = \mathbf{E}[ \cdot \Lambda_T^{-1}],$$ where $$d \Lambda_t = \Lambda_t h(x(t)) dy(t), \ \ \Lambda_0=1.$$ The risk-sensitive state $\sigma^\mu_t$ evolves according to $$d \sigma^\mu_t( \phi) = \sigma^\mu_t( (\mathcal{L}^{u(t)}+ \mu L(\cdot, u(t) ) )\phi ) dt +
\sigma^\mu_t(h) dy(t) .$$ The performance objective may then be expressed as $$J(K) = \mathbf{E}^0[ \sigma^\mu_T( e^{ \mu \Phi } )].$$ Thus $\sigma^\mu_t$ is an [*information state*]{} for the risk-sensitive optimal control problem, and we may use this quantity in dynamic programming.
The [*value function*]{} for the risk-sensitive problem is defined by $$V^\mu(\sigma,t) = \inf_K \mathbf{E}_{\sigma,t} [ \sigma^\mu_T( e^{ \mu \Phi } )].$$ The corresponding dynamic programming equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} V^\mu(\sigma,t) + \displaystyle{\inf_u }\{ \tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{\mu, u} V^\mu(\sigma ,t) \} = 0,
\\
V^\mu(\sigma,T) = \sigma( \exp( \mu \Phi )),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $ \tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{\mu, u}$ is the generator for the process $\sigma^\mu_t$. The optimal risk-sensitive feedback control function is $$\mathbf{u}^{\mu,\star}(\sigma,t) = \displaystyle{ \mathrm{argmin}_u} \{ \tilde{\mathcal{L}}^{\mu, u} V(\sigma,t) \}$$ and so the [*optimal risk-sensitive controller*]{} $K^\star$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
d \sigma^\mu_t( \phi) &=& \sigma^\mu_t( (\mathcal{L}^{u(t)}+ \mu L(\cdot, u(t) ) )\phi ) dt +
\sigma^\mu_t(h) dy(t)
\label{eq:rs-sigma-dyn-2}
\\
u(t) &=& \mathbf{u}^{\mu, \star}(\sigma^\mu_t,t) .
\label{eq:rs-u-star-2}\end{aligned}$$ Again, the optimal controller consists of a dynamical equation (\[eq:rs-sigma-dyn-2\]) and a control function (\[eq:rs-u-star-2\]), but estimation is not separated from control due to the cost term appearing in the filter (\[eq:rs-sigma-dyn-2\]).
Quantum Measurement Feedback Optimal Control {#sec:quantum}
============================================
In this section we consider an extension of the optimal control results of the previous section to quantum systems. A schematic representation of the [*measurement*]{} feedback system is shown in Figure \[fig:mfb1\], where the classical system $K$ is the unknown controller to be determined.
![An open quantum system controlled by a classical signal $u(t)$ and interacting with a quantum field. The output component of the field is continuously monitored producing an observation process $Y(t)$.[]{data-label="fig:mfb1"}](mfb1.eps)
In what follows we make use of [*quantum stochastic differential equation*]{} (QSDE) models for open quantum systems [@HP84; @GC85; @KRP92; @GZ00], and the theory of [*quantum filtering*]{} [@VPB92; @VPB92a; @HC93; @BHJ07; @WM10]. The [*state*]{} of an open quantum system is specified by a state $\rho_0$ for the system (say atom) and a state for the environment, say the vacuum state $\Phi$ for the field. [*Quantum expectation*]{} $\mathbb{E}$ is given by $\mathbb{E}[ X \otimes F]= \mathrm{Tr}[ (\rho_0 \otimes \Phi) (X \otimes F)] = \mathrm{Tr}[ \rho_0 X] \mathrm{Tr}[\Phi F]$ for system operators $X$ and field operators $F$. Here, $\rho_0$ and $\Phi$ are density operators defined on the appropriate subspaces (system and environment).
In the QSDE framework for open quantum systems, dynamical evolution is determined by the [*Schrodinger* ]{} equation $$dU(t) = \{L dB^\ast (t)- L^\ast dB(t) - (\frac{1}{2}
L^\ast L +iH(u) )dt \} U(t)$$ for a unitary operator $U(t)$, where $B(t)$ is a [*quantum Wiener process*]{}. System operators $X$ and output field $B_{out}(t)$ evolve according to the Heisenberg equations $$\begin{aligned}
X(t)=j_{t}( X) =U^\ast( t) ( X\otimes I ) U( t)
\\
B_{out}(t) =U^\ast ( t) ( I \otimes B(t) ) U( t) \end{aligned}$$ A standard measurement device (e.g. homodyne detector) is used to measure the following quadrature observable of the output field (see Figure \[fig:mfb1\]): $$Y(t) = B_{out}(t) + B_{out}^\ast(t) .$$ For each $t$, the operator $Y(t)$ is self-adjoint, and for different times $t_1, t_2$, the operators $Y(t_1)$ and $Y(t_2)$ commute, and so by the spectral theorem [@BHJ07] $Y(t)$ is equivalent to a classical stochastic process (physically, a photocurrent measurement signal).
Using the quantum Ito rule, the system process $X(t)=j_t(X)$—a [*quantum Markov process*]{} (given $u$)—and output process $Y(t)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
d j_t(X) &=& j_t( \mathcal{L}^{u(t)}(X) )dt + dB^\ast(t) j_t( [X,L]) + j_t( [ L^\ast, X] ) dB(t)
\\
dY(t) &=& j_t( L+L^\ast) dt + dB(t) + dB^\ast(t)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{L}^u(X) = -i [ X, H(u)] + \frac{1}{2} L^\ast [X,L] + \frac{1}{2} [L^\ast, X] L .$$
We denote by $\mathscr{Y}_t$ the [*commutative*]{} $\ast$-algebra of operators generated by the observation process $Y(s), 0 \leq s \leq t$. Since $j_t(X)$ commutes with all operators in $\mathscr{Y}_t$, the [*quantum conditional expectation*]{} $$\pi_t(X) = \mathbb{E}[ j_t(X) \vert \mathscr{Y}_t ]$$ is well defined. The differential equation for $\pi_t(X)$ is called the [*quantum filter*]{} [@VPB92; @VPB92a; @HC93; @BHJ07]: $$\begin{aligned}
d \pi_t(X) &=& \pi_t( \mathcal{L}^{u(t)}(X)) dt
\\
&& + ( \pi_t(XL + L^\ast X) - \pi_t(X) \pi_t(L+L^\ast)) (dY(t)-\pi_t(L+L^\ast)dt)\end{aligned}$$
We now consider a quantum measurement feedback optimal control problem defined as follows. For a measurement feedback controller $K$ define the performance objective [@J05][^4] $$J(K)= \mathbb{E}[ \int_0^T C_1(s) ds + C_2(T) ],$$ where (i) $C_1(t) = j_t( C_1(u(t)))$ and $C_2(t)= j_t(C_2)$ are non-negative observables, and (ii) $\mathbb{E}$ denotes quantum expectation with respect to the underlying states for the system and field (vacuum). The [*measurement feedback quantum optimal control problem*]{} is to minimize $J(K)$ over all measurement feedback controllers $K$, Figure \[fig:mfb1\]. Note that information about the system observables is not directly accessible, and so this is a partially observed optimal control problem.
Using standard properties of quantum conditional expectation, the performance objective can be expressed in terms of the quantum conditional state $\pi_t$ as follows: $$J(K) = \mathbb{E}[ \int_0^T \pi_s(C_1(u(s) ) ) ds + \pi_T( C_2)].$$ Then dynamic program may be used to solve this problem, as in the classical case. The [*optimal measurement feedback controller*]{} has the separation form $$\begin{aligned}
d \pi_t(X) &=& \pi_t( \mathcal{L}^{u(t)}(X)) dt
\\
&& + ( \pi_t(XL + L^\ast X) - \pi_t(X) \pi_t(L+L^\ast)) (dY(t)-\pi_t(L+L^\ast)dt) ,
\nonumber
\\
u(t) &=& \mathbf{u}^\star(\pi_t,t) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the feedback function $\mathbf{u}^\star$ is determined from the solution to a dynamic programming equation, see [@J05]. Again the conditional state $\pi_t$ serves as an [*information state*]{}, this time for a quantum [*measurement feedback*]{} problem.
The risk-sensitive performance criterion (\[eq:JK-rs-classical\]) may be extended to the present quantum context as follows, [@J05; @WDDJ06]. Let $R(t)$ be defined by $$\frac{dR(t)}{dt} = \frac{\mu}{2} C_1(t) R(t), \ \ R(0)=I.$$ Then define the risk-sensitive cost to be $$J^\mu(K) = \mathbb{E}[ R^\ast(T) e^{\mu C_2(T) } R(T) ] .$$ This definition accommodates in a natural way the observables in the running cost, which need not commute in general.
To solve this quantum risk-sensitive problem, we proceed as follows. Define $V(t)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
d V(t) = \{ L dZ(t) +( - \frac{1}{2} L^\ast L
-i H(u(t)) +\frac{\mu}{2} C_1(u(t))
)dt \} V(t), \ \ V(0)=I,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $Z(t)=B(t)+B^\ast(t)$ (equivalent to a standard Wiener process with respect to the vacuum field state). The process $V(t)$ commutes with all operators in the commutative $\ast$-algebra $\mathscr{Z}_t$ generated by $Z(s), 0 \leq s \leq t$. We then have $$J^\mu(K) = \mathbb{E}[ V^\ast(T) e^{\mu C_2} V(T)] .$$ Next, define an unnormalized risk-sensitive conditional state $$\sigma^\mu_t(X) = U^\ast(t) \mathbb{E}[ V^\ast(t) X V(t) \vert \mathscr{Z}_t ] U(t)$$ which evolves according to $$\begin{aligned}
d \sigma^\mu_t(X) &=& \sigma^\mu_t( (\mathcal{L}^{u(t)} + \mu C_1(u(t)) )X)) dt + \sigma^\mu(XL+L^\ast X) dY(t)\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$J^\mu(K) = \mathbb{E}^0[ \sigma^\mu_T( e^{\mu C_2} ) ] ,$$ and so $\sigma^\mu_t$ serves as an [*information state*]{}, and the optimal risk-sensitive control problem may be solved using dynamic programming.
The [*optimal risk-sensitive measurement feedback controller*]{} has the form $$\begin{aligned}
d \sigma^\mu_t(X) &=& \sigma^\mu_t( (\mathcal{L}^{u(t)} + \mu C_1(u(t)) )X)) dt + \sigma^\mu_t(L+L^\ast) dY(t)
\\
u(t) &=& \mathbf{u}^{\mu\star}(\sigma^\mu_t,t) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the feedback function $\mathbf{u}^{\mu\star}$ is determined from the solution to a dynamic programming equation, see [@J04; @J05].
The inclusion of a cost term in a quantum conditional state $\sigma^\mu_t$ appears to be new to physics, [@J04; @J05; @WDDJ06]. This state depends on (i) information gained as the system evolves (knowledge), and (ii) the objective of the closed loop feedback system (purpose).
Coherent Quantum Feedback Control {#sec:quantum-coherent}
=================================
An important challenge for control theory is to develop ways of [*designing*]{} signal-based coherent feedback systems in order to meet performance specifications, [@YK03a], [@YK03b], [@JNP08], [@HM08], [@NJP09], [@GJ09], [@NJD09], [@JG10]. While a detailed discussion of signal-based coherent feedback control design is beyond the scope of this article, we briefly describe an example from [@JNP08], [@HM08]. In this example, the plant is a cavity with three mirrors defining three field channels. The problem was to design a coherent feedback system to minimize the influence of one input channel $w$ on an output channel $z$, Figure \[fig:hinfty1\]. That is, if light is shone onto the mirror corresponding to the input channel $w$, we would like the output channel $z$ to be dark. This is a simple example of robust control, where $z$ may be regarded as a performance quantity (to be minimized in magnitude), while $w$ plays the role of an external disturbance. In [@JNP08], it was shown how such problems could be solved systematically by extending methods from classical robust control theory, and importantly, taking into account the physical realization of the coherent controller as a quantum system. Indeed, the controller designed turned out to be another cavity, with mirror transmissivity parameters determined using mathematical methods. This approach was validated by experiment [@HM08].
![Coherent feedback control example, showing plant $a$ and controller $a_K$ cavity modes, together with performance quantity $z$ and the input $w$. The coherent signals $u$ and $y$ are used to transfer quantum information between the plant and the controller. The feedback system was designed to minimize the intensity of the light at the output $z$ when an optical signal is applied at the input $w$.[]{data-label="fig:hinfty1"}](hinfty1.eps)
Classical output feedback $H^\infty$ control problems can be solved through the use of a suitable information state, [@JB95; @HJ99]. However, there is no known information state for the quantum coherent $H^\infty$ problem discussed above, and we now consider this matter more closely to see what concepts might be suitable for coherent feedback quantum control.
Referring to Figure \[fig:hinfty1\], the plant $P$ and controller $K$ are connected by directional quantum signals $u$ and $y$ (beams of light). Such quantum signals may carry quantum information, and measurement need not be involved. The $H^\infty$ objective for the feedback network $P \wedge K$ is of the form $$\mathbb{E}_{P \wedge K}[V(t)- V - \int_0^t S(r) dr ] \leq 0
\label{eq:hinfty-objective}$$ where $V$ is a storage function and $S$ is an observable representing the supply rate for the input signal $w$ and a performance variable $z$ (see [@JNP08; @JG10] for general definitions of storage functions and supply rates). The storage function $V$ is a non-negative self-adjoint operator (observable). For example, for an optical cavity we may take $V=a^\ast a$, where $a$ and $a^\ast$ are respectively the annihilation and creation operators of the cavity mode (note that $V$ has spectrum $0,1,2,\ldots$, each value corresponds to a possible number of quanta (photons) in the cavity). A crucial difference between the fully quantum coherent feedback and the measurement feedback situation discussed in Section \[sec:quantum\] is that the algebra of operators $\mathscr{Y}_t$ generated by the plant output process $y(s), 0 \leq s \leq t$, is not commutative in general, and so a conditioning approach may not be feasible.
The controller $K$ shown in Figure \[fig:hinfty1\] is an open quantum system that involves additional quantum noise inputs $v_K$. These additional quantum noise terms are needed to ensure that $K$ is realizable as an open quantum system, and may be thought of as a (cf. classical randomized strategies). The controller maps quantum signals as follows: $$K :
B_{K,in} =
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
y
\\
v_{K1}
\\
v_{K2}
\end{array}
\right] \mapsto
B_{K,out} =
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
z_{K1}
\\
u
\\
z_{K2}
\end{array}
\right]$$
As an open system not connected to the plant $P$, the controller $K$ has unitary dynamics given by a unitary operator $U_K(t)$ satisfying $$dU_K(t) = \{L_K dB_{K,in}^\ast (t)- L_K^\dagger dB_{K,in}(t) - (\frac{1}{2}
L_K^\dagger L_K +iH_K )dt \} U_K(t), \ \ U_K(0)=I,
\label{eq:Ut-K}$$ where $L_K=(L_{K0}, L_{K1}, L_{K2})^T$ and $H_K$ are the physical parameters determining the controller $K$ (an optical cavity, Figure \[fig:hinfty1\]). This means that the input and output fields of the controller are related by $$B_{K,out}(t)= U^\ast_K(t) B_{K,in}(t) U_{K}(t),$$ while the internal controller operators $X_K$ evolves according to $X_K(t) = j_{K,t}(X_K) = U^\ast_K(t) X_K U_K(t)$. In particular, the control field $u(t)$ is given by $$u(t) = U^\ast_K(t) v_{K1}(t) U_{K}(t),
\label{eq:u-coherent-1}$$ or in differential form, $$du(t) = j_{K,t}(L_{K1})dt + d v_{K1}(t)
\label{eq:u-coherent-2}$$
Thus the controller $K$ is an open quantum system specified as follows: $$K: \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathrm{dynamics \ eq. \ (\ref{eq:Ut-K})}
\\
u(t) \ \mathrm{determined \ by \ (\ref{eq:u-coherent-1}) \ or \ (\ref{eq:u-coherent-2})}
\end{array} \right.$$ The controller $K$ has the property that it satisfies a performance objective of the form $$\mathbb{E}_{K}[V_K(t) - V_K - \int_0^t S_K(r) dr ] \leq 0,
\label{eq:hinfty-objective-2}$$ and indeed a key step in classical approaches is such a reformulation of the original objective (\[eq:hinfty-objective\]). The expression (\[eq:hinfty-objective-2\]) does not (directly) involve the plant $P$, and $S_K$ is a suitable supply rate defined for the controller and the signals $u$ and $y$. The expectation is with respect to a state of the controller and not the plant. Furthermore, this property ensures that, when the controller $K$ is connected to the plant $P$, the feedback system $P \wedge K$ satisfies the objective (\[eq:hinfty-objective\]). In this way, the open system defining the controller $K$ serves as an [*information system*]{}, generalizing the concept of information state discussed in previous sections.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper I have described how information states may be used to solve classical and quantum [*measurement*]{} feedback optimal control problems. Conditional expectation is a key mathematical tool that enables suitable information states to be defined. However, for fully quantum coherent feedback optimal control problems, the signals in the feedback loop are in general non-commutative quantum signals, and standard methods involving conditioning are not applicable. Accordingly, I suggest that a concept of [*information system*]{} abstracting the notion of information state may provide a suitable means for approaching the solution of optimal fully quantum feedback control problems. Future work will be required to develop this idea further.
[10]{}
T. Basar and P. Bernhard. . Birkhauser, Boston, second edition, 1995.
V.P. Belavkin. On the theory of controlling observable quantum systems. , 44(2):178–188, 1983.
V.P. Belavkin. Quantum continual measurements and a posteriori collapse on [CCR]{}. , 146:611–635, 1992.
V.P. Belavkin. Quantum stochastic calculus and quantum nonlinear filtering. , 42:171–201, 1992.
A. Bensoussan and J.H. van Schuppen. Optimal control of partially observable stochastic systems with an exponential-of-integral performance index. , 23:599–613, 1985.
L. Bouten, R. [van Handel]{}, and M.R. James. An introduction to quantum filtering. , 46(6):2199–2241, 2007.
H. Carmichael. . Springer, Berlin, 1993.
A.C. Doherty and K. Jacobs. Feedback-control of quantum systems using continuous state-estimation. , 60:2700, 1999.
R.J. Elliott. . Springer Verlag, New York, 1982.
C.W. Gardiner and M.J. Collett. Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differential equations and the master equation. , 31(6):3761–3774, 1985.
C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller. . Springer, Berlin, 2000.
J. Gough and M.R. James. The series product and its application to quantum feedforward and feedback networks. , 54(11):2530–2544, 2009.
J.W. Helton and M.R. James. , volume 1 of [ *Advances in Design and Control*]{}. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1999.
R.L. Hudson and K.R. Parthasarathy. Quantum [I]{}to’s formula and stochastic evolutions. , 93:301–323, 1984.
D.H. Jacobson. Optimal stochastic linear systems with exponential performance criteria and their relation to deterministic differential games. , 18(2):124–131, 1973.
M.R. James. Risk-sensitive optimal control of quantum systems. , 69:032108, 2004.
M.R. James. A quantum [L]{}angevin formulation of risk-sensitive optimal control. , 7(10):S198–S207, 2005.
M.R. James and J.S. Baras. Robust ${H}_\infty$ output feedback control for nonlinear systems. , 40:1007–1017, 1995.
M.R. James, J.S. Baras, and R.J. Elliott. Risk-sensitive control and dynamic games for partially observed discrete-time nonlinear systems. , 39:780–792, 1994.
M.R. James and J. Gough. Quantum dissipative systems and feedback control design by interconnection. , 55(8):1806–1821, August 2010.
M.R. James, H. Nurdin, and I.R. Petersen. ${H}^\infty$ control of linear quantum systems. , 53(8):1787–1803, 2008.
P.R. Kumar and P. Varaiya. . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
H. Mabuchi. Coherent-feedback quantum control with a dynamic compensator. , 78(3):032323, 2008.
H. Nurdin, M.R. James, and A.C. Doherty. Network synthesis of linear dynamical quantum stochastic systems. , 48(4):2686–2718, 2009.
H. Nurdin, M.R. James, and I.R. Petersen. Coherent quantum [LQG]{} control. , 45:1837–1846, 2009.
K.R. Parthasarathy. . Birkhauser, Berlin, 1992.
P. Whittle. Risk-sensitive linear/ quadratic/ [G]{}aussian control. , 13:764–777, 1981.
S.D. Wilson, C. D’Helon, A.C. Doherty, and M.R. James. Quantum risk-sensitive control. In [*Proc. 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*]{}, pages 3132–3137, December 2006.
H.M. Wiseman and G.J. Milburn. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010.
M. Yanagisawa and H. Kimura. Transfer function approach to quantum control-part [I]{}: Dynamics of quantum feedback systems. , (48):2107–2120, 2003.
M. Yanagisawa and H. Kimura. Transfer function approach to quantum control-part [II]{}: Control concepts and applications. , (48):2121–2132, 2003.
[^1]: ARC Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology, Research School of Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia (e-mail: [email protected])
[^2]: This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (project number CE110001027), and by US Air Force Office of Scientific Research Grant FA2386-09-1-4089. Dedicated to Bill Helton. Publication details: Harry Dym, Mauricio C. de Oliveira, Mihai Putinar (Eds.) Mathematical Methods in Systems, Optimization, and Control, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications Volume 222, 2012, pp 233-246.
[^3]: In statistics, a [*statistic*]{} is a measure of some attribute of a data sample.
[^4]: Earlier formulations of quantum measurement feedback optimal control problems were specified directly in terms of conditional states [@VPB83; @DJ99].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Programming-by-example technologies are being deployed in industrial products for real-time synthesis of various kinds of data transformations. These technologies rely on the user to provide few representative examples of the transformation task. Motivated by the need to find the most pertinent question to ask the user, in this paper, we introduce the [*significant questions problem*]{}, and show that it is hard in general. We then develop an information-theoretic greedy approach for solving the problem. We justify the greedy algorithm using the conditional entropy result, which informally says that the question that achieves the maximum information gain is the one that we know least about.
In the context of interactive program synthesis, we use the above result to develop an [*[active program learner]{}*]{} that generates the significant inputs to pose as queries to the user in each iteration. The procedure requires extending a [*[passive program learner]{}*]{} to a [*[sampling program learner]{}*]{} that is able to sample candidate programs from the set of all consistent programs to enable estimation of information gain. It also uses clustering of inputs based on features in the inputs and the corresponding outputs to sample a small set of candidate significant inputs. Our active learner is able to tradeoff false negatives for false positives and converge in a small number of iterations on a real-world dataset of string transformation tasks.
author:
- 'Ashish Tiwari, Arjun Radhakrishna, Sumit Gulwani, and Daniel Perelman'
title: '[Information-theoretic User Interaction: Significant Inputs for Program Synthesis]{}[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, the field of *automatic program synthesis* of *data transformation programs* from user-provided *example-based specifications* has received wide attention from the industrial community [@pbe-wrangling]. Data transformation programs commonly arise in machine learning [@wrangler], healthcare [@noodles], and IT administration [@flashextract], as well as in any business analytics that involves *data wrangling*. The ability to process data by providing examples of the desired transformation not only makes data wrangling approachable to non-programmers, but also simplifies data scientists’ workflows, who commonly dedicate as much as 80% of their time to manual wrangling [@wrangler]. This has led multiple software companies to incorporate semi-automatic transformation synthesis in their machine learning IDEs, including Microsoft’s Azure ML Workbench [^2], Google’s Cloud Dataprep [^3] (based on Trifacta[^4]), Uber’s Michelangelo [^5], and Tableau [^6].
Specifying programs by input-output examples is notoriously ambiguous. Even an extensively engineered program synthesis system may require as many as 7 examples to correctly identify an intended program [@flashprog]. In the past, intent ambiguity has typically been addressed by trying to heuristically avoid it: impose a sophisticated ranking on the underlying domain-specific language [@cav:ranking] so that ranking disambiguates user intent. However, heuristics can fail, and in such cases, the user is responsible for finding an input where the synthesized transformation does not match their intent and provide an additional example. This is relatively straightforward when datasets are small where the user can simply eye-ball the data [@flashfill], but much more challenging with a large dataset intended for business analytics.
The intent ambiguity challenge has caused the industry to embrace an *interactive* and *predictive* approach to program synthesis. Synthesis proceeds in rounds wherein the system proactively makes suggestions to the user, and the user provides information accordingly. For instance, Azure ML Workbench suggests a subset of *significant inputs* from the data that may best disambiguate the hypothesized transformations [@derivecolumn], and Trifacta Wrangler suggests possible next steps in the desired transformation [@trifactapredictive].
While the academic community has long modeled program synthesis as an iterative interactive process [@ogis; @peleg18], proactively generating high-quality examples, or constraints, to optimize convergence to the intended program is still an open problem. With the concrete goal of building an [*[active program synthesizer]{}*]{}, we start by formulating the problem of generating optimum user queries in an abstract setting. We show its hardness, and then cast the problem in a probabilistic framework to enable application of information-theoretic methods. We then use the chain rule for conditional entropy to design a greedy algorithm for the problem. Intuitively, the chain rule says that the system can pick the question whose answer will yield the most information gain by finding the question about which the system knows the least.
The abstract greedy information-gain procedure is instantiated to build an active program learner. The active program learner iteratively refines its belief of the intended program. This belief state is just a probability distribution over the program space. We now face two challenges. First, working with probability distributions over program space is intractable. We overcome this challenge by estimating probability distributions using Monte-Carlo methods. In fact, we describe a [*[sampling program learner]{}*]{} that uses importance sampling to generate a belief state (and not just one correct program). Second, the number of inputs (that is, the number of possible questions we can ask the user) can be really large. We address this challenge by presenting a clustering-based approach for sampling of input space, where our key idea is to use features from both the input, and the output corresponding to that input. We evaluate our active program learner based on whether it (a) minimizes the number of synthesis iterations, (b) minimizes the number of *false positive queries* (*i.e.* extraneous queries when the learned program is already correct), and (c) minimizes the number of *false negative queries* (*i.e.* missing queries when the learned program is actually incorrect). These criteria are difficult to satisfy simultaneously, but we present a comprehensive evaluation of different techniques to pick a trade-off solution.
Significant Questions {#sec:significantquestions}
=====================
Consider a blackbox software system $bb$. Let us say we want to answer a fixed question $q$ about $bb$. To answer the question $q$, we can ask questions from a predefined set $QS = \{q_1, q_2, \ldots, q_n\}$ of questions, and we assume there is an oracle (say, a user) that can answer these questions about $bb$. We are interested in the following problem: which of the $n$ questions should we ask the oracle? Our goal is to minimize the number of interactions with the oracle required in the process of answering the question $q$ about the given system $bb$. The hypothesis space, $HS$, is a set $\{p_1, \ldots, p_N\}$ of all possible values that $bb$ can take; in other words, $bb$ is known to belong to the set $HS$. In general, the set $HS$ need not contain the concrete programs, but only some abstractions that are sufficient to answer the questions $q$ and $q_1, \ldots, q_n$. This distinction is not important here, so for simplicity, assume that $HS$ contains concrete programs.
The answer space, $AS$, is a set $\{a_1, \ldots, a_m\}$ of all possible answers for the questions in $QS$. A given question-answer pair, $(q_i, a_j)$, can either be consistent with a given hypothesis $p_k$, or inconsistent with it. The notation $p_k \models (q_i, a_j)$ denotes that hypothesis $p_k$ is consistent with $(q_i, a_j)$, and $p_k \not\models (q_i, a_j)$ denotes it is not.
We are interested in finding a [*[plan]{}*]{} for asking questions. A [*[plan]{}*]{} is a mapping $\sigma: (QS\times AS)^* \mapsto QS\cup\{\bot\}$ that maps a history of question-answer pairs, possibly of length $0$, to the next question to ask. A plan $\sigma$ is [*[terminating]{}*]{} if there is a finite number $k$ such that $\sigma( (QS\times AS)^{k'} ) = \bot$ for all $k' \geq k$.
A sequence of question-answer pairs, $$\begin{aligned}
(q_0,a_0), (q_1,a_1), \ldots, (q_l,a_l), \label{eqn:ioseq}\end{aligned}$$ is [*[consistent]{}*]{} (with respect to a plan $\sigma$ and a program $bb$) if\
(a) $bb \models (q_i,a_i)$ for all $i=0,\ldots,l$; that is, each answer $a_i$ correctly answers the question $q_i$ about the program $bb$, and\
(b) $q_{i+1} = \sigma(\langle (q_0,a_0),\ldots,(q_i,a_i)\rangle)$; that is, the questions in the sequence are picked using the given plan.
A feasible sequence of question-answers, as in (\[eqn:ioseq\]), is [*[maximal]{}*]{} (with respect to terminating plan $\sigma$) if $\sigma(\langle(q_0,a_0),\ldots,(q_l,a_l)\rangle) = \bot$.
Maximal feasible sequences are important to state the correctness requirement of any plan: Given any maximal feasible sequence of question-answer pairs, we should be able to deduce enough about the unknown program $bb$ to answer the question $q$ about it.
\[def:prob\] Given a hypothesis space $HS = \{p_1, \ldots, p_N\}$, a set $QS = \{q_1, \ldots, q_n\}$ of questions, a set $AS = \{a_1, \ldots, a_m\}$ of answers, synthesize a terminating plan $\sigma: (QS\times AS)^* \mapsto QS\cup\{\bot\}$ s.t. given any sequence of the form $$(q_0,a_0), (q_1, a_1), \ldots, (q_l, a_l)$$ that is maximal and feasible with respect to the plan $\sigma$ and program $bb$, it is possible to deduce an “$a$” s.t. $bb \models (q,a)$.
Each plan $\sigma$ can be visualized as a tree: each node in the tree is labeled with a question, each node has as many children as there are answers to its question, the root node is labeled with $\sigma(\epsilon)$, and every other node is labeled by the question generated by the plan $\sigma$ based on the question-answer pairs on the path from the root to that node. The process of answering $q$ about $bb$ using the plan $\sigma$ corresponds to traversing a path from a root to a leaf in the tree for $\sigma$.
The [*[optimum significant questions]{}*]{} problem seeks to find a plan that has a minimum value for the worst-case number of questions asked. In terms of the tree visualization, we want the plan whose tree has the least height.
\[example1\] We can cast the problem of inserting a number into a given sorted list of $n$ numbers as a optimum significant questions problem. The unknown $bb$ here is the [*[input]{}*]{} number that has to be inserted (in a known sorted list). The question $q$ we want answered about $bb$ is: what is the [*[position]{}*]{} where we need to insert $bb$. The possible answers $a$ for this question $q$ are $\{0, 1, \ldots, n\}$. The set of all questions $QS$ we are allowed to ask are $\{q_0, \ldots, q_n\}$, where $q_i$ asks if $a \leq i$, and the set of possible answers $AS$ is $\{true, false\}$. The goal is to find the answer $a$ by asking the fewest number of questions (in the worst case). An optimum plan here would correspond to the binary search procedure: the first question would be $q_{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor}$, and depending on the answer, the next question would be $q_{\lfloor\frac{n}{4}\rfloor}$ or $q_{\lfloor\frac{3n}{4}\rfloor}$, and so on. The tree visualizing the binary search plan has height $O(\log(n))$.
Information-Guided User Interaction {#sec:information}
===================================
In this section, we present a greedy approach for solving the optimum signficant questions problem. First, we note that achieving optimality is NP-hard: this follows by a reduction from set cover. Hence, we resort to greedy methods. But, before we describe our greedy approach, we need to cast the problem in a general probabilistic framework.
Let $E$ be a set of question-answer pairs. The unknown artifact $bb$ can be viewed as a random variable that can take one of the values in $HS$. Let $Pr(bb=p_k \mid E)$ denote the probability that the blackbox program $bb$ is $p_k$ given that $bb$ is known to be consistent with all the question-answer pairs in $E$. Clearly, $Pr(bb \mid E)$ is a probability distribution over the hypothesis space $HS$.
We can answer any given question about $bb$ if we know the identity of $bb$. For the rest of the paper, we shall assume that the question $q$ we want to answer about $bb$ is just the identity of $bb$, and we will use $q$ as a variable that ranges over the questions in $QS$ that we can ask the oracle. Our knowledge about the identity of $bb$ is directly measured by the [*[entropy]{}*]{} $En(Pr(bb)) = \sum_k -Pr(bb=p_k)\log(Pr(bb=p_k))$ of the probability distribution $Pr(bb)$. Clearly, our goal is to reduce the entropy of $Pr(bb)$.
Initially, we do not have answers to any questions, and hence $E = \emptyset$, and our belief about $bb$ is given by the probability distribution $Pr(bb \mid E=\emptyset) = Pr(bb)$. Now, assume we ask question $q$ from $QS$. Let $Pr(bb \mid q)$ denote the probability distribution on $bb$ conditioned on knowing the answer to the question $q$. We view $q$ also as a random variable which takes values in the answer set $AS$. Using the chain rule for conditional entropy, we can compute the entropy $En(Pr(bb\mid q))$ of the distribution we get [*[after asking the question $q$]{}*]{} as $$\begin{aligned}
En(Pr(bb \mid q)) & = & En(Pr(bb)) - En(Pr(q)) \label{eqn:en}\end{aligned}$$ where $Pr(q)$, a probability distribution on the answer space $AS$, is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
Pr(q = a) & = & \sum_{\{p \mid p\models (q,a)\}} Pr(bb = p)\end{aligned}$$
In the information-theoretic user interaction model, we solve the [*[significant questions problem]{}*]{} by choosing the next question $q$ so that it (greedily) minimizes the entropy of $Pr(bb\mid q)$. Equation \[eqn:en\] shows that the most greedy choice would be the question $q$ whose entropy $En(Pr(q))$ is maximum. We can generalize the observation of Equation \[eqn:en\] to the case when we have already obtained answers to some $i$ prior questions. If $E$ denotes a sequence $(q_1,a_1),\ldots,(q_i,a_i)$ of question-answer pairs that have been obtained so far, then the [**[greedy plan]{}**]{} $\sigma^*$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^*(E) & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\bot & \mbox{ if $En(Pr(q_E^* | E)) = 0$}
\\
q_E^* & \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $q_E^* = \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{q}\{ En(Pr(q \mid E)) \}$.
The following proposition says that the greedy plan is indeed greedy.
\[prop:main\] Consider an instance of the significant questions problem where the question $q$ is the same as identity of $bb$. If this instance has a solution, then the greedy plan $\sigma^*$ will be a solution. Although the plan $\sigma$ may not be optimum, it is greedy in every step; that is, whenever $\sigma^*(E) \neq\bot$, it is the case that $\sigma^*(E) = \operatorname*{\arg\!\min}_q\{ En(bb\mid E,q)\}$.
Since the knowledge we have about a random variable is inversely related to its entropy, the above result intuitively states that, to greedily seek knowledge, we should ask the question about which we know the least.
\[example2\] Continuing with Example \[example1\], assume that the prior probability distribution (for the index $q$ where the unknown input will be inserted in the sorted list) is a uniform distribution over $\{0,\ldots,n\}$; that is, $Pr(q=i) = 1/(n+1)$ for all $i$. If we want to minimize the entropy, we know that the optimum choice would be question $q_i$ that maximizes $En(q_i)$. Now, the question $q_i$ has two possible answers, and hence the possible answers for $q$ are partitioned into two clusters, namely, $\{0, 1, \ldots, i\}$ where the answer is true, and $\{i+1, \ldots, n\}$ where the answer is false. Hence, we have $$\sigma^*({\emptyset}) = \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{q_i\in QS} -\frac{i+1}{n+1} \log(\frac{i+1}{n+1}) - \frac{n-i}{n+1}\log(\frac{n-i}{n+1})$$ We know this entropy is maximized when $i$ is the floor of $(n+1)/2$. Thus, we get the binary search procedure. Note that the greedy approach also suggests a way to generalize binary search when the (prior) distribution of elements to be inserted is not uniform.
Active Program Synthesis {#sec:illustrative}
========================
The main application of the greedy approach for user interaction design we pursue in this paper is the significant input problem in interactive program synthesis. The key challenge in implementing the greedy information gain procedure is to find ways to estimate the entropy of the different questions that can be posed to the user. Since the number of programs and the number of inputs can be very large, we use sampling techniques to estimate the various probabilities for computing entropies.
From Passive to Active Synthesis
--------------------------------
Let $I, O$ be sets that denote the domain for the input space and the output space respectively. Let $f: I \mapsto O$ be a fixed function (that is unknown to the program learner, but is known to the user). Let $\Sigma := I \times O$ be the set of all possible input-output examples, and let $\Sigma^*$ denote the set of all finite sequences of these examples. Let $PS$ be the space of all programs (considered by the program synthesizer) that map $I$ to $O$. Note that $f$, and every $p\in PS$, maps $I$ to $O$, but the difference is that elements in $PS$ are computable (executable) descriptions of functions, whereas $f$ is modeling the user.
A [*[passive program learner]{}*]{} $ppl$ is a computable function with the signature $ppl: \Sigma^* \times 2^{I} \mapsto PS$ such that for any input-output example sequence $seq$, $$\begin{aligned}
seq := \left[ \la in_1, f(in_1)\ra , \ldots, \la in_k, f(in_k)\ra \right],
\label{eqn:seq}\end{aligned}$$ and a subset $I_0 \subseteq I$ of the input space, the passive program learner returns a program $p := ppl(seq, I_0)$ that satisfies all the given input-output examples; that is, $$p(in_j) = f(in_j) \qquad \mbox{ for every } j = 1,2,\ldots,k.$$ The goal of the passive learner is to find a program $p$ that matches $f$ on all inputs in $I_0$, and not just the inputs in the provided examples.
Existing programming-by-example (PBE) systems can be viewed as passive program learners. They maintain a sequence $seq$ of input-output examples, which initially is either empty or contains just one input-output pair. They then generate the program $p := ppl(seq, I_0)$, and ask the user if the outputs $p(I_0)$ match the expected outputs. If not, the user provides a new input-output pair that gets added to $seq$ and the process repeats.
Finally, we note that the program $p$ returned by $ppl$ is not arbitrary, but one that is ranked highest. The ranker is designed to prefer programs that are most-likely to be the user-intended program. Designing such rankers is not easy: it is often achieved by a combination of machine learning and human tweaking of ranking function parameters based on user feedback.
\[1\][$\triangleright$ \#1]{}
$ppl^*$, a modified passive program learner $I_0$, a subset of inputs $\epsilon > 0$, an uncertainty threshold Input-output examples ${\ensuremath{\varphi}\xspace}\gets [\;]$ Prob. Dist. $pd \gets \mbox{domain-dependent prior on $PS$}$ Entropy (uncertainty) about desired program $un \gets En(pd)$ foreach $i\in I_0$: $Pr_i \gets \lambda{a}: \sum_{p\in PS, p(i)=a} pd(p)$ $i \gets \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{i\in I_0} En( Pr_i )$ ${\ensuremath{\varphi}\xspace}\gets {\ensuremath{\varphi}\xspace}\sqcup \la i,\, f(i) \ra$ $pd \gets ppl^*({\ensuremath{\varphi}\xspace}, I_0)$ $un \gets En(pd)$ $p_{best} = \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{p\in PS} pd(p)$
### Active program learner.
We now turn the passive learner into an active learner. Procedure $\texttt{ActiveProgramLearner}$ in Figure \[fig:integratedProc\] uses greedy information gain (Proposition \[prop:main\]) to implement an active program learning method. The procedure maintains its current belief of the intended program as a probability distribution $pd$ on the program space $PS$. The entropy, $En(pd)$ of this distribution is a measure of our uncertainty, and while our uncertainty measure is greater-than a threshold $\epsilon$, we continue to add an input-output $\langle i, f(i)\rangle$ to the set ${\ensuremath{\varphi}\xspace}$ of input-output examples. The input $i$, which is picked in each iteration as a significant input, is the one that maximizes entropy $En(Pr_i)$. Note that $En(Pr_i)$ is the uncertainty in the output for input $i$ given our current belief $pd$ of the desired program. Once a new input-output pair is added to ${\ensuremath{\varphi}\xspace}$, we use an enhanced passive learner, $ppl^*$, to update $pd$ in that iteration. When the loop terminates, we return the program $p$ whose probability $pd(p)$ is maximum as the learnt program.
The active program learner uses an [*[enhanced]{}*]{} passive learner, $ppl^*$, as a subroutine. The key difference between $pp$ and $ppl^*$ is that $ppl^*$ returns a probability distribution $pd$ on the program space, and not just a single program. Since computing and representing $pd$ precisely is not feasible, the probability distribution $pd$ is returned in the form of a sampled set of programs (consistent with the input-output examples generated so far) and an assignment of probability to this sampled subset.
Sampling Program Learner
------------------------
The enhanced passive program learner, $ppl^*$, is implemented as a sampling program learner. A [*[sampling program learner]{}*]{} $spl$ is a computable function with the signature $spl: \Sigma^* \times 2^{I} \times \SamplingSpec \mapsto (PS \mapsto [0,1])$ such that for any input-output example sequence $seq$, subset $I_0$ of inputs, and a sampling specification $sspec$, the returned probability distribution $pd := spl(seq, I_0, sspec)$ is such that\
(a) if $pd(p) > 0$ then $p$ is consistent with all examples in $seq$,\
(b) the set $\{p \mid pd(p) > 0\}$ is consistent with the sampling specification $sspec$.\
The probability distribution returned by $spl$ is assumed to reflect the current belief about the intended program.
The reason for working with samples is obvious: the space of programs consistent with a given set of input-output examples can be very large. It has been observed that a typical real-life domain-specific language for data transformation may contain up to $10^{20}$ programs consistent with a given single input-output example [@cav:ranking]. While such a program space can be represented symbolically using version space algebras [@vsa:Mitchell; @lau:smartedit; @flashmeta] or finite tree automata [@wang17; @wang18], working with a probability distribution over this space is infeasible and counterproductive. We therefore work with samples. A [*[sampling specification]{}*]{} $(top,random)$ is a pair of numbers that indicate how many top programs to pick and how many random programs to sample from the set of programs consistent with the given input-output examples. The procedure for collecting $k$ top programs poses no significant challenges: most passive program learners that can generate one top program can also generate $k$ top programs. So, we just focus on random sampling here. First, we observe that a sampling specification is trivial to satisfy when the set of all programs consistent with the correctness specification (input-output examples) is small. We also note that we can sample from state-of-the-art symbolic program set representations, including VSAs [@lau:smartedit] and FSAs [@wang18].[^7] We next describe how to randomly sample [*[while performing synthesis using an enumerative [@transit] or deductive approach [@flashmeta]]{}*]{}.
\
Consider the program space $PS$ that consists of programs generated by a top-down tree grammar. Let $N := f(N_1,N_2) \; | \; g(N_3,N_4)$ be two top-down tree automata transitions that say that a program generated by nonterminal $N$ can either be of the form $f(p_1,p_2)$, or of the form $g(p_3,p_4)$, where each $p_i$ is recursively generated from nonterminal $N_i$. While there are many approaches for program synthesis, the preferred inductive synthesis approach is based on decomposing a synthesis problem, $\mathit{Synth}(N,\phi)$, on a nonterminal $N$ and a specification (input-output examples) $\phi$ into subproblems on nonterminals $N_1,\ldots,N_4$ and derived specifications $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_4$, and subsequently, putting the results of the subproblems together to obtain a solution for the original problem. The key idea behind a [*[sampling program learner]{}*]{} is that we can extend this decomposition step to [*[also decompose the sampling specification $ss$]{}*]{}. This means that we decompose the learning problem $(N,\phi,ss)$, where $N$ is the nonterminal, $\phi$ is a program correctness specification, and $ss$ is a sampling specification, into subprogram learning problems, $(N_i, \phi_i, ss_i)$, for $i=1,\ldots,4$, and after we have recursively solved the subproblems, we obtain a solution for the original problem by composing the solutions together. In particular, for sampling, this means we get samples of subprograms, and we use them to get samples for the top-level program.
Figure \[fig:samplinglearner\] recursively defines the function $\mathit{RandomK}(N,\phi)$, which returns $k$ random samples of programs generated by $N$ and consistent with $\phi$. Its definition follows the definition of the passive learner, $\mathit{Synth}$, itself. In particular,
(R1)
: if $\mathit{Synth}$ decomposes the synthesis problem on $N$ and $\phi$ to synthesis over $f(N_1,N_2)$ and $g(N_3,N_4)$, then we uniformly sample from a set containing $k$ random samples of the form $f(N_1,N_2)$ and $k$ of the form $g(N_3,N_4)$, and
(R2)
: if $\mathit{Synth}$ decomposes the synthesis problem on $f(N_1,N_2)$ and $\phi$ in terms of subproblems on $N_1$ and $N_2$, and gets its result in the form $f( \bigcup_i P_i, \bigcup_j P_j)$, then $\mathit{RandomK}$ samples equal number from each $P_i$ to get the $k$ random samples of $f$-rooted programs.
Note that random sampling is not uniform over the program set, but uniform over the syntactic classes of programs that are generated during the synthesis process: this is ideal because it ensures that samples are diverse.
We omit several low-level details about sampling program learners here, e.g. sub-specifications can be conditioned on other sub-specifications. However, most of these details are easy to extend to [*[sampling]{}*]{} specifications by following the approach taken for [*[correctness]{}*]{} specifications [@flashmeta].
#### Probability measure function.
Finally, we need to assign probabilities to the sampled programs. We assign a probability to a sampled program that is proportional to its rank order. Note that our sample contains some top-k program and some randomly sampled programs. All (passive) program learners are equipped with a ranking function that assigns a rank to each (synthesized) program; however, these ranks do not directly map to probabilities in any way, but are only coarse indicators of a program’s likelihood to be the intended program. The top-$k$ programs are picked based on this ranking. While the rank (score) itself is not meaningful, the [*[order]{}*]{} it induces on the programs remains meaningful, and hence assigning a (slightly higher) probability to samples that are ranked higher is justified. In , we show the value of the combination of top-$k$ and random sampling by performing evaluation using three specific approaches: (a) no sampling, (b) only top-$k$ programs, and (c) a combination of top-$k$ and uniform sample.
Input Sampling
--------------
Input sampling is required because real-life datasets in data wrangling scenarios typically contain tens of thousands of rows, and enumerating them all is counterproductive for multiple reasons. First, a typical UI response time for a user-facing application must stay within 0.5 sec, which is difficult to satisfy when enumerating over the entire dataset. Second, most inputs in a typical dataset have similar *distinguishability*: ideally we should consider just one representative.
Entropy
--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ---------------------------------------------
Inputs $p_1$ $p_2$ $p_3$ $En(i)$
$i_1$ = “foo1bar11baz” 1 1 11 $\sum_{i=1}^{2}-\frac{i}{3}\log\frac{i}{3}$
$i_2$ = “foo2bar22baz” 2 2 22 = 0.9
$i_{95}$ = “fooabara1baz” = 0.9
$i_{96}$ = “fooabar-1baz” $\log(3)$= 1.6
$i_{97}$ = “uvw” $\epsilon$ $\epsilon$ $\epsilon$ [**[1.6]{}**]{}
: []{data-label="table:clustering"}
Input sampling aims to reduce the computational cost of the active program learner by restricting it to a sample of the input space $I$. The naïve uniform sampling approach is not ideal here, and we use two key ideas for sampling inputs: (1) input-features based clustering and (2) output-features based clustering.
#### Input-features based clustering.
The hypothesis here is that [*[reasonable programs behave similarly on inputs with similar features, and hence, such inputs are likely to have the same uncertainty]{}*]{}, as illustrated in Table \[table:clustering\]. Hence, we cluster the inputs based on [*[string clustering]{}*]{}, and sample equally from each cluster to ensure full coverage of different “shapes”. A string clustering algorithm takes a dataset $I$, and returns a *partition* of this set into disjoint clusters. It is parameterized with a similarity measure to cluster the strings in $I$. Formally, it has the following signature: $$\texttt{cluster} : I \mapsto \left(I \mapsto \{1,2,\ldots,M\}\right)$$ where $M$ is the (maximum) number of clusters created. A [*[partition]{}*]{} is a function $\partition: I \mapsto \{1,\ldots,M\}$ that maps each input $in$ to one of the $M$ clusters. Let $I^i = \{ in \;\mid\; \partition(in) = i \}$ denote the $i$-th cluster.
Intuitively, inputs in different clusters should have sufficiently different syntactic shape. Thus, a *diverse* uniform sample $I^*$ of $\ninputs = |I|$ inputs can be constructed by randomly sampling $\lceil\ninputs * |I^i|/|I|\rceil$ inputs from the $i$-th cluster $I^i$.
Clustering is parameterized by a similarity measure on the input space, which is based on standard features extracted from strings; see [@matching-text] for details.
Consider the data transformation task where a user has presented one example “12 in” $\mapsto$ “12”, and the set of other inputs includes “8 in” and “30 cm” (and other strings denoting length in either $in$ or in $cm$). Most candidate programs that are learnt from the one given example are unlikely to perform differently on “30 cm”, and hence it is unlikely that “30 cm” will be a distinguishing input. However, input clustering will clearly identify two separate clusters corresponding to the two units, and “30 cm” should be presented as a significant input to the user.
#### Output-feature based clustering.
The hypothesis here is that [*[if the output on input $i$ looks sufficiently different from the outputs generated by other inputs, then uncertainty about $i$ is likely to be high.]{}*]{} Hence, the outputs generated by the current candidate programs can indicate which inputs are potential candidates for being significant. Table \[table:clustering\] shows a $2$-d matrix over programs and inputs: output-based clustering partitions inputs based on clustering the values in Column $p_1$ (where $p_1$ is the top-ranked program). We can optionally also cluster based on Column $p_2$ and Column $p_3$. Whereas the entropy $En(i)$ of an input $i$ is defined by the values in $i$’s row, $En(i)$ having a low value often correlates with $p_1(i)$ being of a different “shape” than other outputs in Column $p_1$ (see Input $i_{95}$ and $i_{96}$).
Consider a scenario where the user is extracting the year from dates formatted in many different forms. The given input set contains the inputs “05-Feb-2015”, “25 December 2013”, “2010-12-12”, and “9/3/2017”. Clustering the input space gives a large number of partitions. However, the output set generated by any synthesized candidate program should be relatively uniform (in this scenario, form a single cluster described as `\d{4}`).
#### Null outputs.
Exceptions need to be handled properly when computing the uncertainty $En(i)$ about an input $i$. Specifically, when an input does not satisfy the preconditions of a (synthesized) program, its output defaults to a special value null value, denoted as, say, $\epsilon$. However, not all such values are identical, and hence, when defining uncertainty about an input, we treat every instance of a null value in the output as being different from each other.
String transformation programs often return a null value when the input is not of the format they expect. For example, the programs “extract the first digit” and “extract the second digit” both return the null value on the string “ABC”. However, it is a stretch to say that these programs behave similarly on the input “ABC”. Therefore, we consider all null values to be unequal to each other when defining the uncertainty, $En(i)$, about (the output on) input $i$. In Table \[table:clustering\], Input $i_{97}$ generates null values on all programs, and hence, with this change, $En(i_{97})$ is not $0$ but the larger value $1.6$.
Information Gain and Distinguishability
---------------------------------------
The uncertainty $En(i)$ about an input $i$ is closely related to its ability to distinguish programs in $PS_1$: recall that an input $i$ distinguishes programs $p_1$ and $p_2$ if $p_1(i)\neq p_2(i)$ [@bitvectors]. The following proposition states that optimizing for uncertainty is at least as general as optimizing for distinguishability.
\[prop:measure\] Given two inputs $in_1$ and $in_2$, if $p_i(in_1) \neq
p_j(in_1) \implies p_i(in_2) \neq p_j(in_2)$ for all programs $p_i,p_j$, then $En(in_1) \leq En(in_2)$.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
----------
We evaluate active program learners in the following way. We enclose the while loop in Procedure `ActiveProgramLearner` inside an outer loop that terminates only when the program $p_{best}$ learnt by inner loop is consistent with [*[all]{}*]{} the input-output examples; that is, $p_{best}(i) = f(i)$ for all $i\in I_0$. The outer loop is intended to mimick interaction with the user, which is needed whenever the inner loop terminates, but the outer does not. These cases are counted as [*[false negatives]{}*]{}, and in such cases, we continue the inner loop by picking an input $i$ where $p_{best}(i) \neq f(i)$ as the next significant input. Active program learners are evaluated based on:
Number of iterations:
: We want to minimize the number of iterations of the inner loop until the outer loop terminates.
False positives:
: Whenever the inner loop generates an input $in$ on which the current program $p_{best}$ and the desired function $f$ agree (that is, $p_{best}(in) = f(in)$), the resulting iteration [*[appears]{}*]{} futile to the user. Such inputs $in$ are called false positives, and we want to minimize them.
False negatives:
: False negatives occur when the active learner terminates with an unintended program. We want to minimize the number of false negatives.
The three criteria above differ in importance in different applications. Generally, false negatives are more expensive than false positives since a false negative requires the user to manually find the next distinguishing input in $I_0$, whereas a false positive requires only a confirmation of the current program output. However, they also differ in their cognitive load and user experience implications: a false positive is likely to cause irritation and mistrust in the system, whereas a false negative may lead the user toward ending the interaction prematurely and using an incorrectly synthesized program.
We evaluated $9$ different variants of our active program learner on a collection of [791]{}scenarios[^8]. The goal of the variants is to showcase the value of each key idea proposed in this work. These variants are defined by their choice in the (a) program sampling (PS) dimension (“top-$k$”, and “top-$k$ $\cup$ random”), and the (b) input sampling (IS) dimension (random sampling, input clustering, output clustering, input+output clustering). Apart from the $8$ variants obtained from the above choices, we had one baseline version. The baseline is a [*[passive program learner]{}*]{} where we do not use information gain to pick significant inputs, and let the user do the job. That is, the implementation just picks the first input where the output of the current program does not match the intent (mimicking what the user would have to do when interacting with a passive learner). Thus, in this baseline, the number of false positives is $0$, but every iteration adds $1$ to the number of false negatives. The goal of the (eight variants of the) active learner is to reduce the number of false negatives (the most important criterion) by potentially increasing the number of false positives.
We remark that the baseline is a state-of-the-art and not naive: the input that the user picks to provide an example is, in fact, a [*[distinguishing input]{}*]{} [@bitvectors; @godefroid2012automated]. One can argue that a smart user might pick a more informative input, but this paper shows that the active learner can actually mimick such smart users, and thus reduce the cognitive load on such users.
Procedure $\texttt{ActiveProgramLearner}$ uses a threshold $\epsilon$ and compares it to the entropy, $En(pd)$, of the probability distribution over possible programs, $pd$, to decide when to terminate. Since computing $En(pd)$ just for this purpose is wasteful, in our implementation, the active learner terminates the session when none of the top-ranked programs are distinguished by the (maximum entropy) significant input.
[l|l||c|c|c|c|c||c||c||c]{} & Significant Input& & & & \#Time-\
& Algorithm Variant & $\leq 1$ & $\leq 2$ & $\leq 3$ & $\leq 4$ & $\leq 32$ & Positives & Negatives & Outs\
& Baseline & [**[11]{}**]{} & [[39]{}]{} & [[109]{}]{} & [**[184]{}**]{} & 737 & [**[0]{}**]{} & [[4840]{}]{} & [**[47]{}**]{}\
& Top-$k$ & [**[11]{}**]{} & [[39]{}]{} & 108 & 182 & [**[738]{}**]{} & 5049 & 42 & [**[47]{}**]{}\
[90]{}
& Top-$k$ $\cup$ Random-$k$ & [**[11]{}**]{} & [**[41]{}**]{} & [**[110]{}**]{} & [**[184]{}**]{} & 732 & 5082 & [**[3]{}**]{} & 53\
& Random & 11 & 41 & 110 & 184 & 732 & 5082 & [**[3]{}**]{} & 53\
& Input Clustering & 315 & 498 & 609 & 667 & 733 & 724 & 158 & 52\
& Output Clustering & [**[409]{}**]{} & [**[611]{}**]{} & [**[690]{}**]{} & [**[717]{}**]{} & [**[742]{}**]{} & [**[276]{}**]{} & 193 & [**[43]{}**]{}\
[90]{}
& Input-Output Clustering & 296 & 481 & 597 & 655 & 733 & 783 & 139 & 52\
& Baseline (user) & 11 & [[39]{}]{} & [[109]{}]{} & [[184]{}]{} & 737 & [**[0]{}**]{} & [[4840]{}]{} & [[47]{}]{}\
& False Positives & [**[409]{}**]{} & [**[611]{}**]{} & [**[690]{}**]{} & [**[717]{}**]{} & [**[742]{}**]{} & [**[276]{}**]{} & 193 & [**[43]{}**]{}\
[90]{}
& False Negatives & 296 & 481 & 597 & 655 & 733 & 783 & [**[139]{}**]{} & 52\
#### Evaluating program sampling strategies.
The top part of Table \[table:d1\] shows the change in performance of the active program learner as we change the program sampling technique. The input sampling technique is fixed to random.
Compared to the baseline, where we have a very high number of false negatives and $0$ false positives, when using top-$k$ programs as our sample, we increase the number of false positives (because we generate inputs that distinguish between irrelevant programs), but significantly decrease the number of false negatives. Combining top-$k$ with random-$k$ gives enough diversity to the program sample to further reduce false negatives, but adds slightly more false positives. The number of scenarios solved in a given number of iterations does not change substantially. This experiment clearly shows that top-$k$ *and* random-$k$ programs is the best choice for sampling programs.
#### Evaluating input sampling strategies.
The middle part of Table \[table:d1\] shows the effect of changing the input sampling technique on the performance of the active program learner. We fix program sampling to top-$k$ combined with random-$k$ here. The “Random” sampling strategy is implemented as follows: if the total number of inputs is less-than a parameter $M$, then it returns all the inputs, and otherwise it samples $M$ inputs randomly from the set of all inputs. It turns out that a large percentage of our benchmarks contained a small number of inputs (less-than $M$). Consequently, random sampling picked the complete set of inputs, causing very few false negatives. Clustering causes the active learner to consider only a selected number of [*[pertinent]{}*]{} inputs: this reduces the number of false positives, but since we are ignoring inputs, it adds more false negatives. Since clustering focuses the active learner on promising inputs, we see a drastic improvement in the number of benchmarks solved with just 1, 2, or 3 iterations. Output clustering aggressively removes inputs, and hence, it reduces false positives dramatically, but at the cost of slightly increasing false negatives. The results show the value of clustering – especially when the number of available inputs is really large – and trade-off between reducing false negatives and false positives.
#### Overall Evaluation.
In the bottom part of Table \[table:d1\], we compare the baseline with the version that optimizes for false positives and the version that optimizes for false negatives (ignoring the version that use all “Random” for input sampling because they are essentially using all inputs). We see that the best active program learners based on greedy information gain perform much better than what the user is able to achieve interactively, while also significantly reducing the cognitive load (\#false negatives) on the user.
Related Work
============
#### Query filtering in active learning.
Since we are not synthesizing inputs, but just picking the “best” input to send as a query to the user, our work falls under the query filtering paradigm of active learning [@CohnAtlasLadner1990]. A particular filter, called [*[query by committee]{}*]{} (QBC) [@SeungOpperSompolinsky1992; @FreundSeungShamirTishby1997], works by sampling a committee of (consistent) programs, sampling (randomly) an input (query), and evaluating entropy of the input on that sample (using our terminology) to either pick or reject it. This is similar to our work where we sample the programs to evaluate entropies of inputs. The main difference is that the work on QBC is mostly a theoretical study that makes many assumptions, such as, existence of a uniform sampling algorithm from the version space. Our work shows how the same concepts can be applied to a real program synthesis task. Moreover, we also discuss ways to sample programs and even sample inputs in a way to make the QBC ideas practical in the program synthesis setting. In the field of program synthesis, the QBC paradigm was used very recently to pick queries when synthesizing datalog programs [@Naik2018]. However, it does not formally cast the program synthesis problem in a probabilistic framework as we do here. Furthermore, the output space is Boolean (unlike in our setting, where it is String, which causes us to introduce novel ideas, such as, output clustering), and allows program sampling to be “complete” in a sense (by picking a most-specific and most-general program from the version space). This is not possible in our more general setting. This difference also manifests in the fact that [@Naik2018] has a complete procedure.
#### Input and Output Clustering.
We have used novel ideas for sampling inputs based on clustering on features in the input and features in the generated output (by some top-ranked program). The work on synthesis with abstract examples [@DBLP:conf/cav/Drachsler-Cohen17] is based on a similar intuition. It recognizes that certain input-output examples are similar enough to be clustered and presented to the user as one [*[abstract example]{}*]{}. The goal there is to let the user effectively give a set of concrete examples at once to the synthesizer (by validating an abstract example). In our work, we use clustering of inputs to perform intelligent sampling of inputs. We pick a concrete input from this sample to present to the user.
#### Distinguishing Inputs.
The notion of significant inputs introduced here generalizes [*[distinguishing inputs]{}*]{}, introduced in prior work on program synthesis [@bitvectors; @godefroid2012automated]. An input $i$ is distinguishing if there exist two programs $p_1$ and $p_2$ that are both consistent with the current constraints, but produce different outputs $p_1(i)$ and $p_2(i)$ on the input $i$. Thus, $i$ distinguishes between *two* programs, and hence an additional input-output constraint for $i$ eliminates either $p_1$ or $p_2$.
In this work we generalize this idea to not just two but a *set* of programs, and furthermore, emphasize that not all such inputs are equally effective for optimizing synthesis convergence in practice. A distinguishing input is a likely candidate for being significant. However, a significant input must also satisfy three stronger requirements:
1. A significant input is $\bot$ when the active learner is confident that it has convered. Hence, it is possible that distinguishing inputs exist, but the active learner nevertheless does not pick any of them as significant.
2. A distinguishing input disambiguates *any two* programs. In this work, we show that to optimize the convergence of the active learner, a significant input does not treat all programs equal: it prioritizes highly-ranked programs and programs that disagree with the current candidate.
3. In prior work [@bitvectors; @godefroid2012automated], the input space is known *a priori*, such as the space of all size-$n$ bitvectors. This allows closed-form formulations of the input selection problem and analysis of its convergence. In the practically-inspired formulation of the significant input problem () the input space is not known in closed form.
#### Oracle-Guided Inductive Synthesis.
Jha and Seshia recently developed a novel formalism for example-based program synthesis called *oracleguided inductive synthesis* (OGIS) [@ogis]. It builds on top of *counterexampleguided inductive synthesis* (CEGIS), a common paradigm for building interactive synthesis engines [@sketch]. In OGIS, a synthesis engine has access to an *oracle*, which is parameterized with the types of queries it is able to answer. Typical kinds of queries include class membership, counterexamples, and distinguishing inputs.
The setting studied in this work can be likened to OGIS, with the user playing the role of an oracle providing counterexamples. However, it differs in two major ways. First, we define the notion of *significant* inputs that try to minimize some convergence criteria, such as the number of iterations. Second, we consider the “active learner” setting where we use information gain to generate significant inputs and present them proactively to the user. Both aspects improve the usability of an interactive system.
#### Predictive Interaction.
The notion of proactively interacting with the user during a synthesis session is known as *predictive program synthesis* or *predictive interaction*. Mayer et al. [@flashprog] established that any form of interaction (such as displaying a paraphrased program candidate or presenting distinguishing inputs) improves the correctness and subjective trust in an example-based data transformation system. Building on their findings, in this work we investigate how particular choices of significant inputs and techniques for selecting them impact the convergence criteria of a synthesis interaction. Similarly, Kandel et al. [@wrangler] and Peleg et al. [@peleg18] present different settings of predictive interaction, in which the proactively sought constraints and suggestions describe the subexpressions of the desired program, as opposed to its behavior on individual inputs.
#### Active Learning.
The process of using significant inputs to iteratively perform program synthesis – as described in this paper – is an example of active learning [@al:settles]. In active learning, data is not available a priori, but the learner queries for data that will help it converge. The question of significant inputs – the next query to make – becomes the core problem of active learning. In fact, since the inputs on which the synthesized program ought to work are also available in our setting, our setting falls under what is known as pool-based active learning [@mccallumzy1998employing]. This setting has been studied for classification, version space reduction, and other classic machine learning domains [@dasgupta2005analysis; @baram2004online], but here we study it in the real-life domain of a string data transformation system.
#### Software Testing.
Significant inputs relate to synthesis in the same way as test inputs relate to verification. The goal of both is to improve confidence in the underlying artifact after these inputs have been used to perform synthesis or verification. Test inputs are picked so that executions on those inputs covers, for example, all possible program paths. Significant inputs are picked so that each one (given as an input-output constraint) eliminates a subspace of programs, and together they eliminate (almost) all unintended programs.
#### Data-driven invariant learning.
There is plenty of work in learning invariants from data [@ernst:icse2000; @rahulsharma:sas2013; @suresh:pldi2016; @madhu:oopsla2018; @saswat:pldi2016], but it is mostly in the passive setting. The significant question problem arises when synthesizing invariants using active learning. Jha and Seshia [@ogis] use a synthesis framework to explore theoretical bounds on learning iterations – what we call the optimum significant questions problem – but they do not propose any algorithmic approach, such as the information gain approach here, to achieve the theoretical bounds.
Conclusion
==========
The last decade of work in example-based program synthesis, and industrial applications of resulting technologies, have shown that **(a)** program synthesis in practice proceeds as an iterative interactive session, and **(b)** the user’s cognitive load and confidence in the synthesis system largely depends on the interaction interface between the user and the system. *Proactive* resolution of intent ambiguity is paramount to delivering high-quality user experience. In this work, we formally study the general *significant questions* problem – questions to proactively ask the user – and use information-theoretic notion of entropy to solve it. We instantiate the general approach to develop an active program learner that is shown to minimize the number of synthesis iterations until convergence, as well as control the number of false positive and false negative examples. While the framework of significant questions and information gain introduced here helps optimize the *convergence criteria*, it does not directly address the criteria of the user’s confidence in the program and cognitive load. Experimentally measuring the effect of different techniques for generating user interaction on the user experience is an important area of future work. Further exploration of active invariant learning in program synthesis by examples is also left for future work.
[10]{}
Y. Baram, R. E. Yaniv, and K. Luz. Online choice of active learning algorithms. , 5(Mar):255–291, 2004.
N. Bj[ø]{}rner, A.-D. Phan, and L. Fleckenstein. $\nu$[Z]{} – an optimizing [SMT]{} solver. In [*International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems*]{}, pages 194–199. Springer, 2015.
D. Cohn, L. Atlas, and R. Ladner. Training connectionist networks with queries and selective sampling. In [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*]{}, volume 2. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.
S. Dasgupta. Analysis of a greedy active learning strategy. In [*Advances in neural information processing systems ([NIPS]{})*]{}, pages 337–344, 2005.
D. Drachsler[-]{}Cohen, S. Shoham, and E. Yahav. Synthesis with abstract examples. In [*Proc. Computer Aided Verification - 29th International Conference, [CAV]{} 2017, Part I*]{}, volume 10426 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, pages 254–278. Springer, 2017.
M. D. Ernst, A. Czeisler, W. G. Griswold, and D. Notkin. Quickly detecting relevant program invariants. In [*International Conference on Software Engineering ([ICSE]{})*]{}, pages 449–458, 2000.
P. Ezudheen, D. Neider, D. D’Souza, P. Garg, and P. Madhusudan. Horn-ice learning for synthesizing invariants and contracts. , 2([OOPSLA]{}):131:1–131:25, 2018.
Y. Freund, H. S. Seung, E. Shamir, and N. Tishby. Selective sampling using the query by committee algorithm. , 28(2-3), 1997.
P. Godefroid and A. Taly. Automated synthesis of symbolic instruction encodings from [I/O]{} samples. 47(6):441–452, 2012.
M. I. Gorinova, A. Sarkar, A. F. Blackwell, and K. Prince. Transforming spreadsheets with data noodles. In [*Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)*]{}, pages 236–237. IEEE, 2016.
S. Gulwani. Automating string processing in spreadsheets using input-output examples. In [*Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages ([POPL]{})*]{}, volume 46, pages 317–330, 2011.
S. Gulwani. Programming by examples - and its applications in data wrangling. In [*Dependable Software Systems Engineering*]{}, pages 137–158. 2016.
S. Jha, S. Gulwani, S. A. Seshia, and A. Tiwari. Oracle-guided component-based program synthesis. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering ([ICSE]{})*]{}, volume 1, pages 215–224. IEEE, 2010.
S. Jha and S. A. Seshia. A theory of formal synthesis via inductive learning. , 54(7):693–726, 2017.
S. Kandel, A. Paepcke, J. Hellerstein, and J. Heer. Wrangler: Interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts. In [*Proceedings of the [ACM CHI]{} Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems*]{}, pages 3363–3372. ACM, 2011.
T. A. Lau, P. Domingos, and D. S. Weld. Version space algebra and its application to programming by demonstration. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning ([ICML]{})*]{}, pages 527–534, 2000.
V. Le and S. Gulwani. : A framework for data extraction by examples. In [*Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Languages Design and Implementation ([PLDI]{})*]{}, page 55. ACM, 2014.
M. Mayer, G. Soares, M. Grechkin, V. Le, M. Marron, O. Polozov, R. Singh, B. Zorn, and S. Gulwani. User interaction models for disambiguation in programming by example. In [*Proceedings of the Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology ([UIST]{})*]{}, 2015.
A. K. McCallumzy and K. Nigamy. Employing [EM]{} and pool-based active learning for text classification. In [*Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)*]{}, pages 359–367. Citeseer, 1998.
Microsoft. Derive column by example transformation. <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/machine-learning/preview/data-prep-derive-column-by-example>. Accessed 2018-01-31.
T. M. Mitchell. Generalization as search. , 18(2):203–226, 1982.
S. Padhi, P. Jain, D. Perelman, O. Polozov, S. Gulwani, and T. D. Millstein. . , 2([OOPSLA]{}):150:1–150:28, 2018.
S. Padhi, R. Sharma, and T. D. Millstein. Data-driven precondition inference with learned features. In [*Proceedings of the 37th [ACM]{} [SIGPLAN]{} Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, [PLDI]{}*]{}, pages 42–56, 2016.
H. Peleg, S. Shoham, and E. Yahan. Programming not only by example. In [*International Conference on Software Engineering ([ICSE]{})*]{}, 2018.
O. Polozov and S. Gulwani. : A framework for inductive program synthesis. In [*ACM SIGPLAN Notices*]{}, volume 50, pages 107–126. ACM, 2015.
B. Settles. Active learning. , 6(1):1–114, 2012.
H. S. Seung, M. Opper, and H. Sompolinsky. Query by committee. In [*Proc. Fifth Workshop on Computational Learning Theory*]{}, pages 287–294, 1992.
R. Sharma, S. Gupta, B. Hariharan, A. Aiken, P. Liang, and A. V. Nori. A data driven approach for algebraic loop invariants. In [*Programming Languages and Systems - 22nd European Symposium on Programming, [ESOP]{}*]{}, pages 574–592, 2013.
X. Si, W. Lee, R. Zhang, A. Albarghouthi, P. Koutris, and M. Naik. Syntax-guided synthesis of datalog programs. In [*Proc. 2018 [ACM]{} Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symp. on the Foundations of Software Engineering, [ESEC/SIGSOFT]{} [FSE]{} 2018*]{}, pages 515–527. [ACM]{}, 2018.
R. Singh and S. Gulwani. Predicting a correct program in programming by example. In [*Computer-Aided Verification ([CAV]{})*]{}, 2015.
A. Solar-Lezama. . ProQuest, 2008.
Trifacta. Overview of predictive transformation. <https://docs.trifacta.com/display/PE/Overview+of+Predictive+Transformation>. Accessed 2018-01-31.
A. Udupa, A. Raghavan, J. V. Deshmukh, S. Mador-Haim, M. M. Martin, and R. Alur. Transit: specifying protocols with concolic snippets. In [*Proceedings of the Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation ([PLDI]{})*]{}, pages 287–296. ACM, 2013.
X. Wang, I. Dillig, and R. Singh. Synthesis of data completion scripts using finite tree automata. , 1:62, 2017.
X. Wang, I. Dillig, and R. Singh. Program synthesis using abstraction refinement. , 2:63, 2018.
H. Zhu, G. Petri, and S. Jagannathan. Automatically learning shape specifications. In [*Proceedings of the 37th [ACM]{} Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, [PLDI]{}*]{}, pages 491–507, 2016.
[^1]: A note on history: This article was submitted to CAV 2018, 2019, and 2020, and PLDI 2019 and 2020. A recent paper in PLDI 2020 titled “Question selection for interactive program synthesis” (independently) addresses the same problem.
[^2]: <https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/machine-learning-services>
[^3]: <https://cloud.google.com/dataprep>
[^4]: <https://trifacta.com>
[^5]: <https://eng.uber.com/michelangelo>
[^6]: <https://www.tableau.com/>
[^7]: This is more challenging when an underlying program synthesizer is based on a constraint solver, where requesting top $k$ programs is feasible for state-of-the-art optimizing solvers [@bjorner2015nuz] but requesting *uniformly random* instances is hard.
[^8]: Part of the benchmarks were taken from <https://github.com/Microsoft/prose-benchmarks.>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
In the beginning of the colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) research on manganites, it was realized that the ferromagnetic (FM) transition occurs simultaneously with the metal-insulator transition [@helmholt; @jin; @nagaev]. The CMR was attributed to the magnetic-field-induced shift of this transition [@cheonghwang]. The nature of the transition changes drastically when the transition temperature $T_{c}$ is varied with the chemical pressure[@cheonghwang]. While the transition in the high-$T_{c}$ materials bears a resemblance with the second-order transition[@greene], the low-$T_{c}$ manganites demonstrate many features which are intrinsic to the first-order transitions, including a strong thermal hysteresis of the resistivity $\rho$ and magnetization $M$. There is a growing theoretical and experimental evidence that the transport properties of the insulating state above $T_{c}$ are dominated by small polarons or magnetic polarons, and that the band-like carriers become important below $T_{c}$ [@millis1; @roder; @zhou]. Recently, it was suggested that these two types of carriers coexist near $T_{c}$[@salamon]. In addition, the static coexistence of the metallic FM phase and the insulating charged-ordered (CO) phase was found to play an important role in the CMR effects, especially in the low-$T_{c}$ materials[@masatomo].
In this Letter, we report on measurements of the temperature dependence of the 1/f noise in polycrystalline and single crystal samples of low-$T_{c}$ manganites. Our data strongly indicate that the so-called Curie temperature in the low-$T_{c}$ materials is, in fact, a percolation transition temperature rather than the temperature of the long-range ferromagnetic phase transition. The scaling analysis of the 1/f noise is consistent with the percolation model of conducting domains randomly distributed in an insulating matrix[@tremblay].
We have measured the 1/f noise in the poly- and single crystal bulk samples of $La_{5/8-x}Pr_{x}Ca_{3/8}MnO_{3}$ with $x=0.35$[@comment1]. The sample preparation is described elsewhere[@cheonghwang]. Typically, the polycrystalline samples were $4\times 1\times 1$ $mm^{3}$, single crystals - $3\times 1\times 0.5$ $mm^{3}$. The spectral density of the 1/f noise, $S_{V}
$, and $\rho $ have been measured in the four-point configuration at the temperature $T=4.2-300K$ for both cooling and warming. For the $S_{V}$ measurements, we used the Stanford Research 830 lock-in amplifier in the mean average deviation mode with an equivalent noise bandwidth $1Hz$. The dc voltage applied to the sample, $V$, and $S_{V}$ were recorded simultaneously as a function of $T$ for the samples biased with a fixed dc current ($10^{-5}-10^{-3}A$). It has been verified that the spectrum of the noise has a power-law form $1/f$ $^{\gamma }$ in the frequency range $%
f=1-10^{3}Hz$ with $\gamma $ close to unity for all temperatures. All the data discussed below were obtained in the linear regime, where the rms noise was linear in current.
The upper panel of Fig. 1 shows the dependences $\rho (T)$ for the poly- and single crystal samples. In accord with prior publications [@cheonghwang; @masatomo], $\rho $ increases with cooling below the CO transition ($%
T_{CO}\sim 210K$ for $x>0.3$), reaches the maximum and decreases rapidly when the system undergoes the transition into the FM state. The FM transition temperature is strongly $x$-dependent: $T_{c}
$ increases from $35K$ for $x=0.4$ to $75K$ for $x=0.35$. At lower temperatures, $\rho $ is almost $T$-independent, its value is anomalously large even for the single crystal samples. The transition into the FM phase is accompanied by the increase of the magnetization, which saturates at $%
T<T_{c}$ (see the lower panel of Fig. 1). In contrast to $\rho $, the magnetization changes gradually at $T_{c}$ for both poly- and single crystal samples. This smooth dependence $M(T)$, which is observed even in low magnetic fields, is unusual for the FM transition in a homogeneous system. A strong temperature hysteresis of $\rho $ and $M$ was observed for all the samples discussed in this paper.
Qualitatively, the temperature dependence of the spectral density of the 1/f noise is as follows: $S_{V}$ increases upon cooling below $T_{CO}$, reaches the maximum, and decreases steeply on the metallic side of the CO-FM transition. In the CO phase, far from the CO-FM transition, the increase of $S_{V}$ with decreasing $T$ is due mostly to the growth of $\rho$. Indeed, in the linear regime, $S_{V}$ is proportional to $V^{2}$, or, for a fixed dc current $I$, to $\rho ^{2}$ [@kogan]:
$$\frac{S_{V}}{V^{2}}=\frac{\alpha }{f\cdot n\cdot v_{s}}\text{ ,}$$
where $\alpha $ is the Hooge’s parameter, $f$ is the frequency at which the noise is measured, $n$ is the concentration of the charge carriers or ”fluctuators”, and $v_{s}$ is the volume of the sample. Below we present the 1/f noise data in the normalized form ($S_{V}/V^{2})\cdot f\cdot
v_{s}=\alpha /n.$ Figure 2 shows the temperature dependences of $\rho $ and $%
S_{V}\cdot f\cdot v_{s}/V^{2}$ for the polycrystalline sample. The normalized magnitude of the 1/f noise is weakly $T$-dependent in the CO phase: it varies by a factor of 2-3 over the range $T=90-150K$, though $\rho
$ changes by 2-3 orders of magnitude over the same interval. Interestingly, the magnitude of the 1/f noise is anomalously large even far from the transition. (For comparison, the typical values of $\alpha /n$ are $%
10^{-21}-10^{-25}$ $cm^{3}$ for disordered metals and $10^{-18}-10^{-21}$ $%
cm^{3}$ for semiconductors [@kogan]).
The magnitude of the 1/f noise increases dramatically in the vicinity of the CO-FM transition. The sharp peak of the 1/f noise enables to determine the transition temperature with a high accuracy; below we identify $T_{c}$ with the temperature of the maximum of $\alpha /n$. There is a correlation between the magnitude of the noise peak and the ratio $\rho (T_{c})/\rho
(300K)$. For example, for the polycrystalline sample (Fig. 2), $\rho $ increases by 4 orders of magnitude with cooling from room temperature down to 80 K; the normalized noise magnitude at the transition also increases by a factor of $\sim 10^{4}$. Since the high-temperature portion of the $\rho
(T)$ dependences is approximately the same for all compounds with $x>0.35$[@masatomo], the noise peak is more pronounced for materials with higher value of $\rho (T_{c})$, e. g. with lower $T_{c}$.
It is worth mentioning that a much less pronounced increase of the 1/f noise at the FM transition has been reported for thin films of $%
La_{2/3-x}Y_{x}Ca_{1/3}MnO_{3}$ [@ramirez; @weissman]. The temperature dependences of $S_{V}/V^{2}$ for the thin films differ qualitatively from the dependences we observe for bulk samples. The authors of [@ramirez; @weissman] attributed the increase of the noise below $T_{c}$ to the magnetic domains formation.
In principle, an abrupt increase of the normalized magnitude of the 1/f noise by $1\div 2$ orders of magnitude at magnetic transitions has been observed for many macroscopically homogeneous magnetic materials[@israeloff1; @israeloff2; @hardner]. However, the $T$-dependence and the magnitude of the 1/f noise in these materials differ significantly from our data for the CMR manganites.
Our 1/f noise measurements provide strong evidence of the percolation nature of the CO-FM transition in the polycrystalline bulk samples of the low-$T_{c}
$ manganites. These data indicate that the FM regions appear progressively with decreasing temperature in the CO phase, and the transition occurs when the concentration of the FM phase exceeds the percolation threshold. This is consistent with observation of the ferromagnetic regions in manganites at $%
T>>T_{c}$, well beyond the conventional fluctuation regime (these regions were interpreted as magnetic polarons)[@De; @Teresa]. A diverging behavior of the 1/f noise is typical for the percolation metal-insulator transition [@tremblay; @rammal1]. At $T>>T_{c}$, the transport properties of the sample are governed by a very large and, apparently, weakly fluctuating contribution of the CO phase. As a result, the 1/f noise is relatively low at $T_{c}<T<<T_{CO}$. However, the magnitude of the 1/f noise diverges with approaching the percolation threshold. The formation of the infinite percolation FM cluster at $T_{c}$ is also consistent with the observation of the maximum of $d\rho /dT$ exactly at the same temperature. Notice that $T_{c}$ is lower than the temperature of the maximum of $\rho $: this is expected for a percolating mixture of two phases where the ”insulating” phase has a finite $\rho $ that increases rapidly with cooling. Previously, spatially inhomogeneous FM state and percolation nature of the conductivity in thin films of manganites have been discussed in Ref.[@babushkina].
A clearly diverging behavior of the 1/f noise allows to determine $T_{c}$ with a high accuracy and to perform the scaling analysis of $S_{V}$ and $%
\rho $ on the ”metallic” side of the CO-FM transition. In the vicinity of a percolation metal-insulator transition, the scaling behavior of $\rho $ and $S_{V}/V^{2}$ is expected[@tremblay; @kogan; @rammal1]:
$$S_{V}/V^{2}\varpropto (p-p_{c})^{-k}\text{ ,}$$
$$\rho \varpropto (p-p_{c})^{-t}\text{ .}$$
Here $p$ is the concentration of the metallic phase, $p_{c}$ is the critical concentration, $k$ and $t$ are the critical exponents of the noise and the resistivity. It is convenient to represent $S_{V}/V^{2}$ as a function of $%
\rho $ (in this case, no assumption on the value of $p_{c}$ is necessary)$:$
$$S_{V}/V^{2}\varpropto \rho ^{-k/t}.$$
The normalized magnitude of the 1/f noise versus $\rho $ for the polycrystalline sample is shown in the double-log scale in the inset of Fig. 2. Within the experimental accuracy, this dependence can be fitted by the power law (4) with $k/t=2.9\pm 0.5$. These values of $k/t$ are close to the result $k/t=2.4$ obtained theoretically for the continuum percolation model of conducting regions, randomly placed in an insulating matrix (the so-called inverted random-void model)[@tremblay]. Previously, a similar value of $k/t=3$ has been observed experimentally for the mixed powders of conducting and insulating materials [@rudman]. Notice that the ratio of critical exponents $k/t$ in the continuum percolation exceeds significantly $%
k/t=0.5-0.8$ for the discrete random models, though the values of the critical exponent $t$ are almost the same for these models ($t=1.9\pm 0.03$).
In order to disentangle $k$ and $t$, one has to measure either the concentration of the FM phase $p(T)$ as a function of $T$, or some quantity that is proportional to $p$, e. g. the magnetization. In the vicinity of the transition, $M$ is approximately a linear function of $(T_{c}-T)$ (Fig. 1). Hence, instead of $(p-p_{c})$, we can use $(T_{c}-T)$ as a variable in the scaling dependences (2) and (3). The dependence $\rho (T)$ was found to be close to the power law $\rho \varpropto (T_{c}-T)^{-t}$ with $t=2\pm 0.3$ on the metallic side of the transition. Previously, similar values $t=2.3\pm 0.4$ and $k=5\pm 1$ has been measured for the conducting particles in an insulating matrix [@chen; @Lee]. The experimental values of the critical exponents $%
t=2\pm 0.3$ and $k=5.9\pm 1.5$ for our samples are consistent with the predictions of the inverted random-void model of the continuum percolation.
For high-quality single crystals of $La_{5/8-x}Pr_{x}Ca_{3/8}MnO_{3}$ ($%
x\sim 0.35$) [@comment1], we have also observed a dramatic increase of the 1/f noise at the transition: $\alpha /n$ reaches $10^{-7}$ $cm^{3}$ for cooling and $10^{-10}$ $cm^{3}$ for warming (Fig. 3). An evidence of the phase inhomogeneity of the single crystal is provided by the smooth dependence of $M(T)$ (Fig. 1), which is similar to that for the polycrystalline samples. However, there are several important distinctions between the temperature dependences of $\rho $ and $S_{V}/V^{2}$ for poly- and single crystals. Although the magnitude of $\rho $ is similar for both types of samples (see Fig. 1), $\rho $ for the single crystal exhibits reproducible steps as a function of $T$ in the vicinity of $T_{c}$ (see the inset of Fig. 1). The sharp drop of $\rho $ by more than an order of magnitude, observed for this single crystal at $T\sim 72K$, can be interpreted as formation of a chain of a few connected FM domains between the voltage leads. The step-like behavior of $\rho $ at the transition indicates that the size of the FM regions in the single crystal is significantly bigger than that in the polycrystalline samples. When the voltage leads become ”shortened” by a chain of the metallic FM domains, an abrupt drop of the 1/f noise magnitude occurs. The percolation approach is not applicable in this case, since we probe the inhomogeneous system at the scale smaller than the percolation correlation length.
To summarize, we observed the dramatic peak of the 1/f noise in the CMR manganite $La_{5/8-x}Pr_{x}Ca_{3/8}MnO_{3}$ ($x=0.35$ and $0.375$) at the transition between the charge-ordered and ferromagnetic states. The scaling analysis of the magnitude of the noise and the resistivity in the polycrystalline samples is consistent with the continuum percolation model of conducting FM domains randomly placed in the insulating CO matrix. Being combined with the data on the temperature dependence of $\rho $ and $M$, these measurements provide strong evidence of the percolating nature of the CO-FM transition in the polycrystalline samples of the low-$T_{c}$ manganites. To the best of our knowledge, the value of $\alpha /n=S_{V}\cdot
f\cdot v_{s}/V^{2}$ $\sim 10^{-10}\div 10^{-7}cm^{3}$ observed in the low-$%
T_{c}$ manganites at the transition, is the largest normalized magnitude of the 1/f noise for the condensed matter systems. A well-pronounced step-like temperature dependence of the resistivity, observed for high-quality single crystals, suggests that the scale of the phase separation is much greater than that in the polycrystalline samples. This might indicate that the surface energy and/or the strain effects associated with the grain boundaries influence the size of the ferromagnetic domains in the low-$T_{c}$ manganites.
We thank Sh. Kogan for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF grant No. DMR-9802513.
R. M. von Helmholt [*et. al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**71**]{}, 2331 (1993).
S. Jin [*et. al*]{}., [*Science*]{} [**264**]{}, 413 (1994).
E. L. Nagaev, [*Sov. Phys.-Uspekhi*]{}, [**39**]{}, 781 (1996).
S-W. Cheong and H. Y. Hwang, in [*Colossal Magnetoresistance Oxides*]{} (ed. Tokura, Y.) Ch. 7 (Gordon & Breach, London, 1999).
R. Shreekala [*et. al*]{}., [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 1886 (1999).
A. J. Millis, P. B. Littlewood, and B. I. Shraiman, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 5144 (1995).
H. Röder, Jun Zang, and A. R. Bishop, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**76**]{}, 1356 (1996).
J.-S. Zhou and J. B. Goodenough, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{}, 2665 (1998).
M. Jaime, P. Lin, S. H. Chun, and M. B. Salamon, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B. [**60**]{}, 1 (1999).
M. Uehara, S. Mori, C. H. Chen, and S-W. Cheong, [*Nature*]{}, [**399**]{}, 560 (1999).
A.-M. S. Tremblay, S. Feng, and P. Breton, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B. [**33**]{}, 2077 (1986).
Qualitatively similar data were obtained for polycrystalline samples with $x=0.375$. The $Pr$ concentration for the single crystal, estimated from the $T_{c}(x)$ dependence, was close to 0.35 (the nominal concentration $x=0.42$).
Sh. Kogan, [*Electronic Noise and Fluctuations in Solids*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
G. B. Alers, A. P. Ramirez, and S. Jin, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**68**]{}, 3644 (1996).
H. T. Hardner [*et. al.*]{}, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**81 (1)**]{}, 272 (1997).
N. E. Israeloff [*et. al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**63**]{}, 794 (1989).
N. E. Israeloff [*et. al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**60**]{}, 152 (1988).
H. T. Hardner [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**48**]{}, 16156 (1993).
R. Rammal [*et. al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**54**]{}, 1718 (1985).
J. M. De Teresa [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**386**]{}, 256 (1997).
N. A. Babushkina [*et. al*]{}., [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**59**]{}, 6994 (1999).
D. A. Rudman, J. J. Calabrese, and J. J. Garland, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**33**]{}, 1456 (1986).
C. C. Chen and Y. C. Chou, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**54**]{}, 2529 (1985).
S.-I. Lee [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**34**]{}, 6719 (1986).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper presents global tracking strategies for the attitude dynamics of a rigid body. It is well known that global attractivity is prohibited for continuous attitude control systems on the special orthogonal group. Such topological restriction has been dealt with either by constructing smooth attitude control systems that exclude a set of measure zero in the region of attraction, or by introducing hybrid control systems to obtain global asymptotic stability. This paper proposes alternative attitude control systems that are continuous in time to achieve exponential stability, where the region of attraction covers the entire special orthogonal group. The main contribution of this paper is providing a new framework to overcome the topological restriction in attitude controls without relying on discontinuities through the controlled maneuvers. The efficacy of the proposed methods is illustrated by numerical simulations and experiments.'
bibliography:
- 'BibMaster17.bib'
- 'tylee.bib'
title: 'Semi-Global Attitude Controls Bypassing the Topological Obstruction on ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$'
---
Introduction
============
The attitude dynamics and control of a rigid body encounters the unique challenge that the configuration space of attitudes cannot be globally identified with a Euclidean space. They evolve on the compact nonlinear manifold, referred to as the three-dimensional special orthogonal group or ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, that is composed of $3\times 3$ orthogonal matrices with the determinant of one.
Traditionally, the special orthogonal group has been parameterized via local coordinates, such as Euler angles or Rodriguez parameters. It is well known that such minimal, three-parameter representations suffer from singularities [@StuSR64].
Quaternions have been regarded as an ideal alternative to minimal attitude representations, as they are defined by four parameters and they do not exhibit singularities. However, the configuration space of quaternions, namely the three-sphere double covers the special orthogonal group, and consequently, there are two antipodal quaternions corresponding to the same attitude. In fact, it has been shown that 5 parameters are required at least to represent the special orthogonal group globally in a one-to-one manner [@StuSR64]. This ambiguity inherent to quaternions should be carefully resolved. Otherwise, there could occur unwinding phenomena, where the rigid body rotates unnecessarily through a large angle even if the initial attitude error is small [@BhaBerSCL00]. This has been handled by constructing a control input such that the two antipodal quaternions yield the same input [@WenKreITAC91], which is equivalent to designing an attitude controller in terms of rotation matrices. Another approach is to define an exogenous mechanism to lift attitude measurements on the special orthogonal group into the three-sphere in a robust fashion [@MaySanITAC11], which may cause additional complexities.
Alternatively, attitude control systems have been developed directly on the special orthogonal group to avoid the singularities of minimal parameterizations and the ambiguity of quaternions concurrently [@BulLew05]. More specifically, a configuration error function that measures the discrepancy between the desired attitude and the current attitude is formulated via a matrix norm, and control systems are designed such that controlled trajectories are attracted to the minimum of the error function, thereby accomplishing asymptotic stability.
However, regardless of the choice of attitude representations, attitude control systems are constrained by the topological restriction on the special orthogonal group that prohibits achieving global attractivity via any continuous feedback control [@WilJDE67; @BhaBerSCL00; @BerPerA13]. This is because the domain of attraction for those systems is homeomorphic to a Euclidean space, which cannot be identified with the tangent bundle of the special orthogonal group globally. For example, in the design of attitude control systems based on the aforementioned configuration error function, there are at least four critical points of the error function, according to the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category [@TakIM68]. This implies that there will be at least three undesired equilibria in the controlled dynamics, and the region of attraction to the desired attitude excludes the union of the stable manifolds of those undesired equilibria. One can show that the resulting reduced region of attraction almost covers the special orthogonal group [@WenKreITAC91; @Kod88; @BulMurA99], while precluding only a set of zero measure. But, the existence of the stable manifolds of the undesired equilibria may affect the controlled dynamics strongly [@LeeLeoPICDC11].
Recently, the topological restriction has been tackled by introducing discontinuities in the controlled attitude dynamics. In particular, a set of attitude configuration error functions, referred to as synergistic potential functions, has been proposed [@MayTeeITAC13]. The family of synergistic potential functions is constructed such that at each undesired critical point of a potential function, there is another member in the family with a lower value of the error. By consistently switching to the controller derived from the minimal potential function, robust global asymptotic stability is achieved for the attitude dynamics. While this approach avoids chattering behaviors by introducing hysteresis, discontinuities in the control input may excite unmodeled dynamics and cause undesired behaviors in practice. Interestingly, it has been unclear if a more general class of feedback control systems could accomplish the global stabilization task without introducing such disruptions in the control input [@MayTeeA13].
The objective of this paper is to present an alternative framework to overcome the topological restriction on the special orthogonal group with control inputs that are continuous in time. This is achieved by shifting the desired attitude temporarily, instead of modifying the attitude error functions as in [@MayTeeITAC13; @LeeITAC15]. More explicitly, when the initial attitude and the initial angular velocity do not belong to the estimated region of attraction of a smooth attitude controller, the desired trajectory is shifted to a trajectory that is sufficiently close to the initial condition to guarantee convergence. While the initial value of the shifted reference trajectory is distinct from that of the true reference trajectory, it is constructed as a time-varying function such that the shifted reference trajectory exponentially converges to the true reference trajectory as time tends to infinity. Consequently, the corresponding continuous-time controlled trajectory, which is designed to follow the shifted reference trajectory, will converge to the true reference trajectory. The resulting time-varying attitude control system is discontinuous with respect to the initial condition, thereby bypassing the topological restriction. But, it is continuous in time so as to avoid the aforementioned issues of switching in hybrid attitude controls.
All of these are rigorously examined and analyzed so as to show exponential convergence to the true reference trajectory and to verify that the region of attraction covers the special orthogonal group completely. Furthermore, the shifted reference trajectory is formulated in such an explicit manner, using a conjugacy class in the special orthogonal group, that no complicated inequality conditions are needed. Later, this approach is also extended to adaptive controls to handle unknown constant disturbances in the attitude dynamics. In short, the unique contribution of the proposed approach is that global attractivity is accomplished on the special orthogonal group with control inputs that are continuous in time, overcoming the topological restriction.
This paper is organized as follows. Mathematical preliminaries are presented and the attitude control problem is formulated in Section \[sec:PF\]. With the assumption that there is no disturbance, two types of attitude control strategies are proposed in Section \[sec:ATC\]. These are extended to adaptive controls in Section \[sec:AATC\], followed by numerical examples and experimental results.
Problem Formulation {#sec:PF}
===================
Mathematical Preliminaries
--------------------------
The inner product $\langle A, B\rangle $ of two matrices or vectors $A$ and $B$ of the same size denotes the usual Euclidean inner product, i.e., $\langle A, B\rangle = \operatorname{tr}(A^TB)$. The norm $\| A\|$ for a matrix or vector $A$ denotes the Euclidean norm, i.e., $\|A\|^2 = \langle A, A\rangle = \operatorname{tr}(A^TA)$. The minimum eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix $A$ is denoted by $\lambda_{\rm min} (A)$ and the maximum eigenvalue by $\lambda_{\rm max} (A)$.
The attitude dynamics of a rigid body evolve on the three-dimensional special orthogonal group, ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}=\{R\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}\,|\, R^T R=I_{3\times 3},\, \mathrm{det}[R]=1\}$. For any $R, R_1, R_2 \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, $$\label{R:isometry}
\|RR_1 - RR_2\| = \| R_1 - R_2 \| = \|R_1R - R_2R\|.$$ Let $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ denote the set of all $3\times 3$ skew symmetric matrices. The hat map $\hat {}{}: \mathbb R^3 \rightarrow \mathfrak{so}(3)$ is defined by $$v = (v_1, v_2,v_3) \mapsto \hat v = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & -v_3 & v_2 \\
v_3 & 0 & -v_1 \\
-v_2 & v_1 & 0
\end{bmatrix},$$ and its inverse map is denoted by $\vee$ and called the vee map. For any $v$ and $w$ in $\mathbb R^3$, $\hat v w = v \times w$ and $$\langle \hat v, \hat w\rangle = 2\langle v, w\rangle,$$ where the left side is the inner product on $\mathbb R^{3\times 3}$ and the right on $\mathbb R^3$. For $\theta \in [0,2\pi]$ and a unit vector $v\in \mathbb R^3$, the matrix exponential $\exp(\theta \hat v)$ is computed as follows: $$\exp(\theta \hat v) =
I +\sin\theta\hat v + (1-\cos\theta)\hat v^2.$$
Next, we recall conjugacy classes in ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ [@Cur84]. Let $Z_\theta\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ be the rotation about the axis $e_3=(0,0,1)$ by an angle $\theta\in{\mathbb R}$: $$Z_\theta = \exp(\theta\hat e_3) =
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos\theta & -\sin\theta & 0 \\
\sin\theta & \cos\theta & 0\\
0&0&1
\end{bmatrix}.$$ It is straightforward to show $$\label{Z:distance}
\|Z_{\theta_1} - Z_{\theta_2}\| =2 \sqrt{1-\cos(\theta_1 - \theta_2)}$$ for any $\theta_1, \theta_2\in \mathbb R$. For $\theta\in \mathbb R$, define the conjugacy class of $Z_\theta$ in ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ as $$C_\theta = \{ R \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\mid R = UZ_\theta U^T,\, U\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}\},$$ which is the set of all rotations through angle $\theta$. The group ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ is partitioned into conjugacy classes. More explicitly, $$\label{C:union}
{\operatorname{SO}(3)}= \bigcup_{\theta \in [0,\pi]}C_\theta$$ and $$C_{\theta_1} \bigcap C_{\theta_2} = \emptyset$$ for any $0\leq \theta_1 < \theta_2 \leq \pi$.
Therefore, for any $X\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, there exist a unique angle $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ and some $U\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ such that $$\label{XUZU}
X = U Z_{\theta} U^T,$$ where $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ is determined by $$\theta = \arccos \left ( \frac{\operatorname{tr}(X)-1}{2}\right ).$$ The rotation matrix $U$ satisfying (\[XUZU\]) is not unique, but one can be obtained as follows. Let $v$ be a unit eigenvector of $X$ corresponding to eigenvalue 1. This vector $v$ satisfies $\exp(\theta \hat v) = X$ or $X^T$. If $\exp(\theta \hat v) = X$ then set $u_3 = v$. Otherwise, set $u_3 = -v$. Choose a unit vector $u_1$ perpendicular to $u_3$ and let $u_2 = u_3 \times u_1$. Then, the rotation matrix $U$ defined by $$U = \begin{bmatrix}
u_1 & u_2 & u_3
\end{bmatrix}$$ satisfies (\[XUZU\]). Alternatively, for $0< \theta <\pi$ the vector $u_3$ can be computed as follows: $$u_3 = \left ( \frac{X-X^T}{2\sin\theta} \right )^\vee,$$ and the remaining columns $u_1$ and $u_2$ are constructed as discussed above.
It is easy to show that $$\max_{R_1, R_2 \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}} \|R_1 - R_2\| = 2\sqrt{2}$$ and the maximum value $2\sqrt 2$ is attained if and only if $$R_1R_2^T \in C_\pi,$$ where $C_\pi$ is the conjugacy class of $Z_\pi$.
Attitude Dynamics and Control Objective
---------------------------------------
The equations of motion for the attitude dynamics of a rigid body are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot R & = R\hat \Omega,\label{eqn:R_dot}\\
{{\mathbb I}}\dot \Omega &= ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega) \times \Omega + \tau+\Delta,\label{eqn:Omega:dot}\end{aligned}$$ with the rotation matrix $R \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ representing the linear transformation of the representation of a vector from the body-fixed frame to the inertial frame, and the angular velocity $\Omega \in \mathbb R^3$ of the rigid body resolved in the body-fixed frame. The moment of inertia matrix is denoted by ${{\mathbb I}}\in\mathbb R^{3\times 3}$, which is symmetric and positive-definite, and the control torque resolved in the body-fixed frame is denoted by $\tau \in \mathbb R^3$.
The above equations include a constant but unknown disturbance torque $\Delta\in{\mathbb R}^3$, which satisfies the following assumption.
\[assump:delta\] The magnitude of the disturbance is bounded by a known constant $\delta>0$, i.e. $\|\Delta\|\leq \delta$.
Let $(R_d(t), \Omega_d(t)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ be a smooth reference trajectory such that $$\dot R_d(t) = R _d(t) \hat \Omega_d (t),\label{eqn:Rd_dot}$$ for all $t\geq 0$. We wish to design a control torque $\tau$ such that the reference trajectory becomes asymptotically stable.
Attitude Tracking Controls {#sec:ATC}
==========================
Throughout this section, it is assumed that there is no disturbance in the dynamics, i.e., $\Delta=0$. A smooth attitude controller that yields almost global exponential stability is first presented, and it is extended for global attractivity.
Almost Global Tracking Strategy {#sec:AGT}
-------------------------------
The attitude tracking error $E_R\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ and the angular velocity tracking error $e_\Omega\in{\mathbb R}^3$ are defined as $$E_R = R - R_d, \qquad e_\Omega = \Omega - \Omega_d.$$ Notice that our definition of $e_\Omega$ is distinct from that in [@LeeLeoPICDC10], where the desired angular velocity is multiplied by $R^TR_d$. Define an auxiliary vector $e_R\in{\mathbb R}^3$ as $$e_R = \frac{1}{2} (R^T_dR - R^TR_d)^\vee.\label{eqn:eR}$$ The relations between $E_R$ and $e_R$ are summarized as follows.
\[lemma:eR:ER\] 1. For any $R$ and $R_d \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, $$\|e_R\|^2 = \frac{1}{2}\|R - R_d\|^2 \left ( 1 - \frac{1}{8}\|R -R_d\|^2\right ).$$
2\. For any $R$ and $R_d \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, $$\|e_R\|^2 \leq \frac{1}{2}\|R -R_d\|^2.$$
3\. For any number $a$ satisfying $0 < a < 1$ and for any $R$ and $R_d \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ satisfying $ \|R -R_d\| \leq 2\sqrt{2a}$, $$\frac{(1-a)}{2}\|R -R_d\|^2 \leq \|e_R\|^2.$$
Let $R^TR_d=\exp(\theta\hat v)$ for $\theta\in[0,\pi]$ and $v\in{\mathbb R}^3$ with $\|v\|=1$. Using Rodrigues’ formula, one can show $$\|E_R\|^2=4(1-\cos\theta),\quad \|e_R\|= \sin\theta.$$ Substituting these, it is straightforward to show the first identity, which implies the next two inequalities.
Along the trajectory of the rigid body system, $${\dot e}_R = C(R^TR_d) e_\Omega + e_R \times \Omega_d$$ where $$\label{def:C:matrix}
C(R^TR_d) = \frac{1}{2}(\operatorname{tr} (R^TR_d) I - R^TR_d).$$
From [(\[eqn:R\_dot\])]{} and [(\[eqn:Rd\_dot\])]{}, $$\dot e_R =
\frac{1}{2}\{\hat\Omega R^T R_d + R_d^T R \hat\Omega
-\hat\Omega_d R_d^T R - R^T R_d\hat\Omega_d\}.$$ Substitute $\Omega= e_\Omega +\Omega_d$, and then the two terms dependent on $e_\Omega$ reduce to $C(R^TR_d) e_\Omega$ by the identity $$(\hat x A + A^T \hat x)^\vee = (\operatorname{tr}(A)I - A)x$$ for all $x\in \mathbb R^3$ and $A\in \mathbb R^{3\times 3}$. The remaining terms, which depend on $\Omega_d$, simplify to $e_R \times \Omega_d$ by the definition of $e_R$ in [(\[eqn:eR\])]{} and the identity, $\hat x\hat y - \hat y \hat x = \widehat{x\times y}$ for any $x,y\in{\mathbb R}^3$.
Consider a Lyapunov function (candidate) $V: {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3 \times \mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
V(R, \Omega,t) &= \frac{k_R}{4}\| E_R\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \|e_\Omega\|^2 + \mu \langle e_R, e_\Omega \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_R >0$ and $\mu>0$. Define an auxiliary function $V_0(R, \Omega,t) $ as follows: $$\label{def:V0}
V_0 (R, \Omega,t) = \frac{k_R}{4}\| E_R\|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\| e_\Omega\|^2,$$ which coincides with $V$ when $\mu = 0$. The following lemma discusses positive-definiteness of the function $V$ and its relationship with its auxiliary $V_0$.
\[lemma:V:positive\] Suppose $$0 < \mu < \sqrt {k_R}.$$ Then, the symmetric matrices $$\label{def:W1}
W_1 = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{4}k_R & -\frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\mu \\
-\frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\mu & \frac{1}{2}
\end{bmatrix},\,\,
W_2 = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{4}k_R & \frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\mu \\
\frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\mu & \frac{1}{2}
\end{bmatrix}$$ are positive-definite and satisfy $$\label{W1:less:than:V}
z^T W_1z \leq V(R,\Omega, t)\leq z^T W_2 z$$ for all $(R,\Omega) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ and $t\geq 0$, where $z = ( \| E_R \|, \| e_\Omega \| ) \in \mathbb R^2$. Moreover, $$\label{V0:less:V}
\frac{\sqrt{k_R} - \mu}{\sqrt{k_R}}V_0(R,\Omega,t) \leq V(R,\Omega, t)\leq \frac{\sqrt{k_R} + \mu}{\sqrt{k_R}}V_0(R,\Omega,t)$$ for all $(R,\Omega) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ and $t\geq 0$.
The inequality (\[W1:less:than:V\]) follows from Lemma \[lemma:eR:ER\] and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Next, let $\tilde z = (\frac{\sqrt{k_R}}{2}\|E_R\|, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \|e_\Omega\|)^T\in{\mathbb R}^2$. Then, $z^T W_1 z$ can be rewritten as $$z^T W_1 z = (\tilde z)^T \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}} \\
-\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}} & 1 \end{bmatrix} \tilde z \geq \left(1-\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}}\right) \|\tilde z\|^2,$$ which, together with (\[W1:less:than:V\]), shows the first inequality in (\[V0:less:V\]) as $\|\tilde z\|^2=V_0(R,\Omega,t)$. The second inequality in (\[V0:less:V\]) can be shown similarly.
We propose the following tracking controller: $$\label{tracking:control}
\tau = - ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega)\times \Omega + {{\mathbb I}}( -k_R e_R - k_\Omega e_\Omega + \Omega \times \Omega_d + \dot \Omega_d),$$ where $k_R>0$ is the same constant as that used for the function $V$, and $k_\Omega >0$. The following lemma computes the rate of change of $V_0$ and $V$ along the trajectory of the closed-loop system.
\[lemma:Vdot:less\] 1. Along the trajectory of the closed-loop system with the control (\[tracking:control\]), the time-derivative of the auxiliary $V_0$ is given by $${\dot V}_0 (R,\Omega,t) =-k_\Omega\|e_\Omega\|^2.\label{eqn:V0_dot}$$ 2. Let $a$ be any number satisfying $0 < a <1$ and choose any $\mu$ such that $$0 < \mu < \frac{4(1-a)k_R k_\Omega}{4(1-a) k_R + k_\Omega^2}.$$ If $$\| R -R_d\| \leq 2\sqrt{2a}, \label{eqn:ER2a}$$ then the time-derivative of the Lyapunov function along the controlled trajectories satisfies $$\label{V:dot:lessthan:W3}
{\dot V} (R,\Omega,t) \leq -z^TW_3z$$ with $z = (\| E_R \|, \| e_\Omega \|) \in \mathbb R^2$ and the matrix $W_3\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ defined as $$\label{def:W3}
W_3 = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{(1-a)}{2}\mu k_R & - \frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\mu k_\Omega \\
- \frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\mu k_\Omega & k_\Omega -\mu
\end{bmatrix},$$ which is positive-definite.
Let $Q=R_d^T R\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}$. From the attitude kinematics equations and the definition of $e_\Omega$, $$\dot Q = \dot R_d^T R + R_d^T\dot R = -\hat\Omega_d Q + Q\hat\Omega= Q\hat e_\Omega + Q\hat \Omega_d-\hat\Omega_d Q.$$ We have $$\|E_R\|^2 = {\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ (R-R_d)^T(R-R_d) \right]}}}} = 2{\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ I_{3\times 3}-Q \right]}}}}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} {\ensuremath{\left( \frac{k_R}{4}\|E_R\|^2 \right)}}
&= -\frac{k_R}{2}{\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ \dot Q \right]}}}}\\
&= -\frac{k_R}{2}{\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ Q\hat e_\Omega + Q\hat \Omega_d-\hat\Omega_d Q \right]}}}}\\
&=-\frac{k_R}{2}{\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ Q\hat e_\Omega \right]}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is obtained using ${\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ AB-BA \right]}}}}=0$ for any square matrices $A,B$. From the identity ${\mathrm{tr}\ensuremath{\!{\ensuremath{\left[ A\hat x \right]}}}} = - x\cdot (A-A^T)^\vee$ for any $x\in{\mathbb R}^3$ and $A\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$, the above is rewritten as $$\frac{k_R}{2} e_\Omega\cdot(Q-Q^T)^\vee = k_R e_R\cdot e_\Omega.$$ Using this, along the trajectory of [(\[eqn:R\_dot\])]{} and [(\[eqn:Omega:dot\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot V} (R,\Omega,t) &= \langle e_\Omega, k_R e_R - {\dot \Omega}_d + {{\mathbb I}}^{-1}( \tau + ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega) \times \Omega ) \rangle \\
&+ \mu \langle C(R^TR_d) e_\Omega, e_\Omega \rangle \\ &+ \mu \langle e_R, \Omega_d \times e_\Omega - {\dot \Omega}_d + {{\mathbb I}}^{-1}( \tau+ ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega) \times \Omega ) \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $C(R^TR_d)$ is defined in (\[def:C:matrix\]). Substituting the control (\[tracking:control\]), and using the fact that $e_\Omega \times \Omega_d = (\Omega - \Omega_d) \times \Omega_d = \Omega \times \Omega_d$, this reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{compute:Vdot}
{\dot V} (R,\Omega,t) &= - k_\Omega \|e_\Omega\|^2 -\mu k_R\|e_R\|^2 - \mu k_\Omega \langle e_R, e_\Omega \rangle \nonumber \\
&\quad + \mu \langle C(R^TR_d)e_\Omega, e_\Omega\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $\mu=0$ yield [(\[eqn:V0\_dot\])]{}. According to [@LeeLeoPICDC10], the matrix $C(R^TR_d)$ defined in (\[def:C:matrix\]) satisfies $\| C(R^TR_d)\|_2 \leq 1$, where $\| \cdot \|_2$ is the operator 2-norm. Using this fact, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Lemma \[lemma:eR:ER\], one can easily prove (\[V:dot:lessthan:W3\]). The given bound of $\mu$ guarantees the positive-definiteness of $W_3$.
Next, we show that the proposed control system yields exponential stability.
\[theorem:main\] Choose any positive numbers $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, $a$ and $\mu$ such that $$\label{ineq:a}
0 < a<1$$ and $$\label{ineq:epsilon}
0 < \mu < \frac{4(1-a)k_R k_\Omega}{4(1-a) k_R + k_\Omega^2}.$$ Let $$\label{def:sigma}
\sigma = \frac{\lambda_{\min}(W_3)}{ \lambda_{\max}(W_2)} >0,$$ where the matrices $W_2$ and $W_3$ are defined in (\[def:W1\]) and (\[def:W3\]), respectively.
Then, the zero equilibrium of the tracking errors $(E_R,e_\Omega)=(0,0)$ is locally exponentially stable, and for any initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ satisfying $$\label{V:ini}
V_0(R(0), \Omega(0), 0) \leq 2 a k_R,$$ the closed-loop trajectory $(R(t),\Omega(t))$ for the control (\[tracking:control\]) satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
V_0(R(t), \Omega(t), t) \leq V_0(R(0), \Omega(0), 0) \leq 2 a k_R, \label{V0:lessthan:akR}\\
V(R(t), \Omega(t), t) \leq V(R(0), \Omega(0), 0) e^{-\sigma t} \label{conclusion:theorem}\end{gathered}$$ for all $t\geq 0$. Furthermore, both the attitude tracking error $\|R(t) -R_d(t)\|$ and the body angular velocity tracking error $ \| \Omega(t) - \Omega_d(t)\|$ converge exponentially to zero at the exponential rate of $(-\sigma/2)$ as $t$ tends to infinity, i.e., [[there exists a constant $c>0$ such that $$\| E_R(t)\| + \| e_\Omega(t) \|
\leq c\left( \| E_R(0)\| + \| e_\Omega(0) \|\right) e^{-\frac{\sigma}{2} t}
\label{eqn:exp0}$$ for all $t\geq 0$ and all initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0))$ satisfying (\[V:ini\]).]{}]{}
Take any positive numbers $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, $a$ and $\mu$ that satisfy (\[ineq:a\]) and (\[ineq:epsilon\]). Since $$\frac{4(1-a)k_R k_\Omega}{4(1-a) k_R + k_\Omega^2} \leq \frac{4(1-a)k_R k_\Omega}{2\sqrt{4(1-a) k_R k_\Omega^2}} < \sqrt{k_R},$$ we have $$0 < \mu < \sqrt{k_R}$$ by (\[ineq:epsilon\]). According to Lemma \[lemma:V:positive\], the matrix $W_1$ defined in (\[def:W1\]) is positive-definite and both (\[W1:less:than:V\]) and (\[V0:less:V\]) hold for all $(R,\Omega) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ and $t\geq 0$. It follows that the function $V$ is positive-definite and decrescent.
Choose any initial state $(R(0),\Omega(0))$ satisfying (\[V:ini\]). By (\[eqn:V0\_dot\]) in Lemma \[lemma:Vdot:less\], $V_0(R(t),\Omega(t),t)$ is a non-increasing function of time along the closed-loop trajectory and (\[V0:lessthan:akR\]) holds for all $t\geq 0$, which implies $$\|R(t) - R_d(t)\|^2 \leq \frac{4}{k_R}V_0(R(t), \Omega(t), t) \leq 8a$$ for all $t\geq 0$. Since (\[eqn:ER2a\]) holds, by Lemma \[lemma:Vdot:less\] we have (\[V:dot:lessthan:W3\]) with $W_3$ being positive-definite.
The region of attraction to an asymptotically stable equilibrium is often estimated by a sub-level set of the Lyapunov function [@Kha96]. While the estimate of the region of attraction given by (\[V:ini\]) is not a sub-level set of the Lyapunov function $V(R,\Omega,t)$, it is positively invariant as $V_0(R(t),\Omega(t),t)$ is non-increasing in $t$. Therefore, for any initial condition satisfying (\[V:ini\]), both of (\[W1:less:than:V\]) and (\[V:dot:lessthan:W3\]) hold true for all $t\geq 0$, and the exponential convergence is guaranteed as follows.
From (\[W1:less:than:V\]) and (\[V:dot:lessthan:W3\]), it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V(R(t), \Omega (t), t) &\leq -\sigma V(R(t),\Omega(t),t)\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\geq 0$, where $\sigma$ is defined in (\[def:sigma\]). This shows (\[conclusion:theorem\]). Next, we show [(\[eqn:exp0\])]{}. From (\[V0:less:V\]) and (\[conclusion:theorem\]), $$V_0(R(t), \Omega(t), t) ) \leq \frac{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu} V_0(R(0), \Omega (0), 0) e^{-\sigma t},$$ [[which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{k_R}{4}&\| E_R(t)\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \| e_\Omega(t) \|^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}\left( \frac{k_R}{4}\| E_R(0)\|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \| e_\Omega(0) \|^2\right) e^{-\sigma t}.\end{aligned}$$ We can view $\sqrt{\frac{k_R}{4}\|A\|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2}$ for $(A,x)\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}\times {\mathbb R}^3$ as a norm on ${\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}\times {\mathbb R}^3$. As all norms on a finite-dimensional vector space are equivalent [@Lan93], there are positive constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ such that $$\label{norm:equivalence}
c_1 (\|A\| + \|x\|) \leq \sqrt{\frac{k_R}{4}\|A\|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\|x\|^2} \leq c_2 (\|A\| + \|x\|)$$ for all $(A,x)\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}\times {\mathbb R}^3$ . Hence, letting $$c = \frac{c_2}{c_1}\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}},$$ we have [(\[eqn:exp0\])]{} for all $t\geq 0$ and all initial states satisfying (\[V:ini\]).]{}]{}
The following corollary characterizes the region of attraction that guarantees exponential stability, estimated by (\[V:ini\]), and it discusses how to choose the values of the control parameters $k_R$ and $k_\Omega$ for a given initial state.
\[corollary2:main\] Given an arbitrary initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ satisfying $$\| R(0) - R_d(0)\| < 2\sqrt 2, \label{eqn:condR0}$$ take any $k_R$ such that $$\label{Cor2:cond2}
\frac{2 \| \Omega (0) - \Omega_d(0)\|^2}{8 - \|R(0) - R_d(0)\|^2} < k_R.$$ Then, $V_0(R(0), \Omega (0), 0) < 2k_R$, and the conclusion of Theorem \[theorem:main\] holds true for any $k_\Omega$, $a$ and $\mu$ satisfying (\[ineq:epsilon\]) and $$\label{Cor2:cond3}
\frac{V_0(R(0), \Omega (0),0)}{2k_R} \leq a <1.$$
Straightforward.
The inequalites [(\[eqn:condR0\])]{} and (\[Cor2:cond2\]) imply that the proposed control system can handle any initial attitude excluding the set $\{ R\in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\mid\| R - R_d\| = 2\sqrt 2\}$, which is equal to $C_\pi R_d$, where $C_\pi$ is the conjugacy class containing rotations through angle $\pi$. Since $\dim (C_\pi R_d) = \dim C_\pi = 2$ while $\dim{\operatorname{SO}(3)}= 3$, one can claim that for a given $R_d \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, the set $\{R \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\mid \|R-R_d\| < 2\sqrt 2\}$ almost covers the entire space ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$. Therefore, Corollary \[corollary2:main\] implies that our tracking control law can handle a large set of initial attitude tracking errors, excluding a set of measure zero only. This property is referred to as *almost* global exponential stability [@Kod88], and it is considered as the strongest stability property for smooth attitude controls, due to the topological obstruction that prohibits global attractivity with smooth vector fields on ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ [@BhaBerSCL00].
While there have been attitude controllers achieving [almost]{} global exponential stability [@LeeITAC15; @LeeSCL12], they showed the exponential convergence for the auxiliary attitude error vector $e_R$, which is not necessarily proportional to the attitude error [@LeeSCL12]. Instead, the stability analysis presented in this section guarantees the exponential convergence of the attitude error $E_R$ satisfying $\|E_R\|=\|R-R_d\|=\|I_{3\times 3}-R^T R_d\|$.
Global Tracking Strategy {#sec:SGT}
------------------------
In practice, there is a limited chance that the initial attitude is placed in the low-dimensional set of $C_\pi R_d$ that does not guarantee the exponential convergence. However, it is shown that the controlled trajectories may be strongly affected by the existence of the stable manifolds of points in $C_\pi R_d$, and the rate of convergence can be reduced significantly [@LeeLeoPICDC11; @LeeSCL12].
To avoid these issues, hybrid attitude control systems have been introduced to achieve global asymptotic stability. These are based on a class of attitude error functions, referred to as synergistic potential functions, that are constructed by stretching and scaling the popular trace form of the attitude error function [@MayTeeITAC13], or by expelling the controlled attitude trajectories away from the undesired equilibria [@LeeITAC15]. In these approaches, the topological obstruction to global attractivity is avoided by using discontinuities of the control input with respect to time. However, attitude actuators are constrained by limited bandwidth, and abrupt changes in the control torque may excite the unmodeled dynamics and cause undesired behaviors, such as the vibrations of solar panels in satellites. Interestingly, it has not been known whether a more general class of time-varying feedback could accomplish the global stabilization task without introducing such discontinuities [@MayTeeA13].
In this section, we present an alternative approach to achieve global attractivity. The key idea is to introduce a *shifted* desired attitude, and design an attitude control system to follow the shifted trajectories instead of the original attitude command. The shifted desired trajectory is carefully constructed with the conjugacy class discussed in Section \[sec:PF\] to guarantee the convergence to the desired attitude trajectory from any initial attitude. In contrast to hybrid attitude controls where the configuration error function defining the controlled dynamics is switched instantaneously, the proposed approach adjusts the desired attitude trajectory continuously in time, thereby avoiding any jump in the control input.
Consider the attitude control system presented in Theorem \[theorem:main\]. Suppose the initial condition $(R(0),\Omega(0))$ satisfies (\[V:ini\]). Then, the exponential convergence is guaranteed, and there is no need for modification. As such, this section focuses on the other case when the initial condition does not satisfy the given estimate of the region of attraction, i.e., $$\label{eqn:V0_GT}
V_0(R(0), \Omega(0), 0) > 2 a k_R.$$
Now, we introduce the *shifted* desired attitude. By (\[R:isometry\]), (\[Z:distance\]), and (\[C:union\]), there exists a unique $\theta_0 \in [0, \pi]$ such that $R(0)R_d(0)^T \in C_{\theta_0}$, i.e. $$R(0) = U_0 Z_{\theta_0}U_0^T R_d(0)\label{eqn:R0:U:thetab}$$ for some $U_0 \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}$. In other words, the initial attitude and the initial desired attitude is related by the fixed-axis rotation by the angle $\theta_0$ about the third column of $U_0$.
Next, for a constant $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, choose an angle $\theta_{b_0} \in (0, \theta_0) $ such that $$\label{eqn:newly:added:theta}
1-\cos(\theta_0 - \theta_{b_0}) \leq 2\epsilon a.$$ Note that such an angle $\theta_{b_0}$ always exists for any $\epsilon,a\in(0,1)$ since one has only to make $|\theta_0 - \theta_{b_0}|$ sufficiently small. Then, define a time-varying angle $\theta_b(t)$ as $$\theta_b(t) = \theta_{b_0}e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2} t},\label{eqn:theta:b:varying}$$ where $\gamma >0$ is a positive constant satisfying $$\label{eqn:gamma}
\gamma < \frac{4}{\theta_{b_0}}\sqrt{a k_R (1-\epsilon)}.$$ Using $\theta_b(t)$, define the shifted desired attitude as $$\tilde R_d(t) = U_0 Z_{\theta_b(t)}U_0^T R_d(t).\label{eqn:Rd:shifted:varying}$$ Therefore, $R_d(t)^T \tilde R_d(t)$ belongs to the conjugacy class $C_{\theta_b(t)}$. The properties of the shifted desired attitude are summarized as follows.
\[lem:Rdtilde\] Consider the shifted desired attitude trajectory given by [(\[eqn:Rd:shifted:varying\])]{}.
- The initial attitude error from the shifted desired trajectory satisfies $$\|R(0)-\tilde R_d(0)\| = 2\sqrt{1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0})}< 2\sqrt{2a}.\label{RminusRtilde}$$
- The difference between the shifted desired attitude and the true desired attitude exponentially converges to zero as $$\label{eqn:Rdtilde:Rd}
\|\tilde R_d(t) - R_d(t)\| = 2\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_b(t)} \leq \sqrt{2} \theta_{b_0} e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2} t}.$$
- The time-derivative of the shifted desired attitude trajectory is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot {\tilde R}_d(t) = \tilde R_d(t) \hat{\tilde\Omega}_d(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the shifted desired angular velocity $\tilde\Omega_d(t)$ is $$\label{eqn:Omega:tilde:varying}
\tilde\Omega_d(t) = \Omega_d(t) + \dot\theta_b(t) \tilde R_d(t)^T U_0 e_3.$$
- The difference between the shifted desired angular velocity and the true desired angular velocity is given by $$\label{eqn:Wdtilde:Wd}
\|\tilde\Omega_d(t)-\Omega_d(t)\| = |\dot\theta_b(t)|
=\frac{\gamma}{2}\theta_{b_0} e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2} t}.$$
From (\[R:isometry\]) and (\[Z:distance\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\|R(0)-\tilde R_d(0)\|& =
\| U_0 Z_{\theta_0} U_0^T R_d(0)-U_0 Z_{\theta_{b_0}} U_0^T R_d(0)\|\\
&= \|Z_{\theta_0}-Z_{\theta_{b_0}}\| = \sqrt{1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0})},\end{aligned}$$ which shows (\[RminusRtilde\]) from [(\[eqn:newly:added:theta\])]{}. Similarly, $$\|\tilde R_d(t) - R_d(t)\| = \|Z_{\theta_b(t)} - I_{3\times 3}\| = 2\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_b(t)}.$$ From the fact that $\frac{2}{\pi^2}x^2 \leq 1-\cos x \leq \frac{1}{2}x^2$ for any $x\in[0,\pi]$, the last inequality of [(\[eqn:Rdtilde:Rd\])]{} follows.
Next, the time-derivative of the shifted reference attitude is $$\frac{d}{dt}\tilde R_d(t) = \dot\theta_b(t) U_0 \hat e_3 Z_{\theta_b(t)} U_0^T R_d(t)+\tilde R_d(t)\hat \Omega_d(t),$$ which can be rewritten as $$\frac{d}{dt}\tilde R_d(t) = \dot\theta_b(t) U_0 \hat e_3 U_0^T \tilde R_d(t)+\tilde R_d(t)\hat \Omega_d(t)$$ by [(\[eqn:Rd:shifted:varying\])]{}. Using the property $\widehat {Rx}=R\hat x R^T$ for any $R\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ and $x\in{\mathbb R}^3$ repeatedly, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\tilde R_d(t) &= \dot\theta_b(t) \widehat {U_0e_3} \tilde R_d(t)+\tilde R_d(t)\hat \Omega_d(t)\\
& = \dot\theta_b(t) \tilde R_d(t) (\tilde R_d(t)^TU_0e_3)^\wedge+\tilde R_d(t)\hat \Omega_d(t),\end{aligned}$$ and this shows [(\[eqn:Omega:tilde:varying\])]{}. It is straightforward to show [(\[eqn:Wdtilde:Wd\])]{} as $\|\tilde R_d(t)^T U_0 e_3\|=1$ for any $t\geq 0$.
The motivation for the proposed shifted desired attitude is that the initial attitude error, namely $$\|E_R(0)\|=\|R(0)-R_d(0)\| = \| Z_{\theta_0} - I_{3\times 3} \| = 2\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_0},$$ is replaced by the shifted error $$\|R(0)-\tilde R_d(0)\|=2\sqrt{1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0})},$$ that is strictly less than $2\sqrt{2a}$ from (\[RminusRtilde\]). In other words, the inequality [(\[eqn:newly:added:theta\])]{} ensures that the initial value of the shifted desired attitude, namely $\tilde R_d(0)$ is sufficiently close to the initial attitude $R(0)$. As such, even when the initial attitude error $\|R(0)-R_d(0)\|$ is close or equal to $2\sqrt{2}$, we can replace it with the shifted desired attitude so as to satisfy [(\[eqn:condR0\])]{}. Furthermore, as shown by [(\[eqn:Rdtilde:Rd\])]{} and [(\[eqn:Wdtilde:Wd\])]{}, the shifted desired trajectories $(\tilde R_d(t),\tilde\Omega_d(t))$ exponentially converge to their true desired trajectories $(R_d(t),\Omega_d(t))$ as $t$ tends to infinity. This is because $\theta_b(t)$ exponentially converges to zero from [(\[eqn:theta:b:varying\])]{}. Therefore, we can design a control system to follow the shifted desired trajectories, while ensuring asymptotic convergence to the true desired trajectories.
More explicitly, the shifted attitude error variables $\tilde E_R\in{\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ and $\tilde e_R\in{\mathbb R}^3$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde E_R &= R - \tilde R_d,\label{eqn:ER:tilde}\\
\tilde e_R &= \frac{1}{2} (\tilde R_d^T R - R^T\tilde R_d)^\vee.\label{eqn:eR:tilde}\end{aligned}$$ Also, the shifted angular velocity error is defined as $$\label{eqn:eW:tilde}
\tilde e_\Omega = \Omega -\tilde\Omega_d\in{\mathbb R}^3.$$ As with (\[tracking:control\]), the control input for the shifted desired reference can be designed as $$\label{def:tilde:tau:varying}
\tilde \tau = - ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega)\times \Omega + {{\mathbb I}}( - k_R \tilde e_R - k_\Omega \tilde e_\Omega + \Omega \times \tilde\Omega_d + \dot{\tilde \Omega}_d).$$ From Theorem \[theorem:main\], for any initial condition satisfying $$\label{eqn:ROA_2}
\frac{k_R}{4}\|R(0)-\tilde R_d(0)\|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\|\Omega(0)-\tilde \Omega_d(0)\|^2 \leq 2a k_R,$$ which is equivalent to (\[V:ini\]) for the shifted desired trajectory, the trajectory of the controlled system exponentially converges to the shifted desired trajectories $(\tilde R_d(t),\tilde\Omega_d(t))$ that tends to the true desired trajectories $(R_d(t),\Omega_d(t))$. The resulting stability properties are summarized as follows.
\[thm:main\_shifted\_varying\] Choose any positive constants $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, $a$, $\mu$, $\sigma$, $\epsilon$, $\theta_{b_0}$, and $\gamma$ such that (\[ineq:a\]), (\[ineq:epsilon\]), (\[def:sigma\]), [(\[eqn:newly:added:theta\])]{} and [(\[eqn:gamma\])]{} are satisfied. The control input is defined as
[\[eqn:tau\_3\] =]{} - ([[I]{}]{})+ [[I]{}]{}( - k\_R e\_R - k\_e\_+ \_d + \_d)\
V\_0(R(0),(0),0)2ak\_R,\[eqn:tau\_3a\]\
- ([[I]{}]{})+ [[I]{}]{}( - k\_R e\_R - k\_e\_+ \_d + \_d)\
V\_0(R(0),(0),0)> 2ak\_R,\[eqn:tau\_3b\]
where $\tilde e_R$ and $\tilde e_\Omega$ are constructed by [(\[eqn:eR:tilde\])]{} and [(\[eqn:eW:tilde\])]{}, respectively.
Then, the zero equilibrium of the tracking errors $(E_R,e_\Omega)=(0,0)$ is exponentially stable. More specifically, when $V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)\leq 2ak_R$, the tracking errors $(E_R(t),e_\Omega(t))$ converge to zero exponentially according to [(\[eqn:exp0\])]{}. [[Otherwise, when $V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)> 2ak_R$, there exists a positive constant $c>0$ such that, for any initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ satisfying [(\[eqn:ROA\_2\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\|E_R(t)\|+\|e_\Omega(t)\| \leq c(\|E_R(0)\|+\|e_\Omega(0)\|)\exp^{-\frac{1}{2}\min\{\sigma,\gamma\}t},\label{eqn:exp2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\geq 0$.]{}]{}
When $V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)\leq 2ak_R$, the results of Theorem \[theorem:main\] are directly applied, i.e., the tracking errors $(E_R(t),e_\Omega(t))$ converge to zero exponentially according to [(\[eqn:exp0\])]{}.
Next, when $V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)> 2ak_R$, for any initial condition satisfying [(\[eqn:ROA\_2\])]{}, according to Theorem \[theorem:main\], there exists $\tilde c>0$ such that $$\label{eqn:tildez}
\|\tilde E_R(t)\|+\|\tilde e_\Omega(t)\| \leq \tilde c (\|\tilde E_R(0)\|+\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|)e^{-\frac{\sigma}{2}t}$$ for all $t\geq 0$. From the triangle inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\|E_R(t)\|&+\|e_\Omega(t)\| \leq \|\tilde E_R(t)\|+\|\tilde e_\Omega(t)\|\nonumber\\
& +
\|\tilde R_d(t)-R_d(t)\|+\|\tilde \Omega_d(t)-\Omega_d(t)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting [(\[eqn:Rdtilde:Rd\])]{}, [(\[eqn:Wdtilde:Wd\])]{}, and [(\[eqn:tildez\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\|E_R(t)\|+\|e_\Omega(t)\| &\leq \tilde c (\|\tilde E_R(0)\|+\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|)e^{-\frac{\sigma}{2}t}\nonumber\\
&\quad+{\ensuremath{\left( \sqrt{2}+\frac{\gamma}{2} \right)}} \theta_{b_0} e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2} t}.
\label{eqn:z0}\end{aligned}$$
Now, we derive several inequalities to show [(\[eqn:exp2\])]{}. The initial shifted attitude error satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\|\tilde E_R(0)\| &\leq \|E_R(0)\|+\|R_d(0)-\tilde R_d(0)\|\\
&= \|E_R(0)\| + 2\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_b(0)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\theta_b(0)=\theta_{b_0} < \theta_0$ from the definition of $\theta_{b_0}$, $$\|\tilde E_R(0)\|< \|E_R(0)\| + 2\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_0} = 2\|E_R(0)\|.\label{eqn:ER:tilde:0}$$ Also, from [(\[eqn:Wdtilde:Wd\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:tilde:eW:bound}
\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|&\leq \|e_\Omega(0)\| + \|\Omega_d(0)-\tilde\Omega_d(0)\|\nonumber\\
&\leq \|e_\Omega(0)\| + \frac{\gamma}{2}\theta_{b_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, from the fact that $\frac{2}{\pi^2}x^2 \leq 1-\cos x \leq \frac{1}{2}x^2$ for any $x\in[0,\pi]$ and $\theta_{b_0}<\theta_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{b_0} & \leq \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_{b_0}}<\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-\cos\theta_{0}}=\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2}}\|E_R(0)\|,\end{aligned}$$ which is substituted into [(\[eqn:z0\])]{} together with [(\[eqn:ER:tilde:0\])]{} to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\|E_R(t)\|+\|e_\Omega(t)\| \nonumber\\
&\leq {\ensuremath{\left\{ {\ensuremath{\left( 2\tilde c + \frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{2}} {\ensuremath{\left( \frac{\gamma}{2}(1+\tilde c)+\sqrt{2} \right)}} \right)}}\|E_R(0)\|+\tilde c\|e_\Omega(0)\| \right\}}}\\
&\quad \times e^{-\frac{1}{2}\min\{\sigma,\gamma\}t}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows [(\[eqn:exp2\])]{}, which guarantees exponential stability.
Next, we characterize the region of attraction of the proposed control system as follows.
\[cor:ROA\_GT\] For the control system presented in Theorem \[thm:main\_shifted\_varying\], the region of attraction guaranteeing the exponential convergence encloses the following set, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ROA}
&\mathcal{R}=\{(R(0),\Omega(0))\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3\,|\, \|e_\Omega(0)\| <\nonumber \\
&\max\{
\sqrt{2k_R(2a-1+\cos\theta_0)},\,2\sqrt{ak_R(1-\epsilon)}-\frac{\gamma}{2}\theta_{b_0}\} \},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_0$ is constructed from $R(0)$ by [(\[eqn:R0:U:thetab\])]{}.
Furthermore, $\mathcal{R}\subset{\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3$ covers ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ completely, and when projected onto ${\mathbb R}^3$, it is enlarged into ${\mathbb R}^3$ as $k_R$ is increased in a semi-global sense.
Define three subsets of ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3$ for the initial condition as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_1&={\ensuremath{\left\{ k_R(1-\cos\theta_0)+\frac{1}{2}\|e_\Omega(0)\|^2\leq 2ak_R \right\}}},\\
\mathcal{R}_2&={\ensuremath{\left\{ k_R(1-\cos\theta_0)+\frac{1}{2}\|e_\Omega(0)\|^2> 2ak_R \right\}}},\\
\mathcal{R}_3&={\ensuremath{\left\{ k_R(1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0}))+\frac{1}{2}\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|^2\leq 2ak_R \right\}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The sets $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ represent the initial conditions corresponding to the two cases of the control inputs, namely [(\[eqn:tau\_3a\])]{} and [(\[eqn:tau\_3b\])]{}, respectively. The set $\mathcal{R}_3$ represents the set of initial conditions [(\[eqn:ROA\_2\])]{}, guaranteeing the exponential convergence for the second case of the control input. Therefore, the combined region of attraction $\bar{\mathcal{R}}$ guaranteeing exponential stability is given by $\bar{\mathcal{R}}\equiv\mathcal{R}_1\cup(\mathcal{R}_2\cap\mathcal{R}_3)$. Since $\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2={\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3$, this reduces to $\bar{\mathcal{R}}=(\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2)\cap
(\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_3)=\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_3$.
Now, we show the set $\mathcal{R}$ defined by [(\[eqn:ROA\])]{} is contained in $\bar{\mathcal{R}}$, i.e., $\mathcal{R}\subset\bar{\mathcal{R}}$. For any $(R(0),\Omega(0))\in\mathcal{R}$, $$\|e_\Omega(0)\| < \sqrt{2k_R(2a-1+\cos\theta_0)},$$ or $$\|e_\Omega(0)\| < 2\sqrt{ak_R(1-\epsilon)}-\frac{\gamma}{2}\theta_{b_0},$$ where the right-hand side is positive due to [(\[eqn:gamma\])]{}. For the former case, it is straightforward to show $(R(0),\Omega(0))\in\mathcal{R}_1\subset\bar{\mathcal{R}}$. For the latter case, from [(\[eqn:tilde:eW:bound\])]{}, $$\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\| \leq 2\sqrt{ak_R(1-\epsilon)}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
k_R& (1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0}))+\frac{1}{2}\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|^2 \\
&\leq
k_R(1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0})) + 2a(1-\epsilon)k_R \leq 2ak_R,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is obtained by [(\[eqn:newly:added:theta\])]{}. This follows $(R(0),e_\Omega(0))\in\mathcal{R}_3\subset\bar{\mathcal{R}}$. In short, any initial condition in $\mathcal{R}$ belongs to the estimated region of attraction $\bar{\mathcal{R}}=\mathcal{R}_1\cup \mathcal{R}_3$ for the controlled dynamics, and the corresponding trajectory converges to zero exponentially according to [(\[eqn:exp0\])]{} or [(\[eqn:exp2\])]{}.
Next, for any $\theta_0\in[0,\pi]$, the set $\mathcal{R}$ is non-empty due to [(\[eqn:gamma\])]{}. As such, $\mathcal{R}$ contains ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ via (\[C:union\]). At [(\[eqn:ROA\])]{}, the upper bound of $\|e_\Omega(0)\|$ tends to be infinite, as $k_R\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, $\mathcal{R}$ covers ${\mathbb R}^3$ in a semi-global sense, as $k_R\rightarrow\infty$.
The exceptional property of the proposed control system is that the region of attraction covers the special orthogonal group completely, but the control input formulated in [(\[eqn:tau\_3\])]{} is continuous in the time, i.e., there is no switching through the controlled attitude dynamics. The essential idea is that when the initial errors are large, the desired attitude is altered to an attitude that is closer to the initial attitude along the same conjugacy class, which is gradually varied back to the true desired attitude.
Taking the advantage of the global attractivity in attitude controls with non-switching controls has been unprecedented, and it has been considered largely impossible to achieve that. As discussed above, it has been uncertain if a more general class of time-varying feedback could accomplish the global stabilization task without introducing switching [@MayTeeA13]. The proposed control system overcomes the topological restriction with the discontinuity of the control input with respect to the initial condition. The proposed framework of modifying the desired trajectory to achieve global attractivity has been unprecedented, and it is readily generalized to abstract Lie groups and homogeneous manifolds.
Adaptive Attitude Tracking Controls {#sec:AATC}
===================================
In this section, a constant disturbance moment $\Delta$ that has been introduced in [(\[eqn:Omega:dot\])]{} is considered. [[Throughout this section, it is assumed that the reference trajectory is such that both $\Omega_d(t)$ and $\dot \Omega_d(t)$ are bounded.]{}]{} The organization of this section is parallel to the preceding section: two types of attitude tracking strategies are presented with an adaptive law to eliminate the effects of the disturbance.
Almost Global Adaptive Tracking Strategy
----------------------------------------
The overall controller structure and the definition of the error variables and parameters are identical to those defined in Section \[sec:AGT\]. The adaptive control law presented in this section includes an estimate of the disturbance, denoted by $\bar\Delta\in{\mathbb R}^3$ in the control torque as $$\label{eqn:tracking:control:delta}
\tau = - ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega)\times \Omega + {{\mathbb I}}( -k_R e_R - k_\Omega e_\Omega + \Omega \times \Omega_d + \dot \Omega_d)-\bar\Delta,$$ where $\bar\Delta$ is updated according to $$\label{eqn:bar:delta:dot}
\dot{\bar \Delta} = k_\Delta {{\mathbb I}}^{-1} (e_\Omega + \mu e_R)$$ for $k_\Delta > 0$ with the initial estimate $\bar\Delta(0)=0$.
Let the estimation error be $$e_\Delta = \Delta -\bar \Delta\in{\mathbb R}^3.$$ From Assumption \[assump:delta\], we have the bound for the initial estimation error as $\|e_\Delta(0)\|\leq \delta$.
Define a Lyapunov function, augmented with an additional term for the estimation error $e_\Delta$ as $$\label{eqn:V:bar}
\bar V(R(t),\Omega(t),\bar\Delta(t),t) = V(R(t),\Omega(t),t) + \frac{1}{2k_\Delta} \| e_\Delta(t)\|^2.$$ Along the trajectory of the controlled system with [(\[eqn:tracking:control:delta\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\bar V}(t) & = - k_\Omega \|e_\Omega\|^2 -\mu k_R\|e_R\|^2 - \mu k_\Omega \langle e_R, e_\Omega \rangle \nonumber \\
&\, + \mu \langle C(R^TR_d)e_\Omega, e_\Omega\rangle
+\langle e_\Delta, {{\mathbb I}}^{-1} (e_\Omega+\mu e_R) -\frac{1}{k_\Delta} \dot{\bar \Delta}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar V(t)$ is a shorthand for $\bar V(R(t),\Omega(t),\bar\Delta(t),t)$. Substituting [(\[eqn:bar:delta:dot\])]{}, it reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\bar V}(t) & = - k_\Omega \|e_\Omega\|^2 -\mu k_R\|e_R\|^2 - \mu k_\Omega \langle e_R, e_\Omega \rangle \nonumber \\
&\,\, + \mu \langle C(R^TR_d)e_\Omega, e_\Omega\rangle.\label{eqn:Vbar_dot0}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the proposed control torque [(\[eqn:tracking:control:delta\])]{} and the adaptive law [(\[eqn:bar:delta:dot\])]{} ensure that the time-derivative of the augmented Lyapunov function is identical to (\[compute:Vdot\]) that is developed for the ideal case when $\Delta=0$. The corresponding stability properties are summarized as follows.
\[theorem:main:robust\] Consider the control torque defined in [(\[eqn:tracking:control:delta\])]{} with the adaptive law [(\[eqn:bar:delta:dot\])]{}. Choose positive constants $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, $k_\Delta$, $a$, and $\mu$ such that (\[ineq:a\]), (\[ineq:epsilon\]), and the following inequality are satisfied. $$\label{eqn:kdelta}
0 < 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}k_R-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2.$$ Then, the desired reference trajectory $(R(t),\Omega(t),\bar\Delta(t))=(R_d(t),\Omega_d(t),\Delta)$ is asymptotically stable. Furthermore, for any initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ineq:var:V0}
V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)\leq 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}k_R-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2,\end{aligned}$$ all of the attitude tracking error $\|R(t)-R_d(t)\|$, the angular velocity tracking error $\|\Omega(t)-\Omega_d(t)\|$ and the estimation error $\|\Delta-\bar\Delta(t)\|$ converge to zero as $t$ tends to infinity.
According to the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main\], the augmented Lyapunov function [(\[eqn:V:bar\])]{} satisfies $$\label{eqn:V4}
z^T W_1 z + \frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\|e_\Delta\|^2 \leq \bar V(t) \leq
z^T W_2 z + \frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\|e_\Delta\|^2,$$ for all $t\geq 0$, where the matrices $W_1$ and $W_2$ defined in (\[def:W1\]) are positive-definite as $\mu < \sqrt{k_R}$ from (\[ineq:a\]) and (\[ineq:epsilon\]).
Since $\|C(R^T R_d)\|_2\leq 1$, from [(\[eqn:Vbar\_dot0\])]{}, $$\dot{\bar V}(t) \leq - (k_\Omega-\mu) \|e_\Omega\|^2 -\mu k_R\|e_R\|^2 + \mu k_\Omega \|e_R\| \|e_\Omega\|,$$ and it is negative-semidefinite, i.e., $\dot{\bar V} \leq 0$ as $\mu < \frac{4k_Rk_\Omega}{4k_R+k_\Omega^2}$ from (\[ineq:epsilon\]). Hence $\bar V(t)$ is non-increasing.
The condition [(\[eqn:kdelta\])]{} ensures that the set of initial conditions satisfying [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{} is a non-empty neighborhood of the desired reference trajectory. From (\[V0:less:V\]) and the fact that $\|e_\Delta(0)\|\leq \delta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\bar V & (R(0),\Omega(0),\bar\Delta(0),0)\nonumber\\
& \leq \frac{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}} V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)+\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for any initial condition satisfying [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{}, $$\bar V (R(0),\Omega(0),\bar\Delta(0),0) \leq 2(k_R-\mu\sqrt{k_R})a. \label{eqn:ROA_3a}$$ Since $\bar V(t)$ is a non-increasing function of time, using the lower bound of (\[V0:less:V\]), the above inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
& \|R(t)-R_d(t)\|^2 \leq \frac{4}{k_R}V_0(t)\leq \frac{4}{k_R -\mu\sqrt{k_R}} V(t)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{4}{k_R -\mu\sqrt{k_R}} \bar V(t)
\leq \frac{4}{k_R -\mu\sqrt{k_R}} \bar V(0) \leq 8a.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, [(\[eqn:ER2a\])]{} is satisfied. As discussed above, the expression for $\dot{\bar V}(t)$ is identical to (\[compute:Vdot\]), and therefore, we can apply Lemma \[lemma:Vdot:less\] to obtain $$\dot{\bar V}(t) \leq - z^T W_3 z,\label{eqn:V4_dot}$$ for all $t\geq 0$ with $z=(\|E_R\|,\|e_\Omega\|)$, and $W_3$ is positive-definite due to (\[ineq:epsilon\]).
In short, for any initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3$ satisfying [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{}, the Lyapunov function is positive-definite and decrescent as [(\[eqn:V4\])]{}, and its time-derivative is negative-semidefinite as [(\[eqn:V4\_dot\])]{}, for all $t\geq 0$. This implies that the reference trajectory is stable in the sense of Lyapunov, and all of the error variables, namely $E_R(t)$, $e_\Omega(t)$, and $e_\Delta(t)$ are bounded. Also, from the LaSalle-Yoshizawa theorem [@KrsKan95 Theorem A.8], $z = (\| E_R \|, \| e_\Omega \|)\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. Using the boundedness of the error variables, one can easily show that $\ddot e_\Omega$ is bounded as well. Then, according to Barbalat’s lemma, $\dot e_\Omega \rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. Substituting these into [(\[eqn:Omega:dot\])]{} and [(\[eqn:tracking:control:delta\])]{} guarantees $\bar\Delta\rightarrow \Delta$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, the zero equilibrium of the tracking errors and the estimation error is asymptotically stable.
In contrast to Theorem \[theorem:main\], there is no guarantee of exponential convergence as the given ultimate bound of $\dot{\bar V}$ does not depend on the estimation error $e_\Delta$. Alternatively, one could achieve exponential stability by redefining the error variables as shown in [@LeeITAC15], but we do not pursue it in this paper.
An alternative estimate of the region of attraction is given by the sub-level set of the Lyapunov function as [(\[eqn:ROA\_3a\])]{}. The estimate provided by [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{} in Theorem \[theorem:main:robust\] is more conservative, as it is a subset of [(\[eqn:ROA\_3a\])]{}. However, we use [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{} as an estimate of the region of attraction in the subsequent development throughout this section for simplicity. As with Corollary \[corollary2:main\], we discuss how to choose values of the control parameters $k_R$ and $k_\Omega$ for a given initial state.
\[corollary2:main:robust\] Given an arbitrary initial state $(R(0), \Omega(0),\bar\Delta(0)) \in {\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times \mathbb R^3\times {\mathbb R}^3$ satisfying $$\| R(0) - R_d(0)\| < 2\sqrt{2},$$ take any $k_R$, $k_\Delta$, $k_\Omega$, and $\mu$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Cor2:cond42}
\| R(0) - R_d(0)\|^2 < 8\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu},\\
\frac{2 \| \Omega (0) - \Omega_d(0)\|^2+\frac{2}{k_\Delta}\delta^2}{8\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu} - \|R(0) - R_d(0)\|^2} < k_R\end{gathered}$$ with (\[ineq:epsilon\]) and [(\[eqn:kdelta\])]{}. Then, $V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)< 2a \frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2$, and the conclusions of Theorem \[theorem:main:robust\] hold true for any $a$ satisfying $$\frac{V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)+\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2}{2\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}} \leq a <1.$$
Straightforward.
This corollary implies that the region of attraction for asymptotic convergence almost covers ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ as discussed in Section \[sec:AGT\], and the region of attraction for $\Omega$ increases in a semi-global sense by increasing $k_R$.
While these results are developed for the constant disturbance, it can be readily generalized to any other disturbance models where the unknown parameter appears linearly, such as $\phi(R,\Omega,t)\Delta$ with a known function $\phi(R,\Omega,t)$, as commonly studied in the literature of adaptive controls with a weaker convergence property that $\phi(R,\Omega,t)e_\Delta$ asymptotically converges to zero [@AstWit08; @IoaSun95]. The result presented in this paper may be considered as a special case when $\phi(R,\Omega,t)=I_{3\times 3}$.
Adaptive Global Tracking Strategy {#sec:RSGT}
---------------------------------
As in Section \[sec:SGT\], we construct an adaptive control law that is continuous in time, while guaranteeing global attractivity. Consider the adaptive control system presented in Theorem \[theorem:main:robust\]. If a given initial condition satisfies [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{}, the error variables asymptotically converge to zero. Therefore, we focus on the case where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ineq:var:V0:a}
V_0(R(0),\Omega(0),0)> 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}k_R-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2.\end{aligned}$$
Define $\theta_0\in[0,\pi]$ and $U_0$ as in [(\[eqn:R0:U:thetab\])]{}. For a constant $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, choose an angle $\theta_{b_0}\in(0,\theta_0)$ such that $$\label{eqn:theta_b0:4}
1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0}) \leq
{\ensuremath{\left( 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta k_R}\delta^2 \right)}}\epsilon.$$ Then, define the time-varying angle $\theta_b(t)$ as [(\[eqn:theta:b:varying\])]{} with a positive constant $\gamma$ satisfying $$\label{eqn:gamma:4}
\gamma < \frac{2}{\theta_{b_0}} \sqrt{2(1-\epsilon){\ensuremath{\left( 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}k_R-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2 \right)}}}.$$ The shifted desired attitude is defined as [(\[eqn:Rd:shifted:varying\])]{}. While the shifted desired attitude in this section is constructed with different bounds on $\theta_{b_0}$ and $\gamma$, it is straightforward to show that it satisfies all of the properties summarized in Lemma \[lem:Rdtilde\].
We use $(\tilde R_d(t),\tilde \Omega_d(t))$ as a reference trajectory for the construction of the control system. The error variables $\tilde E_R$, $\tilde e_R$, and $\tilde e_\Omega$ are defined using the shifted reference trajectories. The control torque and the adaptive law are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \tau & = - ({{\mathbb I}}\Omega)\times \Omega \nonumber \\
&\quad+ {{\mathbb I}}( -k_R \tilde e_R - k_\Omega \tilde e_\Omega + \Omega \times \tilde\Omega_d + \dot{\tilde \Omega}_d)-\bar\Delta,\label{eqn:tracking:control:delta:tilde:varying}\\
\dot{\bar \Delta} & = k_\Delta {{\mathbb I}}^{-1} (\tilde e_\Omega + \mu \tilde e_R),\label{eqn:bar:delta:dot:tilde:varying}\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar\Delta(0)=0$. According to Theorem \[theorem:main:robust\], for any initial condition satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ineq:var:V0:a:varying}
\frac{k_R}{4}\|R(0)-\tilde R_d(0)\|^2 &+ \frac{1}{2}\|\Omega(0)-\tilde \Omega_d(0)\|^2\nonumber\\
& \leq 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}k_R-\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2,\end{aligned}$$ the tracking errors for the shifted desired trajectory, namely $\|R(t)-\tilde R_d(t)\|$, $\|\Omega(t)-\tilde\Omega_d(t)\|$, and $\|\Delta-\bar\Delta(t)\|$ asymptotically converge to zero. As the shifted reference trajectories are designed such that $\|R_d(t)-\tilde R_d(t)\|$ and $\|\Omega_d(t)-\tilde\Omega_d(t)\|$ exponentially converge to zero, these imply that all of the tracking errors $\|R(t)- R_d(t)\|$, $\|\Omega(t)-\Omega_d(t)\|$ from the original reference trajectories and the estimation error $\|\Delta-\bar\Delta(t)\|$ asymptotically converge to zero as $t\rightarrow \infty$. These are summarized as follows.
\[thm:main\_shifted:robust:varying\] Choose any positive numbers $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, $k_\Delta$, $a$, $\mu$, $\epsilon$, $\theta_{b_0}$, and $\gamma$ such that (\[ineq:a\]), (\[ineq:epsilon\]), [(\[eqn:kdelta\])]{}, [(\[eqn:theta\_b0:4\])]{}, and [(\[eqn:gamma:4\])]{} are satisfied. The control input and the adaptive law are defined as follows.
= - ([[I]{}]{})+ [[I]{}]{}( - k\_R e\_R - k\_e\_+ \_d + \_d),\
= k\_[[I]{}]{}\^[-1]{}(e\_+e\_R),\
V\_0(R(0),(0),0)2ak\_R-\^2,\[eqn:tau\_4a\]\
= - ([[I]{}]{})+ [[I]{}]{}( - k\_R e\_R - k\_e\_+ \_d + \_d),\
= k\_[[I]{}]{}\^[-1]{}(e\_+e\_R),\
V\_0(R(0),(0),0)> 2ak\_R-\^2, \[eqn:tau\_4b\]
with $\bar\Delta(0)=0$ for both cases. Then, the zero equilibrium of the tracking errors $(E_R,e_\Omega,e_\Delta)=(0,0,0)$ is asymptotically stable.
The corresponding region of attraction is characterized in the following corollary.
For the control system presented in Theorem \[thm:main\_shifted:robust:varying\], the region of attraction guaranteeing asymptotic convergence encloses the following set, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ROA:4}
&\mathcal{R}=\{(R(0),\Omega(0))\in{\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3\,|\, \|e_\Omega(0)\| <\nonumber \\
&\max\{
\sqrt{B-k_R(1-\cos\theta_0)},\,\sqrt{2(1-\epsilon)B}-\frac{\gamma}{2}\theta_{b_0}\} \},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_0$ is constructed from $R(0)$ by [(\[eqn:R0:U:thetab\])]{}, and the positive constant $B$ is defined as $$B = 2a\frac{\sqrt{k_R}-\mu}{\sqrt{k_R}+\mu}k_R -\frac{1}{2k_\Delta}\delta^2.$$
Furthermore, $\mathcal{R}\subset{\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3$ covers ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ completely, and when projected onto ${\mathbb R}^3$, it is enlarged into ${\mathbb R}^3$ as $k_R$ is increased in a semi-global sense.
Define three subsets of ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3\times{\mathbb R}^3$ for the initial condition as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_1&=\bigg\{k_R(1-\cos\theta_0)+\frac{1}{2}\|e_\Omega(0)\|^2\leq B \bigg\},\\
\mathcal{R}_2&=\bigg\{k_R(1-\cos\theta_0)+\frac{1}{2}\|e_\Omega(0)\|^2 > B \bigg\},\\
\mathcal{R}_3&=\bigg\{k_R(1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0}))+\frac{1}{2}\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|^2\leq B \bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ The sets $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ represent the initial conditions corresponding to the two cases of the control inputs, namely [(\[eqn:tau\_4a\])]{} and [(\[eqn:tau\_4b\])]{}, respectively. The set $\mathcal{R}_3$ represents the set of initial conditions [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0:a:varying\])]{}, guaranteeing the asymptotic convergence for the second case of the control input. Therefore, the combined region of attraction $\bar{\mathcal{R}}$ is given by $\bar{\mathcal{R}}\equiv\mathcal{R}_1\cup(\mathcal{R}_2\cap\mathcal{R}_3)$. Since $\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2={\operatorname{SO}(3)}\times{\mathbb R}^3$, this reduces to $\bar{\mathcal{R}}=(\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2)\cap
(\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_3)=\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_3$.
Next, we show that $\mathcal{R}\subset \bar{\mathcal{R}}$. For any $(R(0),\Omega(0))\in\mathcal{R}$, $$\|e_\Omega(0)\|\leq \sqrt{B-k_R(1-\cos\theta_0)},$$ or $$\|e_\Omega(0)\|\leq\sqrt{2(1-\epsilon)B}-\frac{\gamma}{2}\theta_{b_0},$$ where the right-hand side is positive due to [(\[eqn:gamma:4\])]{}. For the former case, $(R(0),\Omega(0))\in\mathcal{R}_1 \subset \bar{\mathcal{R}}$. For the latter case, from [(\[eqn:tilde:eW:bound\])]{}, $
\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|\leq \sqrt{2(1-\epsilon)B}$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
k_R & (1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0}))+\frac{1}{2}\|\tilde e_\Omega(0)\|^2 \\
&\leq k_R (1-\cos(\theta_0-\theta_{b_0})) + (1-\epsilon)B \leq B,\end{aligned}$$ from [(\[eqn:theta\_b0:4\])]{}. Therefore, $(R(0),\Omega(0))\in\mathcal{R}_3$. As such, any initial condition in $\mathcal{R}$ also belongs to the estimated region of attraction $\bar{\mathcal{R}}$, and the resulting controlled trajectory asymptotically converges to the desired one.
Also, for any $\theta_0\in[0,\pi]$, the set $\mathcal{R}$ is non-empty due to [(\[eqn:gamma:4\])]{}. At [(\[eqn:ROA:4\])]{}, the upper bound on $\|e_\Omega(0)\|$ tends to be infinite as $k_R\rightarrow\infty$.
As in the previous section, the region attraction covers the entire ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$, and when projected to ${\mathbb R}^3$ for the angular velocity, it is enlarged in a semi-global sense as $k_R$ increases. But, such global attractivity on ${\operatorname{SO}(3)}$ is achieved with the control input and the adaptive law that are formulated as continuous functions of $t$. As discussed in Section \[sec:SGT\], overcoming the topological restriction on the attitude control with a non-switching control input has been unprecedented. The adaptive law presented in this section additionally allows a constant disturbance to be present in the dynamics at the expense of sacrificing the exponential convergence.
Numerical Examples
==================
Attitude Tracking Controls {#attitude-tracking-controls}
--------------------------
We first show the numerical results for the attitude tracking controls presented in Section \[sec:ATC\]. Throughout this section, two control strategies presented in Section \[sec:ATC\] are denoted by AGTS (almost global tracking strategy), and GTS (global tracking strategy), respectively. They are also compared with the hybrid attitude control presented in [@LeeITAC15] that guarantees global exponential stability with discontinuities of the control input with respect to $t$, and it is denoted by HYB.
Assume that the moment of inertia matrix of the system is $${{\mathbb I}}= \operatorname{diag}[3, 2, 1]\,\mathrm{kgm^2}.$$ Consider the following reference trajectory: $$\begin{aligned}
&R_d(t) \\
&{\footnotesize = \begin{bmatrix}
\cos t & -\cos t \sin t & \sin^2 t \\
\cos t \sin t & \cos^3 t -\sin^2 t & -\cos t \sin t - \cos^2t \sin t \\
\sin^2t & \cos t \sin t +\cos^2 t \sin t & \cos^2t - \cos t \sin^2t
\end{bmatrix}}\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_d(t) &= \begin{bmatrix}
1+\cos t \\ \sin t - \sin t \cos t \\ \cos t + \sin^2 t
\end{bmatrix}, \\
\dot \Omega_d (t) &= \begin{bmatrix}
-\sin t\\ \cos t -\cos^2t + \sin^2 t\\
-\sin t + 2\sin t \cos t
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $$R_d(0) = \operatorname{diag}[1, 1, 1], \quad \Omega_d(0) = (2,0, 1).$$ The initial state of the system is given by $$R(0) = R_d(0)\exp (\theta_0\hat e_2), \quad \Omega(0) = (2,0,1),$$ where $\theta_0=0.999\pi$ and $e_2 = (0,1,0)$.
The controller parameters are chosen as $$\begin{gathered}
k_R = 9,\quad k_\Omega=4.2,\quad a=\epsilon,\quad
\mu = \frac{4(1-a)k_R k_\Omega}{4(1-a) k_R + k_\Omega^2}\epsilon,\\
\theta_{b_0} = \min\{\theta_0\epsilon,\theta_0-\cos^{-1}(1-2a\epsilon)\},\\
\gamma=\frac{4}{\theta_{b_0}}\sqrt{a k_R (1-\epsilon)}\epsilon,\end{gathered}$$ with a scaling parameter $\epsilon=0.9<1$ selected to satisfy the inequality constraints. These expressions allow that all of the controller parameters can be determined by tuning only the proportional gain $k_R$ and the derivative gain $k_\Omega$.
The corresponding simulation results are plotted in Figure \[fig:Sec3\]. For the given initial conditions and the controller gains, $18=V_0(0) > 2ak_R=16.2$. Therefore, the initial condition does not belong to the region of attraction of AGTS estimated conservatively by (\[V:ini\]) in spite of which the tracking errors for AGTS still converge to zero asymptotically. The convergence rate is, however, quite low, and there is no noticeable change of the attitude tracking error for the first three seconds. The slow initial convergence is common for controllers with almost global asymptotic stability, especially when the initial state is close to the stable manifold of the undesired equilibrium point [@LeeLeoPICDC11].
Next, for HYB, the convergence rate for the attitude tracking error is improved. But the tracking error for the angular velocity is increased over the first four seconds, and there are two abrupt changes in the control input at $t=1.95$ and $t=3.31$. Compared with AGTS, the convergence rate is substantially improved at the expense of discontinuities in the control input.
Finally, the proposed GTS exhibits the fastest convergence rate for both of the attitude tracking errors and the angular velocity tracking errors. This is most desirable, as excellent tracking performances are achieved without discontinuities in control input for the large initial attitude error.
Adaptive Attitude Controls {#sec:NEb}
--------------------------
Next, we present the simulation results for the adaptive attitude control strategies presented in Section \[sec:AATC\]. Throughout this section, two control strategies of Section \[sec:AATC\] are denoted by aAGTS (adaptive almost global tracking strategy), and aGTS (adaptive global tracking strategy), respectively. They are compared with the extension of the hybrid attitude control with an adaptive term in [@LeeITAC15], and it is denoted by aHYB.
The fixed disturbance is chosen as $$\Delta = (1,-2,0.5),$$ with the estimated bound of $\delta = 3$. The values of the controller parameters $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, $a$, and $\mu$ are identical to those used in the previous subsection. The other parameters are chosen as $$\begin{gathered}
\theta_{b_0} = \min\{\theta_0\epsilon,\theta_0-\cos^{-1}(1-B\epsilon/k_R)\},\\
\gamma=\frac{2}{\theta_{b_0}}\sqrt{2(1-\epsilon)B}\epsilon,\quad
k_\Delta=25,\end{gathered}$$ with a scaling parameter $\epsilon=0.9<1$ such that the inequality constraints are satisfied. One can easily verify that the chosen value of $k_\Delta$ satisfies [(\[eqn:kdelta\])]{}. In short, all of the controller parameters can be selected by tuning $k_R$, $k_\Omega$, and $k_\Delta$ with consideration of [(\[eqn:kdelta\])]{} for $k_\Delta$.
Simulation results are plotted in Figure \[fig:Sec4\]. All the three controllers successfully estimate the unknown disturbance, as the estimation error $\bar\Delta-\Delta$ asymptotically converges to zero, and the effects of the disturbance are mitigated. The overall performance characteristics for each method are similar to those in the previous subsection.
For aAGTS, the given initial condition does not belong to the region of attraction estimated by [(\[eqn:ineq:var:V0\])]{}, as $18=V_0(0)> B=10.31$. However, both the tracking errors and the estimation error for aAGTS asymptotically converge to zero, although the initial convergence rate is low.
With aHYB, the attitude tracking performance is substantially improved, but the initial angular velocity tracking error is increased. There exists a discontinuity in the control input at $t=2.74$, where the magnitude of control moment change at the jump exceeds $26.8\,\mathrm{Nm}$.
The proposed aGTS exhibits the best tracking performance for the attitude and the angular velocity, and it does not cause any discontinuity of the control input.
Experimental Results
====================
The two adaptive attitude tracking control strategies presented in Section \[sec:AATC\] have been implemented on the attitude dynamics of a hexrotor unmanned aerial vehicle, to illustrate the efficacy of the proposed approaches through hardware experiments.
Hexrotor Development
--------------------
The hardware configuration of the hexrotor is as follows. Six brushless DC motors (Robbe Roxxy) are used along with electric speed controllers (Mikrokopter BL-Ctrl 2.0). An inertial measurement unit (VectorNav VN-100) provides the angular velocity and the attitude of the hexrotor. A linux-based computing module (Odroid XU-3) handles onboard data processing, sensor fusion, control input computation, and communication with a host computer (Macbook Pro). A custom made, printed circuit board supplies power to each part from a battery after switching the voltage level appropriately.
A flight software program is developed by utilizing multithread programming in gcc such that the tasks of communication, sensor fusion, and control are performed in a parallel fashion. In particular, the control input is computed at the rate of $120\,\mathrm{Hz}$ approximately.
The hexrotor is attached to a spherical joint that provides unlimited rotation in the yaw direction, and $\pm 45^\circ$ rotations along the pitch and the roll. As the center of gravity is above the center of the spherical joint, it resembles an inverted rigid body pendulum [@ChaLeeJNS09].
Experimental Results
--------------------
Two adaptive attitude tracking control strategies that provide smooth control inputs, namely aAGTS and aGTS are implemented. The desired attitude corresponds to the inverted equilibrium, where the center of gravity of the hexrotor is directly above the spherical joint, and the first body-fixed axis of the inertial measurement unit points towards the magnetic north, i.e., $R_d(t)=I_{3\times 3}$ for all $t\geq 0$. Note that the desired attitude is unstable due to the gravity.
The initial condition is chosen such that the pitch angles is decreased until the limit of the spherical joint, and the first body-fixed axis points towards the magnetic south. The resulting initial attitude error is close to $180^\circ$, i.e., $\|E_R(0)\|\simeq 2\sqrt{2}$. The initial angular velocity is chosen as zero. The controller parameters are selected as $k_R=1.45$, $k_\Omega=0.4$, $k_\Delta=0.2$, and $\delta=1$. Other parameters are identical to those presented in Section \[sec:NEb\].
The corresponding experimental results are illustrated in Figure \[fig:Sec6\]. The overall behaviors of adaptive controllers are similar to the numerical simulation results. The unstable desired attitude is asymptotically stabilized by both adaptive attitude controllers.
For aAGTS, the initial convergence rate, particularly for the attitude tracking error, is quite slow. For example, the attitude tracking error remains close to its initial value for the first few seconds. However, aGTS exhibits a satisfactory convergence rate from the beginning, and it shows most desirable results.
Conclusions
===========
We have proposed global tracking strategies for the attitude dynamics of a rigid body. The topological restriction on the special orthogonal group is circumvented by introducing a shifted reference trajectory with a conjugacy class. As a result, global attractivity is achieved without causing discontinuities in control input with respect to time. These are constructed on the special orthogonal group to avoid singularities and ambiguities of other attitude representations. The desirable properties of the proposed methods are demonstrated by numerical examples and experimental results.
The proposed approaches are fundamentally distinctive from the current efforts to achieve global attractivity via modifying attitude configuration error functions along with the hybrid system framework. This paper shows that the desired trajectory can be adjusted instead, and global attractivity can be achieved without introducing undesired abrupt changes in control input.
For future work, the idea of shifting reference trajectories can be applied to feedback control on other compact manifolds and Lie groups. Also, the results presented in this paper are readily generalized to various other attitude control problems such as velocity-free attitude controls or deterministic attitude observers.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by NSF under the grants CMMI-1243000, CMMI-1335008, and CNS-1337722, and by KAIST under grant G04170001. It was also supported in part by DGIST Research and Development Program (CPS Global Center) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning, Global Research Laboratory Program (2013K1A1A2A02078326) through NRF, and Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (No. 2014-0-00065, Resilient Cyber-Physical Systems Research).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider twisted equivariant K–theory for actions of a compact Lie group $G$ on a space $X$ where all the isotropy subgroups are connected and of maximal rank. We show that the associated rational spectral sequence à la Segal has a simple $E_2$–term expressible as invariants under the Weyl group of $G$. Namely, if $T$ is a maximal torus of $G$, they are invariants of the $\pi_1(X^T)$-equivariant Bredon cohomology of the universal cover of $X^T$ with suitable coefficients. In the case of the inertia stack $\Lambda Y$ this term can be expressed using the cohomology of $Y^T$ and algebraic invariants associated to the Lie group and the twisting. A number of calculations are provided. In particular, we recover the rational Verlinde algebra when $Y=\{*\}$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z2, Canada'
- 'Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas, A.C., Unidad Mérida, Parque Científico y Tecnológico de Yucatán, Carretera Sierra Papacal-Chuburná Puerto Km 5.5, Sierra Papacal, Mérida, Yucatán CP 97302, Mexico'
- 'Escuela de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, AA 3840, Colombia'
author:
- Alejandro Adem
- José Cantarero
- José Manuel Gómez
title: 'Twisted equivariant K-theory of compact Lie group actions with maximal rank isotropy'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $G$ denote a compact Lie group with torsion–free fundamental group acting on a space $X$ such that all the isotropy subgroups are connected and contain a maximal torus for $G$, i.e., they have maximal rank. Let $T\subset G$ denote a maximal torus with Weyl group $W=N_G(T)/T$. In [@AG] it was shown that if the fixed–point set $X^T$ has the homotopy type of a finite $W$–CW complex, then the rationalized complex equivariant K–theory of $X$ is a free module over the representation ring of $G$ of rank equal to $\sum_{i\ge 0} \textrm{dim}_{\Q} H^i(X^T;\Q)$. Moreover, assuming that every isotropy subgroup has torsion–free fundamental group, it was shown that if $\Lambda X$ denotes the *inertia stack* for the $G$–space $X$, then $K_G^*(\Lambda X)\otimes\Q$ is a free module over $R(G)\otimes\Q$ of rank equal to $2^r (\sum_{i\ge 0} \textrm{dim}_{\Q} H^i(X^T;\Q))$, where $r$ denotes the rank of the group $G$. The proofs of these results are based on the collapse over $\Q$ of a spectral sequence arising from a skeletal filtration of $X$ which was first introduced by Segal [@Segal].
Based on this, a natural question arises: given a similar hypothesis of maximal rank isotropy and a suitable twisting $P$, under what conditions can we use analogous spectral sequence methods to effectively compute $^PK^*_G(X)\otimes\Q$ or $^PK^*_G(\Lambda X)\otimes\Q$? In this paper we provide a partial affirmative answer to this question.
*Suppose $G$ is a compact Lie group acting on a space $X$ with connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups and with a fixed point $x_{0}$. Let $p\colon P\to X$ be a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle whose restriction to $x_{0}$ is trivial. Assume that $X^{T}$ is a $W$-CW complex of finite type. Then there is a spectral sequence with $E_{2}$-term given by $$E_{2}^{p,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{p}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR_{\Q})^{W}
&\text{ if } & q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } & q \ \ \text{ is odd}
\end{array}
\right.$$ converging to ${}^{P}K^{*}_{G}(X)\otimes \Q$.*
Here $\lR_{\Q}$ denotes the coefficient system for Bredon cohomology defined on the orbit category of $\pi_1(X^T)$ by $\pi_1(X^T)/V\mapsto (R(T)\otimes\Q)^V$ and $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ denotes the universal cover of $X^{T}$. This coefficient system is induced by an action of $\pi_1(X^T)$ on $R(T)$ that is constructed in Proposition \[pi1action\] using the $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P\to X$.
The case of the inertia stack is especially interesting since $\Lambda (\{*\})\cong G$ with the conjugation action. In particular, any $G$-space $X$ is equipped with a $G$-equivariant map $\Lambda X \to G$. The isomorphism classes of $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundles over a $G$-space $Y$ are in bijective correspondence with $H^3_G(Y;\Z)$. When $G$ is a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group, it is well known that $H^3_G(G;\Z) \cong \Z$. After fixing a generator, pullback with respect to the $G$-equivariant map $\Lambda X \to G$ determines a $G$-equivariant $PU(\H)$-bundle $Q_n \to \Lambda X$ for each integer $n$. In this case we obtain the following.
*Let $G$ be a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group of rank equal to $r$ and $n\ne 0$ an integer. Suppose that $X$ is a compact $G$-CW complex such that $G_{x}$ is a connected subgroup of maximal rank that has torsion free fundamental group for every $x\in X$ and that there is a point fixed by the action of $G$. Then the $E_{2}$-term in the spectral sequence computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(\Lambda X)\otimes \Q$ is given by $$E_{2}^{p+r,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\left[ H^{p}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}\otimes \Q/J_{n}) \right]^{W}
&\text{ if } &p\ge 0\text{ and } q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } &q \ \ \text{ is odd.}
\end{array}
\right.$$*
In the above theorem $R(T)^{sgn}\otimes \Q$ denotes $R(T) \otimes \Q$ with the action of $W$ given by $$w \bullet x = (-1)^{\ell(w)} w \cdot x,$$ where $w \cdot x$ denotes the usual action of $W$ on $R(T) \otimes \Q$ and $\ell(w)$ denotes the length of $w$. Also, if $\{\alpha_{1},\dots, \alpha_{r}\}$ denotes a set of simple roots in the corresponding root system, then $J_{n}$ denotes the ideal in $R(T)^{sgn}$ generated by the elements $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}}-1$ for $1\le i\le r$, where $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}$ denotes the global root associated to $\alpha_{i}$ and $d_{i}$ is an integer. (See Section \[Section 4\] for the details).
For the particular case of $X=\{*\}$ the previous theorem shows that the $E_{2}$-term in the spectral sequence computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K^{p}_{G}(G)\otimes \Q$ is such that $E_{2}^{r,q}=(R(T)^{sgn}\otimes \Q/J_{n})^{W}$ for $q$ even and $0$ in other cases. Therefore the spectral sequence collapses at the $E_{2}$-term for trivial reasons in this case. Moreover, if $k\ge 0$ is an integer such that $k=n-h^{\vee}$, where $h^{\vee}$ is the dual Coxeter number of the group $G$, then we show that $(R(T)^{sgn}\otimes \Q/J_{n})^{W}$ can be identified with the rational Verlinde algebra $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}:= (R(G)\otimes \Q )/I_{k}$ at level $k=n-h^{\vee}$. In particular, when $p$ has the same parity as the rank of the group, we conclude that ${}^{Q_{n}}K^{p}_{G}(G)\otimes \Q$ is isomorphic as a module over $R(G)\otimes \Q$ to the Verlinde algebra $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}$ at level $k=n-h^{\vee}$, and we recover the celebrated result due to Freed–Hopkins–Teleman (see [@FHTIII Theorem 1]). We are also able to provide a complete calculation for the inertia space $\Lambda \SS^{\g}$, where $\SS^{\g}$ denotes the one point compactification of the Lie algebra $\g$ (see Subsection \[inertia sphere\]). We observe that in these examples the spectral sequence collapses; we provide a number of other examples where this also holds, leading us to formulate:
Under the hypotheses of Theorem B, the spectral sequence for computing $^{Q_n}K_G^*(\Lambda X)\otimes\Q$ always collapses at the $E_2$ level.
This paper is organized as follows: in §2 we provide a detailed definition of twisted equivariant K–theory; in §3 we define the spectral sequence à la Segal that will be used in our calculations; in §4 we discuss facts from root systems and cohomology that are required to provide a description of the $E_2$–term in the applications; in §5 we apply our approach to inertia spaces, providing a number of explicit examples; and finally in §6 we provide an appendix on the Verlinde algebra where we explain how it can be identified in terms of the invariants from our calculations. We are grateful to the referee for providing very helpful comments and suggestions.
Definition of Twisted Equivariant K-theory
==========================================
In this section we briefly review the definition of twisted equivariant K-theory that we will use throughout this article. We remark that in this work all spaces in sight are $G$-CW complexes unless otherwise specified and $G$ denotes a compact Lie group.
We start by recalling the definition of $G$-equivariant principal $\Pi$-bundles.
Suppose that $G$ is a compact Lie group and let $\Pi$ be a topological group. A $G$-equivariant principal $\Pi$-bundle consists of a $G$-equivariant map $p\colon E\to X$, where $G$ is acting on the left on both $E$ and $X$, together with a right action of $\Pi$ on $E$ that commutes with the left $G$-action in such a way that the map $p\colon E\to X$ is a principal $\Pi$-bundle.
Suppose that $X$ is a $G$-space. Let $U_{x}$ be a $G_{x}$-invariant open neighborhood of $x$. Recall that $U_{x}$ is called a slice through $x$ if the map $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \colon G\times_{G_{x}}U_{x}\to X\\
[g,y]\mapsto gy\end{aligned}$$ is a homeomorphism onto $GU_{x}$. In this case we can identify equivariantly the tube $GU_{x}$ with $G\times_{G_{x}}U_{x}$. As in [@Lashof] the $G$-equivariant principal $\Pi$-bundles that we work with will satisfy the following local triviality condition.
A $G$-equivariant principal $\Pi$-bundle $p\colon E\to X$ is $G$-locally trivial if for every $x\in X$ we can find a $G_{x}$-invariant open slice $U_{x}$ through $x$ and a local trivialization $\varphi_{x}\colon p^{-1}(GU_{x})\to G\times_{G_{x}} (U_{x}\times \Pi)$ of $p$ as a principal $\Pi$-bundle which is also $G$-equivariant. Here the action of $G_{x}$ on $ U_{x}\times \Pi$ is given by: $$h\cdot (y, \sigma):=(hy,\gamma_{x}(h)\sigma)$$ for a fixed continuous homomorphism $\gamma_{x}\colon G_{x}\to \Pi$.
In the above definition the homomorphism $\gamma_{x}$ is called a local representation and it is well defined up to conjugation. Such local representations can be constructed directly from the bundle $p\colon E\to X$ as follows. Assume that $x\in X$ and fix an element $e_{x}\in E_{x}$. For every $g\in G_{x}$ we can write $g\cdot e_{x}=e_{x}\cdot \gamma_{x}(g)$ for a unique $\gamma_{x}(g)\in \Pi$. The assignment $g\mapsto \gamma_{x}(g)$ defines a local representation and is independent of the choice of $e_{x}$ up to conjugation. Such local representations play a key role in twisted equivariant K-theory as we shall see later on.
In this work we are mainly interested in the particular case where $\Pi =PU(\H)$ for a suitable Hilbert space $\H$, as such bundles can be used to twist equivariant K-theory. Fix a compact Lie group $G$ acting continuously on a space $X$. Let $\H$ be a separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Denote by $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$ the space of self-adjoint degree one Fredholm operators $F\colon \H\oplus \H \to \H\oplus \H$ such that $F^{2}-I$ is a compact operator with the topology described in [@AS Definition 3.2]. The group $PU(\H)$ endowed with the compact-open topology acts continuously on $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$ by conjugation and we have a central extension $$1\to \SS^{1}\to U(\H)\to PU(\H)\to 1.$$ If $K\subset G$ is a closed subgroup and $\gamma\colon K\to PU(\H)$ is a homomorphism, via pullback we obtain a compact Lie group $\widetilde{K}:=\gamma^{*}U(\H)$ that fits into a central extension making the following diagram commutative $$\xymatrix{
1\ar[r]&\SS^1 \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\text{id}} & \widetilde{K}
\ar[r] \ar[d]^{\widetilde{\gamma}} & K \ar[d]^{\gamma}\ar[r]& 1 \\
1\ar[r]& \SS^1 \ar[r]& U(\H) \ar[r] & PU(\H)\ar[r]& 1.
}$$ Using the homomorphism $\widetilde{\gamma}\colon \widetilde{K}\to U(\H)$, we can see $\H$ as a $\widetilde{K}$-representation in such a way that the central circle $\SS^{1}$ acts by multiplication of scalars. We say that $\gamma$ is a stable homomorphism if $\H$ contains infinitely many copies of all the irreducible representations of $\widetilde{K}$ on which $\SS^{1}$ acts by multiplication of scalars. Following [@BEJU Definition 3.1] we have the next definition.
A $G$-stable principal $PU(\H)$-bundle is a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P\to X$ that is $G$-locally trivial and such that for every $x\in X$ the local representation $\gamma_{x}\colon G_{x}\to PU(\H)$ is a stable homomorphism.
Given a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P\to X$ we can associate to it a $G$-equivariant bundle of Fredholm operators $\Fred^{(0)}(P)$ over $X$ defined by $$\pi\colon \Fred^{(0)}(P):=P\times_{PU(\H)}\Fred^{(0)}(\H)\to X.$$ The bundle $\Fred^{(0)}(P)$ has a basepoint in each fiber. For each positive integer $n$, let $\Fred^{(-n)}(P)$ be the fiberwise $n$-th loop space of $\Fred^{(0)}(P)$.
Suppose that $p\colon P\to X$ is a $G$-stable $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle and $n \geq 0$ is an integer. The $(-n)$-th $P$-twisted $G$-equivariant K-theory of $X$, denoted by ${}^{P}K_{G}^{-n}(X)$, is defined to be the group of $G$-equivariant homotopy classes of $G$-equivariant sections of $\pi\colon \Fred^{(-n)}(P)\to X$.
Since there is a fiberwise $G$-homotopy equivalence $\Fred^{(-n)}(P) \to \Fred^{(-n-2)}(P)$, we can extend this definition to positive integers in a natural way.
Suppose that $G$ is a compact Lie group and that $X=\{*\}$ is a point. Let $P\to \{*\}$ be a $G$-stable $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle. Fix some element $e\in P=PU(\H)$ and let $\gamma\colon G\to PU(\H)$ be the local representation obtained using the element $e$ as explained above. The homomorphism $\gamma$ determines the $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $P$ up to isomorphism. In this case the associated bundle of Fredholm operators $$\Fred^{(0)}(P):=P\times_{PU(\H)}\Fred^{(0)}(\H)\cong PU(\H)\times_{PU(\H)}\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$$ can be identified with $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$. With this identification the action of $G$ on $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$ is obtained via the homomorphism $\gamma\colon G\to PU(\H)$ and the conjugation action of $PU(\H)$ on $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$. Also, a $G$-equivariant section of the bundle $\Fred^{(0)}(P)\to \{*\}$ corresponds precisely to an element in $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)^{G}$. By definition ${}^{P}K_{G}^{0}(\{*\})$ corresponds to the group $\pi_{0}(\Fred^{(0)}(\H)^{G})$.
Let $\widetilde{G}$ be the pullback of $U(\H)\to PU(\H)$ along $\gamma$ so that we have a central extension $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{G}\stackrel{\tau} \to G\to 1.$$ The group $\widetilde{G}$ comes equipped with a homomorphism $\widetilde{\gamma}\colon \widetilde{G}\to U(\H)$ that covers $\gamma$. As explained before, $\H$ is a $\widetilde{G}$ representation in such a way that the central circle $\SS^{1}$ acts by multiplication of scalars. With this action the group $\widetilde{G}$ acts on $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)$ in such a way that the central circle $\SS^{1}$ acts trivially. Moreover, the space $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)^{\widetilde{G}}$ is equivalent to the space $\Fred^{(0)}(\H)^{G}$. Since the homomorphism $\gamma$ is stable the group $\pi_{0}(\Fred^{(0)}(\H)^{G})$ can be identified with the Grothendieck group of all complex representations of $\widetilde{G}$ on which the central $\SS^{1}$ acts by multiplication of scalars. This is by definition the $\tau$-twisted complex representation ring of $G$ that we denote by $R^{\tau}(G)$. We conclude that ${}^{P}K_{G}^{0}(\{*\})\cong R^{\tau}(G)$.
In this case we also have that $\Fred^{(1)}(P)$ is $G$-homotopy equivalent to $\Omega \Fred^{(0)}(\H)$, from here we see ${}^P K_G^1(\{ *\})$ as a direct summand of $K_{\tilde{G}}^1(\{ *\})$, which is known to vanish. Hence ${}^P K_G^1(\{ * \}) = 0$.
Suppose now that $G$ is connected. Fix $T\subset G$ a maximal torus and let $W=N_{G}(T)/T$ be the corresponding Weyl group. Consider the central extension $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{G}\stackrel{\tau} \to G\to 1$$ associated to the bundle $P\to \{*\}$ as above. Let $\widetilde{T}=\tau^{-1}(T)$, a maximal torus in $\widetilde{G}$. The space $\widetilde{T}$ also fits into a central extension $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{T}\stackrel{\tau}{\rightarrow} T\to 1.$$ The Weyl group of $\widetilde{G}$ can be identified with $W$ and thus $W$ acts naturally on $R^{\tau}(T)$. In a similar way as in the case of untwisted K-theory we have a natural isomorphism $R^{\tau}(G)\cong R^{\tau}(T)^{W}$. Therefore when $G$ is a compact, connected Lie group we have a natural isomorphism $${}^{P}K_{G}^{0}(\{*\})\cong R^{\tau}(T)^{W}.$$
In a similar way as was done in [@AS Proposition 6.3] we can associate to each $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P\to X$ an equivariant cohomology class $\eta_{P}\in H^{3}_{G}(X;\Z)$. This assignment defines a one-to-one correspondence between isomorphism classes of $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundles over $X$ and cohomology classes in $H^{3}_{G}(X;\Z)$.
A twisted spectral sequence for actions with maximal rank isotropy
==================================================================
In this section we study a spectral sequence for twisted equivariant K-theory analogous to the classical Segal spectral sequence [@Segal] for equivariant K–theory associated to an appropriate covering. It is a formal consequence of [@MS Theorem 22.4.4]. Variations on this spectral sequence appear in [@BEJU], [@Douglas], [@Dwyer] and [@FHT].
We will show that in the particular case when we have actions of compact Lie groups with the property that all the isotropy groups are connected, of maximal rank, the $E_2$–term can be succinctly described using Bredon cohomology with suitable coefficients, in a manner analogous to what holds in the untwisted case (see [@AG]).
We start by setting up some notation that will be used throughout this section. Fix a compact, connected Lie group $G$ and $T$ a maximal torus in $G$. Let $W=N_{G}(T)/T$ be the corresponding Weyl group. We will assume that $G$ acts continuously on a space $X$ with connected maximal rank subgroups. This means that for every $x\in X$ the isotropy subgroup $G_{x}$ is connected and contains a maximal torus in $G$. With these hypotheses the action of $G$ on $X$ induces an action of $W=N_{G}(T)/T$ on $X^{T}$ by passing to the $T$-fixed points. Our main goal is to compute the $E_{2}$-term in a spectral sequence for twisted equivariant K-theory in terms of the $W$-action on $X^{T}$. We will assume that $X^{T}$ is a $W$-CW complex. By [@AG Theorem 2.2] this is equivalent to assuming that $X$ is a $G$-CW complex. Furthermore we will assume that there is a point $x_{0}\in X$ fixed by the $G$-action and that $X^{T}$ is path–connected although this last condition can be removed with obvious modifications.
Let $p\colon P\to X$ be a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that we assume $G$-stable from now on. We also assume that the restriction of $p \colon P\to X$ over the base point $x_{0}$ is trivial. If the group $G$ is such that $\pi_{1}(G)$ is torsion–free then this condition holds for any bundle as $H^{3}(BG;\Z)=0$ for such groups. Since $p$ is $G$-locally trivial, for every $x\in X$ we can find a $G_{x}$-invariant open slice $U_{x}$ through $x$ and a trivialization $$\varphi_{x}\colon p^{-1}(GU_{x})\to G\times_{G_{x}} (U_{x}\times PU(\H))$$ of $p$ as a principal $PU(\H)$-bundle which is also $G$-equivariant via the local representation $\gamma_{x}\colon G_{x}\to PU(\H)$. Since the bundle $P$ is assumed to be $G$-stable then the local representations $\gamma_{x}$ is injective for all $x\in X$. Let $\widetilde{G}_{x}=\gamma_{x}^{*}U(\H)$. In this way we get a central extension $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{G}_{x}\stackrel{\tau_{x}} \to G_{x}\to 1$$ for every $x\in X$. Notice that these central extensions depend on the choices made above and this family of central extensions does not necessarily vary continuously as $x$ moves in $X^{T}$.
\[principalbundle\] Suppose that $G$ is a compact connected Lie group that acts on a $G$-CW complex $X$ with connected maximal rank isotropy and that $p\colon P\to X$ is a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that is $G$-stable. Associated to $p$ there is a locally trivial bundle $q\colon L\to X^{T}$ such that the fiber over $x$ can be identified with a maximal torus of $\widetilde{G}_x$. Fur-thermore, there is an action of $W$ on $L$ such that $q$ is a $W$-equivariant map.
For each $x\in X^{T}$, fix a $G_{x}$-invariant open slice $U_{x}$ through $x$ in $X$, a local representation $\gamma_{x}\colon G_{x}\to PU(\H)$ and a $G$-equivariant trivialization $$\varphi_{x} \colon p^{-1}(GU_{x})\to G\times_{G_{x}} (U_{x}\times PU(\H)).$$ We write elements in $G\times_{G_{x}} (U_{x}\times PU(\H))$ in the form $[g,(z,\sigma)]$, where $g\in G$, $z\in U_{x}$ and $\sigma \in PU(\H)$. Therefore in $G\times_{G_{x}} (U_{x}\times PU(\H))$ we have $[g,(z,\sigma)]=[gh^{-1},(hz,\gamma_{x}(h)\sigma)]$ for all $h\in G_{x}$. If $x,y \in X^{T}$ are such that $U_{x}\cap U_{y}\ne \emptyset$, let $\rho_{x,y} \colon U_{x}\cap U_{y}\to PU(\H)$ be the transition function defined by the equation $$\varphi_{x}(\varphi_{y}^{-1}[g,(z,\sigma)])=[g,(z,\rho_{x,y}(z)\sigma)]$$ for all $z\in U_{x}\cap U_{y}$, all $g\in G$ and all $\sigma\in PU(\H)$. The transition functions and the local representations are compatible in the sense that $$\label{eqcompatible}
\gamma_{y}(t)=\rho_{x,y}(tz)^{-1}\gamma_{x}(t)\rho_{x,y}(z)$$ for all $z\in U_{x}\cap U_{y}$ and all $t\in T$. Given $x\in X^{T}$ define $V_{x}:=U_{x}\cap X^{T}$. By [@Hauschild Theorem 1.1] the Weyl group of $G_{x}$ is $W_{x}$ so that each $V_{x}$ is $W_{x}$-invariant open set in $X^{T}$. Moreover, as the action of $G$ on $X$ has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups, using [@Hauschild Theorem 2.1] we see that $V_{x}$ is a $W_{x}$-invariant slice through $x$ in $X^{T}$ and $(GU_{x})\cap X^{T}$ can be identified $W$-equivariantly with $W\times_{W_{x}}V_{x}$.
On the other hand, notice that for each $x\in X^{T}$, the group $\widetilde{T}_{x}=(\gamma_{x})_{|}^{*}U(\H)$ is a maximal torus in $\widetilde{G}_{x}$. Recall that $$\widetilde{T}_{x}=(\gamma_{x})_{|}^{*}U(\H)=\{(t,u)\in T\times U(\H) ~|~ \gamma_{x}(t)=\pi(u)\},$$ where $\pi \colon U(\H)\to PU(\H)$ denotes the canonical map. Next we construct an action of $W_{x}$ on $\widetilde{T}_{x}$ by automorphisms. Let $n \in N_{G_{x}}(T)$ and $(t,u)\in \widetilde{T}_{x}$ so that $\gamma_{x}(t)=\pi(u)$. We define $$n\cdot (t,u):=(ntn^{-1}, \gamma_{x}(n)u\gamma_{x}(n)^{-1})\in \widetilde{T}_{x}.$$ The above assignment is well defined because $$\pi(\gamma_{x}(n)u\gamma_{x}(n)^{-1})=\gamma_{x}(n)\pi(u)\gamma_{x}(n)^{-1}=
\gamma_{x}(n)\gamma_{x}(t)\gamma_{x}(n)^{-1}=\gamma_{x}(ntn^{-1})$$ so that $n\cdot (t,u) \in \widetilde{T}_{x}$. It is easy to see that this defines a continuous action of $N_{G_{x}}(T)$ on $\widetilde{T}_{x}$ by group automorphisms. Moreover, for every $n \in N_{G_{x}}(T)$ we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
1\ar[r] &\SS^{1}\ar[d]_{\text{id}} \ar[r] & \widetilde{T}_x
\ar[d]^{n\cdot } \ar[r]^{\tau_x} &T\ar[r] \ar[d]^{c_{n}} &1\\
1\ar[r] &\SS^{1} \ar[r] &\widetilde{T}_{x}\ar[r]^{\tau_{x}} & T\ar[r] &1.}$$ In the above diagram $c_{n}$ denotes the map given by $c_{n}(t)=ntn^{-1}$ for all $t\in T$. Since the group of automorphisms of $\widetilde{T}_x$ is discrete and $T$ is path-connected, this action factors through an action of $W_x=N_{G_x}(T)/T$ on $\widetilde{T}_x$. This is also an action by group automorphisms and which fits into an analogous commutative diagram. Using this action we can consider the space $W\times_{W_{x}}(V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x})$, where $W_{x}$ acts on $V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x}$ by the assignment $w\cdot (z,t,u)=(wz, wt, \gamma_{x}(n)u\gamma_{x}(n)^{-1})$. Here $n\in N_{G_{x}}(T)$ is any element such that $w=[n]$. We denote elements in $W\times_{W_{x}}(V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x})$ in the form $[w, (z,t,u)]$ with $w\in W$, $z\in V_{x}$ and $(t,u)\in \widetilde{T}_{x}$. Suppose now that $z\in V_{x}\cap V_{y}$ and assume that $(z,t,u)\in V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x}$. We claim that $(z,t,\rho_{x,y}(z)^{-1}u\rho_{x,y}(z))\in V_{y}\times \widetilde{T}_{y}$. Indeed, using (\[eqcompatible\]) we have $$\pi(\rho_{x,y}(z)^{-1}u\rho_{x,y}(z))=\rho_{x,y}(z)^{-1}\pi(u)\rho_{x,y}(z)
=\rho_{x,y}(z)^{-1}\gamma_{x}(t)\rho_{x,y}(z)=\gamma_{y}(t).$$ With this in mind we define $$L = \left( \coprod_{x\in X^{T}} W\times_{W_{x}}(V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x}) \right) \Big{/} {\sim}.$$ Here if $[w, (z,t,u)]\in W\times_{W_{x}}(V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x})$ we define $$[w, (z,t,u)]\sim [w,(z,t,\rho_{x,y}(z)^{-1}u\rho_{x,y}(z))]\in
W\times_{W_{y}}(V_{y}\times \widetilde{T}_{y}).$$ This is well defined by the above comment. We denote by $\llbracket w, (z,t,u)\rrbracket$ the equivalence class in $L$ of the element $[w, (z,t,u)]$. With this definition the map $q\colon L\to X^{T}$ given by $q(\llbracket w, (z,t,u)\rrbracket)=wz$ is a locally trivial bundle.
To finish, we endow $L$ with an action of $W$. Suppose that $[w, (z,t,u)]\in W\times_{W_{x}}(V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x})$ and that $w'\in W$. Then $[w'w, (z,t,u)]\in W\times_{W_{x}}(V_{x}\times \widetilde{T}_{x})$ and we define $$w'\cdot \llbracket w, (z,t,u)\rrbracket=\llbracket w'w, (z,t,u)\rrbracket.$$ It is straightforward to check that this defines a continuous action of $W$ on $L$ and that $q \colon L\to X^{T}$ is a $W$-equivariant map.
For the next proposition, note that any one-dimensional complex representation of $T$ is a unit in the ring $R(T)$, hence multiplication by such a representation determines an automorphism of $R(T)$. Under tensoring of representations, the set $\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^1)$ of one-dimensional complex representations of $T$ is a subgroup of the group of units $R(T)^{\times}$.
\[pi1action\] Suppose that $p\colon P\to X$ is $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle such that the restriction of $p\colon P\to X$ to $x_{0}$ is trivial. Then $p\colon P\to X$ induces an action of $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ on $R(T)$ given by a $W$-equivariant homomorphism $$\phi_{P}\colon \pi_{1}(X^{T})\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1}).$$
Let $q\colon L\to X^{T}$ be the bundle constructed in Proposition \[principalbundle\]. Thus for every $x\in X^{T}$ we have a local representation $\gamma_{x}\colon G_{x}\to PU(\H)$ together with central extensions $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{G}_{x}\stackrel{\tau_{x}}{\rightarrow} G_{x}\to 1$$ in such a way that $\widetilde{T}_{x}=q^{-1}(x)$ is a maximal torus in $\widetilde{G}_{x}$. The space $\widetilde{T}_{x}$ fits into a central extension of the form $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{T}_{x}\stackrel{\tau_{x}}{\rightarrow} T\to 1.$$ For every $x\in X^{T}$ the above central extension is trivializable as $H^{3}(BT;\Z)=0$. All possible identifications of $\widetilde{T}_{x}$ with $T\times \SS^{1}$ can be used to construct an action of $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ on $R(T)$ via holonomy. To see this notice that associated to the bundle $L$ we have a covering space $r \colon L^{aut}\to X^{T}$ whose fiber over $x$ is the set of automorphisms of central extensions from $\widetilde{T}_x$ to $\widetilde{T}_x$. Let $\alpha\colon [0,1]\to X^{T}$ be any loop in $X^{T}$ based at $x_{0}$. Via holonomy associated to $\alpha$ there is an isomorphism of central extensions $$\xymatrix{
1\ar[r] &\SS^{1}\ar[d]_{\text{id}} \ar[r] & \widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}
\ar[d]^{\Phi_{\alpha}}\ar[r]^{\tau_{x_{0}}}&T\ar[r] \ar[d]^{\text{id}}&1\\
1\ar[r] &\SS^{1} \ar[r] &\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}} \ar[r]^{\tau_{x_{0}}}&T\ar[r] &1.}$$ This isomorphism only depends on the class $[\alpha]\in \pi_{1}(X^T)$.
The action of $W$ on $L$ constructed in Proposition \[principalbundle\] induces an action of $W$ on $L^{aut}$. Namely, if $w \in W$ and $\varphi$ is an automorphism of the central extension $\widetilde{T}_x$, we consider $ w \cdot \varphi = w \varphi w^{-1}$. The map $r$ is $W$-equivariant with respect to this action, hence $\Phi_{w\alpha}=w\Phi_{\alpha}w^{-1}$ for any $w\in W$. In other words, the assignment $[\alpha]\mapsto \Phi_{\alpha}$ is $W$-equivariant with $W$ acting by conjugation on the group of automorphisms of the central extension $\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}$. Observe that the group of automorphisms of the central extension $\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}$ can be identified $W$-equivariantly with the group $\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ as the restriction of $p$ over $x_{0}$ is assumed to be trivial. Thus the above assignment defines a $W$-equivariant group homomorphism $$\phi_{P}\colon \pi_{1}(X^{T})\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1}). \qedhere$$
The homomorphism $\phi_{P}\colon \pi_{1}(X^{T})\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ associated to a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P\to X$ constructed in the previous proposition is a key part in the calculation of the spectral sequence for twisted equivariant K-theory as we shall see below. On the other hand, notice that $\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})\cong H^{2}(BT;\Z)$ as an abelian group. Therefore the homomorphism $\phi_{P}$ associated to the bundle $p\colon P\to X$ induces a group homomorphism $\bar{\phi}_{P}\colon H_{1}(X^{T};\Z)\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})\cong H^{2}(BT;\Z)$. Using the universal coefficient theorem we can identify $\bar{\phi}_P$ with an element in $H^{1}(X^{T};H^{2}(BT;\Z))\cong H^{1}(X^{T};\Z)\otimes H^{2}(BT;\Z)$ which by abuse of notation we denote also by $\phi_{P}$. On the other hand, let $$h_{T}\colon H^{3}_{G}(X;\Z)\to H^{1}(X^{T};\Z)\otimes H^{2}(BT;\Z)$$ be the composite of the restriction map to $T$-fixed points $$r_{T}\colon H^{3}_{G}(X;\Z)\to H_{T}^{3}(X^{T};\Z)\cong H^{3}(X^{T}\times BT;\Z)$$ with the projection map $$\pi_{T}\colon H^{3}(X^{T}\times BT;\Z)\cong H^{3}(X^{T};\Z)\oplus
H^{1}(X^{T};\Z)\otimes H^{2}(BT;\Z)
\to H^{1}(X^{T};\Z)\otimes H^{2}(BT;\Z).$$ Using arguments similar to those used in [@Meinrenken Section 2.2] we can deduce the next proposition.
Let $\eta_{P}\in H_{G}^{3}(X;\Z)$ be the cohomology class corresponding to the bundle $p\colon P\to X$. Then the element $h_{T}(\eta_{P})\in H^{1}(X^{T};\Z)\otimes H^{2}(BT;\Z)$ corresponds to $\phi_{P}$.
Suppose that $G$ acts on a space $X$ with connected maximal rank isotropy and that there is a point $x_{0}\in X$ fixed by $G$ that we take as the base point. Let $\pi\colon \widetilde{X^{T}}\to X^{T}$ be the universal cover of $X^{T}$. Then the group $\pi_{1}(X^{T}):=\pi_{1}(X^{T},x_{0})$ acts on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ by deck transformations. Fix a point $\tilde{x}_{0}$ in $\pi^{-1}(x_{0})$. For every $w\in W$, there is a unique map $\widetilde{w}\colon \widetilde{X^{T}} \to \widetilde{X^{T}}$ that is a lifting of the action map $w\colon X^{T}\to X^{T}$ and that satisfies $\widetilde{w}(\tilde{x}_{0})=\tilde{x}_{0}.$ Such a map exists and is unique by the lifting theorem for covering spaces. This assignment defines an action of $W$ on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ in such a way that the map $\pi\colon \widetilde{X^{T}}\to X^{T}$ is $W$-equivariant. On the other hand, observe that since the $G$-action leaves $x_{0}$ fixed, then $W$ also fixes $x_{0}$ and therefore $W$ acts on $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ by automorphisms under the assignment $w\cdot[\alpha]=[w\cdot \alpha]$. If we identify $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ with the group of deck transformations on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$, this action corresponds to the conjugation action of $W$ on the group of deck transformations.
With this action in mind, we can construct the semi-direct product $\widetilde{W}:=\pi_{1}(X^{T})\rtimes W$. We write elements in $\widetilde{W}$ in the form $(a,w)$ with $a\in \pi_{1}(X^{T})$ and $w\in W$. We have an induced action of $\widetilde{W}$ on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$. Explicitly, if $\tilde{x}\in \widetilde{X^{T}}$ and $(a,w)\in \widetilde{W}$ then $$(a,w)\cdot \tilde{x}:= a\cdot (w\cdot \tilde{x}) .$$ Moreover, if we let $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ act trivially on $X^{T}$ then the action of $\widetilde{W}$ on $X^{T}$ is such that the projection map $\pi\colon \widetilde{X^{T}}\to X^{T}$ is $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant.
Assume that $x\in X^{T}$ is a point and let $\tilde{x}\in \widetilde{X^{T}}$ be any point such that $\pi(\tilde{x})=x$. Suppose that $(a,w)\in \widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$; that is, $(a,w)\cdot \tilde{x}=a\cdot (w\cdot \tilde{x})=\tilde{x}$. Applying $\pi$ to the previous equation we obtain $wx=x$ and thus $w\in W_{x}$. In addition, $a$ is a deck transformation that satisfies $a\cdot (w\cdot \tilde{x})=\tilde{x}$. Since deck transformations are uniquely determined by their values at a point we conclude that for every $w\in W_{x}$ there is a unique element $a\in \pi_{1}(X^{T})$ such that $(a,w)\in \widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$. If $w\in W_{x}$ we denote by $a_{w}\in \pi_{1}(X^{T})$ the unique element such that $(a_{w},w)\in \widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$. It can be seen that the assignment $w\mapsto a_{w}$ defines a cocycle on $W_{x}$ with values on $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$.
Next we want to study a spectral sequence à la Segal computing ${}^{P}K_{G}^{*}(X)$ for a $G$-stable $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P \to X$. In the context of twisted equivariant K-theory, the spectral sequence is easier to describe using $G$-invariant open covers of $X$.
Let $X$ be a $G$-space. We say that a $G$-invariant open subspace $U$ of $X$ is a contractible slice if there exists $x \in U$ such that the inclusion map $Gx \hookrightarrow U$ is a $G$-homotopy equivalence.
A $G$-equivariant good cover of a $G$-space $X$ is a cover $\U=\{U_{i}\}_{i\in \I}$ of $X$ by $G$-invariant open subsets such that the following two conditions hold:
- $\I$ is a well ordered set.
- For every sequence $i_{1}\le \cdots\le i_{p}$ of elements in $\I$, if $U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}:=U_{i_{1}}\cap \cdots \cap U_{i_{p}}$ is nonempty, then it is a contractible slice.
These covers are also called contractible slice covers. Note that in particular, whenever $U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$ is nonempty, there exists some element $x_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\in U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$ such that the inclusion map $Gx_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ is a $G$-homotopy equivalence and therefore $U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}
\simeq G/G_{x_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}$.
When $G$ is a compact Lie group and $X$ is a $G$-ANR, the existence of $G$-equivariant good covers is guaranteed by the work in [@Antonyan]. In particular, $G$-equivariant good covers exist for finite dimensional $G$-CW complexes when $G$ is a compact Lie group.
\[one-to-one cover\] Suppose that $G$ acts on $X$ with connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between $G$-equivariant good covers on $X$ and $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant good covers on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$.
Suppose that $\U=\{U_{i}\}_{i\in \I}$ is a $G$-equivariant. For each $i \in \I$, the set $U_{i}^{T}:=U_{i}\cap X^{T}$ is open in $X^{T}$ and $W$-invariant. By assumption, for each sequence $i_{1}\le \cdots\le i_{p}$ of elements in $\I$ with $U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ nonempty we can find an element $x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\in U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ such that the inclusion map $Gx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ is a $G$-homotopy equivalence. Since $G_{x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}}$ is a subgroup of maximal rank and all maximal tori in $G$ are conjugate, then after replacing $x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$ with $gx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$ for a suitable $g$, we may assume without loss of generality that $x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\in X^{T}$. Then $x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\in U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\cap X^{T}=U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$. Moreover, the $G$-homotopy equivalence $Gx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ induces a $W$-homotopy equivalence $Wx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ after passing to $T$-fixed points. Thus $\U^{T}=\{U_{i}^{T}\}_{i\in \I}$ is a $W$-equivariant good cover of $X^{T}$.
Conversely, if $\U^{T}=\{U_{i}^{T}\}_{i\in \I}$ is a $W$-equivariant good cover of $X^{T}$ then for every $i\in I$ we can define $U_{i}=\cup_{g\in G}gU^{T}_{i}$. Then $\U=\{U_{i}\}_{i\in \I}$ is an open cover of $X$ by $G$-invariant sets. For each sequence $i_{1}\le \cdots\le i_{p}$ of elements in $\I$ with $U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ nonempty, the $W$-homotopy equivalence $Wx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ induces a $G$-homotopy equivalence $Gx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ by [@Hauschild Theorem 2.1]. This shows that $G$-equivariant good covers on $X$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $W$-equivariant good covers on $X^{T}$.
Suppose now that $\U^{T}=\{U_{i}^{T}\}_{i\in \I}$ is a $W$-equivariant good cover on $X^{T}$. For each $i\in \I$ define $\widetilde{U_{i}}=\pi^{-1}(U^{T}_{i})$. Then $\widetilde{\U}=\{\widetilde{U}_{i}\}_{i\in\I}$ is an open cover of $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ by $\widetilde{W}$-invariant sets. Fix a sequence $i_{1}\le \cdots\le i_{p}$ of elements in $\I$ with $U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ nonempty so that there is a $W$-homotopy equivalence $Wx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ for some $x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$. Fix $\tilde{x}_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\in \widetilde{U}_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ with $\pi(\tilde{x}_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}})=x_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$. Notice that the restriction map $\pi_{|}\colon \widetilde{U}_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}\to U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ is a covering space. Using the lifting property we can lift the $W$-homotopy equivalence $Wx_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\hookrightarrow U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}^{T}$ to a $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant homotopy equivalence $\widetilde{W}\tilde{x}_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}
\hookrightarrow \widetilde{U}_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$ proving that $\widetilde{\U}$ is a $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant good cover on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$.
Conversely, if $\widetilde{\U}=\{\widetilde{U}_{i}\}_{i\in\I}$ is a $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant good cover on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$, then it is easy to see that we can get a $W$-equivariant good cover on $X^{T}$ by defining $U^{T}_{i}=\widetilde{U}_{i}/\pi_{1}(X^{T})$. Thus $W$-equivariant good covers on $X^{T}$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant good covers on $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ and the lemma follows.
Suppose now that $X$ is a $G$-space for which we can find a $G$-equivariant good open cover $\U=\{U_{i}\}_{i\in \I}$ and $p \colon P \to X$ is a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-principal bundle. If $i_{1}\le \dots\le i_{p}$ is a sequence of elements in $\I$ we denote by $P_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$ the restriction of $P$ to $U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}$. Associated to the cover $\U$ we have a spectral sequence à la Segal that is constructed in a similar way as in [@BEJU Section 4]. The $E_{1}$-term in this spectral sequence is given by $$\label{Segalss}
E_{1}^{p,q}=\prod_{i_{1}\le \dots\le i_{p}}
{}^{P_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}}K_{G}^{q}(U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}).$$ The differential $d_{1}\colon E_{1}^{p,q}\to E_{1}^{p+1,q}$ is given by the alternating sum of the different restriction maps $${}^{P_{i_{1},\dots,\hat{i}_{j},\dots, i_{p+1}}}
K_{G}^{q}(U_{i_{1},\dots,\hat{i}_{j},\dots, i_{p+1}})
\to {}^{P_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p+1}}}K_{G}^{q}(U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p+1}})$$ for all $1\le j\le p+1$. Here we use the usual convention that $\hat{i}_{j}$ means that the index $i_{j}$ is removed. Our next goal is to identify the $E_{2}$-term of this spectral sequence with a suitable Bredon cohomology group of $\widetilde{X^{T}}$.
Recall that if the restriction of $p$ to $x_{0}$ is trivial, then by Proposition \[pi1action\] associated to the bundle $p\colon P\to X$ we have an action of $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ on $\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ that is $W$-equivariant. Therefore this action can be extended to an action of $\widetilde{W}=\pi_{1}(X^{T})\rtimes W$ on $R(T)$. We now consider the coefficient system $$\lR:=H^{0}(-;R(T)).$$ defined on the orbit category of $\widetilde{W}$. Explicitly the value of this coefficient system at an orbit of the form $\widetilde{W}/\widetilde{W_{i}}$ are $$\lR(\widetilde{W}/\widetilde{W_{i}})=R(T)^{\widetilde{W_{i}}}.$$ Note that $\lR$ can also be seen as a functor from the orbit category of $\widetilde{W}$ to the category of $R(G)$-modules.
\[identifycontract\] Suppose that $p \colon P\to X$ is a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that is $G$-stable and such that its restriction to base point $x_{0}$ is trivial. Assume that $U$ is a contractible slice and let $\widetilde{U}=\pi^{-1}(U\cap X^{T})$. Then for every even integer $q$ there is an isomorphism of $R(G)$-modules $$\psi_{U}\colon {}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{q}(U)\to H_{\widetilde{W}}^{0}(\widetilde{U};\lR).$$ Moreover, if $U$ and $V$ are two $G$-equivariant slices with $U\subset V$ the following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
{}^{P_{V}}K_{G}^{q}(V)\ar[d]\ar[r]^{\psi_{V}} &
H^{0}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{V};\lR) \ar[d]\\
{}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{q}(U)\ar[r]^{\psi_{U}} &
H^{0}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{U};\lR)
}$$ where the vertical maps are the restriction maps.
Suppose that $U$ is a contractible slice. Then we can find some $x\in U$ such that the inclusion map $Gx\hookrightarrow U$ is a $G$-homotopy equivalence. After replacing $x$ with $gx$ for a suitable $g$, we may assume that $x\in X^{T}$ so that $x\in U\cap X^{T}$. Let $P_{x}$ be the restriction of $P$ to the orbit $Gx$. Notice that the inclusion map $Gx\hookrightarrow U$ induces an isomorphism $${}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{0}(U)\cong {}^{P_{x}}K_{G}^{0}(Gx)\cong R^{\tau_{x}}(G_{x}).$$ Here $\tau_{x}$ denotes the central extension of the group $G_{x}$ defined by the local representation $\gamma_{x}\colon G_{x}\to PU(\H)$ used in the construction of $L$ and $R^{\tau_{x}}(G_{x})$ denotes the $\tau_{x}$-twisted representation ring of $G_{x}$. As in the case of untwisted K-theory, the inclusion map $T\subset G_{x}$ induces an isomorphism $$R^{\tau_{x}}(G_{x})\cong R^{\tau_{x}}(T)^{W_{x}}.$$ In the above equation by abuse of notation we also denote by $\tau_{x}$ the central extension $$1\to \SS^{1}\to \widetilde{T}_{x}\stackrel{\tau_{x}}{\rightarrow} T\to 1.$$ Note that $\widetilde{U}=\pi^{-1}(U\cap X^{T})$ is a $\widetilde{W}$-invariant open set in $\widetilde{X^{T}}$. Let $\tilde{x}$ be any point in $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ such that $\pi(\tilde{x})=x$. Thus $\tilde{x}\in \widetilde{U}$ and the inclusion map $\widetilde{W}\tilde{x}\hookrightarrow \widetilde{U}$ is a $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant homotopy equivalence. Let $ \tilde{\beta}\colon [0,1]\to \widetilde{X^{T}}$ be any path in $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ from $\tilde{x}_{0}$ to $\tilde{x}$, where $\tilde{x}_{0}$ is the base point in $\widetilde{X^{T}}$. Such a path exists and is unique up to path homotopy since $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ is simply connected. Let $\beta=\pi\circ \tilde{\beta}$. Notice that $\beta$ is a path in $X^{T}$ from $x_{0}$ to $x$ and by definition $\tilde{\beta}$ is the unique lifting of $\beta$ to $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ such that $\tilde{\beta}(0)=\tilde{x}_{0}$. The path $\beta$ induces an isomorphism of central extensions $\Phi_{\beta}\colon \widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}\to \widetilde{T}_{x}.$ Moreover, this isomorphism only depends on the path-homotopy class of $\beta$. Therefore $\beta$ induces an isomorphism $$\Phi_{\beta}\colon R^{\tau_{x}}(T)\rightarrow R^{\tau_{x_{0}}}(T)$$ On the other hand, fix a trivialization $\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}\cong T\times \SS^{1}$. Thus we have an identification $R^{\tau_{x_{0}}}(T)=R(T)$. We show next that $\Phi_{\beta}$ induces an isomorphism $$\label{isom1}
\Phi_{\beta}\colon R^{\tau_{x}}(T)^{W_{x}}\rightarrow
R(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}}.$$ For this we give $R^{\tau_{x}}(T)$ an action of $\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$ as follows. Elements in $\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$ are pairs of the form $(a_{w},w)$ with $w\in W_{x}$ and $a_{w}\in \pi_{1}(X^{T})$. We let $(a_{w},w)$ act on $p\in R^{\tau_{x}}(T)$ by the assignment $$(a_{w},w)\cdot p=w\cdot p;$$ that is, the part corresponding to $\pi_{1}(X^{T})$ acts trivially on $R^{\tau_{x}}(T)$. With this action we clearly have $R^{\tau_{x}}(T)^{W_{x}}
=R^{\tau_{x}}(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}}$. To prove (\[isom1\]) it suffices to prove that the map $\Phi_{\beta}$ is $\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$-equivariant. To see this fix an element $(a_{w},w)\in \widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$ so that $w\in W_{x}$ and $a_{w}\in \pi_{1}(X^{T})$. We need to prove that $$\Phi_{\beta}(w\cdot p)=\Phi_{\beta}((a_{w,}w)\cdot p)=(a_{w},w)\cdot \Phi_{\beta}(p)$$ for every $p\in R^{\tau_{x}}(T)$. Let $\alpha\colon [0,1]\to X^{T}$ be a loop based at $x_{0}$ such that $a_{w}=[\alpha]\in \pi_{1}(X^{T})$. Let $\tilde{\alpha}\colon [0,1]\to \widetilde{X^{T}}$ be the unique lifting of $\alpha$ to $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ such that $\tilde{\alpha}(0)=\tilde{x}_{0}$. Let $D_{a_{w}}\colon \widetilde{X^{T}}\to \widetilde{X^{T}}$ be the deck transformation that corresponds to $a_{w}$. Since $(a_{w},w)\in \widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$ we have $$(a_{w},w)\cdot \tilde{x}
=a_{w}\cdot(w\cdot \tilde{x})=D_{a_{w}}(w\cdot \tilde{x})=\tilde{x};$$ that is, $w\cdot \tilde{x}=D_{a_{w}^{-1}}(\tilde{x})$. Consider the paths $w\cdot \tilde{\beta}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}\ast (D_{a_{w}^{-1}}\circ \tilde{\beta})$. These two paths start at $\tilde{x}_{0}$ and end at $w\cdot \tilde{x}$. Since $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ is simply–connected, these paths are path-homotopic, i.e., $w\cdot \tilde{\beta}\simeq \tilde{\alpha}\ast(D_{a_{w}^{-1}}\circ \tilde\beta)$. After composing these paths with the projection map $\pi$ we obtain $w\cdot \beta \simeq \alpha \ast \beta$ and this in turn implies that $\Phi_{w\cdot \beta}=\Phi_{\beta}\circ \Phi_{\alpha}$. On the other hand, recall that the action of $W$ is compatible with the isomorphism $\Phi_{\beta}$. This means that $\Phi_{w\cdot \beta}=w\Phi_{\beta}(w^{-1})$. This together with the fact that $\Phi_{w\cdot \beta}=\Phi_{\beta}\circ \Phi_{\alpha}$ show that the following diagram is commutative $$\xymatrix{
\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}\ar[d]_{\Phi_{\beta}} \ar[r]^{w} &
\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}\ar[d]_{\Phi_{w\cdot \beta}} \ar[r]^{\Phi_{\alpha}} &
\widetilde{T}_{x_{0}}\ar[d]_{\Phi_{\beta}}\\
\widetilde{T}_{x}\ar[r]_{w} &\widetilde{T}_{x}\ar[r]_{\text{id}}
& \widetilde{T}_{x}.
}$$ In the above diagram the arrows labeled with $w$ represent the maps given by the action by $w$. The commutativity of the previous diagram means precisely that $\Phi_{\beta}$ is $\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}$-equivariant. The above shows that for every $G$-equivariant slice $U$ there is an isomorphism of $R(G)$-modules $$\psi_{U}\colon {}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{0}(U)\cong R^{\tau_{x}}(T)^{W_{x}}\to
R(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}}\cong H_{\widetilde{W}}^{0}(\tilde{U};\lR).$$ The isomorphism $\psi_{U}\colon {}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{0}(U)\to H_{\widetilde{W}}^{0}(\tilde{U};\lR)$ constructed above does not depend on the choice of $\tilde{x}\in \tilde{U}$. To see this, suppose that $\tilde{x}_{1}\in \tilde{U}$ is another element such that $\pi(\tilde{x}_{1})=\pi(\tilde{x})=x$. Let $\tilde{\beta}_{1} \colon [0,1]\to \widetilde{X^{T}}$ be a path in $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ from $\tilde{x}_{0}$ to $\tilde{x}_{1}$ and $\beta_{1}=\pi\circ \tilde{\beta}_{1}$. Since $\pi \colon \widetilde{X^{T}}\to X^{T}$ is the universal cover and $\pi(\tilde{x}_{1})=\pi(\tilde{x})$ we can find a unique deck transformation $D$ such that $D(\tilde{x})=\tilde{x}_{1}$. If we identify $\pi_1(X^T)$ with the group of deck transformations as usual, then the element $v:=(D,1)\in \widetilde{W}$ is such that $v\cdot \tilde{x}=\tilde{x}_{1}$. As $v\cdot \tilde{x}=\tilde{x}_{1}$ we have $\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}_{1}}=v\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}v^{-1}$ and the action of $v$ on $R(T)$ induces an isomorphism $$v \colon R(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}}\to R(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}_{1}}}.$$ Furthermore we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{0}(U)\cong R^{\tau_{x}}(T)^{W_{x}} \ar[r]^{\qquad \Phi_{\beta}}\ar[rd]_{\Phi_{\beta_{1}}}
& R(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}}} \ar[r]^{\cong}\ar[d]_{v} &
H_{\widetilde{W}}^{0}(\tilde{U};\lR) \\
& R(T)^{\widetilde{W}_{\tilde{x}_{1}}}. \ar[ru]_{\cong}&
}$$ This proves that $\psi_{U}$ does not depend on the choice of the element $\tilde{x}$. Finally, if $U$ and $V$ are two $G$-equivariant slices with $U\subset V$ it can easily be seen that the following diagram commutes $$\label{commdiag}
\xymatrix{
{}^{P_{V}}K_{G}^{0}(V)\ar[d]\ar[r]^{\psi_{V}} &
H^{0}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{V};\lR) \ar[d]\\
{}^{P_{U}}K_{G}^{0}(U)\ar[r]^{\psi_{U}} &
H^{0}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{U};\lR).
}$$ In the above diagram the vertical arrows are the corresponding restriction maps. The case $q \neq 0$ follows by composing with the natural periodicity isomorphisms.
Using the previous theorem we can prove the main theorem of this section.
\[ss integer coeff\] Suppose $G$ is a compact Lie group acting on a space $X$ with connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups and with a fixed point $x_{0}$. Let $p\colon P\to X$ be a $G$-stable $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that is trivial over $x_{0}$. Assume that $X^{T}$ admits a $W$-equivariant good cover. Then there is a spectral sequence with $E_{2}$-term given by $$E_{2}^{p,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{p}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR) &\text{ if } &q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } &q \ \ \text{ is odd}
\end{array}
\right.$$ which converges to ${}^{P}K_{G}^{*}(X)$.
Since we are assuming that $X^{T}$ has a $W$-equivariant good cover we can find a $G$-equivariant good cover $\U=\{U_i\}_{i\in \I}$ on $X$ by Lemma \[one-to-one cover\]. By [@MS Theorem 22.4.4], associated to this cover we have a spectral sequence whose $E_{1}^{p,q}$-term is given by equation (\[Segalss\]). For every sequence of elements $i_{1}\le \dots\le i_{p}$ in $\I$ with $U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$ nonempty we have a $G$-homotopy equivalence $U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}\simeq G/G_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}$. This implies $${}^{P_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}K_{G}^{q}(U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}})
\cong {}^{P_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}K_{G_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}}^{q}(\{*\})=0$$ for $q$ odd. This trivially implies that $E_{2}^{p,q}=0$ for odd values of $q$. Assume now that $q$ is even. Let $\widetilde{\U}$ be the associated $\widetilde{W}$-equivariant good cover of $\widetilde{X^{T}}$ given by Lemma \[one-to-one cover\]. For any sequence $i_{1}\le \dots\le i_{p}$ of elements in $\I$ the map $\psi_{U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}$ constructed in Theorem \[identifycontract\] provides an isomorphism of $R(G)$-modules $$\psi_{U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}\colon
{}^{P_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}K_{G}^{q}(U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}})
\to H_{\widetilde{W}}^{0}(\widetilde{U}_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}};\lR).$$ The naturality of these isomorphism with respect to inclusions between contractible slices implies that the different maps $\psi_{U_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}$ define an isomorphism between the cochain complex $E_{1}^{*,q}$ in the spectral sequence and the cochain complex $\{D^{p}_{\widetilde{U}}=
H_{\widetilde{W}}^{0}(\widetilde{U}_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}};\lR)\}_{p}$ whose cohomology computes $H^{p}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR)$. In particular, this shows that for every even integer $q$ we have an isomorphism of $R(G)$-modules $$E_{2}^{p,q}\cong H^{p}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR). \qedhere$$
Next we study the rational coefficients analogue of the spectral sequence studied above for a $G$-space with maximal rank isotropy subgroups. To start assume that $Y$ is a $W$-CW complex of finite type (we are mainly interested in the case where $Y=X^{T}$ for a $G$-CW complex $X$ on which $G$ acts with connected maximal rank isotropy). Assume that $Y$ has a base point $y_{0}$ that is fixed under the action of $W$. Therefore $W$ acts on $\pi_{1}(Y):=\pi_{1}(Y,y_{0})$ by automorphisms and we can form the semi-direct product $\widetilde{W}:=\pi_{1}(Y)\rtimes W$. Let $\pi\colon \widetilde{Y}\to Y$ be the universal cover of $Y$. Then $\pi_{1}(Y)$ acts on $\widetilde{Y}$ via deck transformations and as above we can lift the action of $W$ on $Y$ to obtain an action of $\widetilde{W}$ on $\widetilde{Y}$. Fix a $W$-equivariant homomorphism $\phi\colon \pi_{1}(Y)\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$. Using this homomorphism we can obtain an action of $\widetilde{W}$ on $R(T)$ defined in the same way as in the case of $Y=X^{T}$. With this action we can define a new coefficient system $\lR_{\Q}$ as follows.
For any compact Lie group $H$ denote by $R(H)_{\Q}$ the complex representation ring of $H$ with rational coefficients; that is $R(H)_{\Q}:=R(H)\otimes \Q$. Then the value of $\lR_{\Q}$ at an orbit of the form $\widetilde{W}/\widetilde{W_{i}}$ is defined as $$\lR_{\Q}(\widetilde{W}/\widetilde{W_{i}})
=R(T)_{\Q}^{\widetilde{W_{i}}}.$$ We can regard $\pi_{1}(Y)$ as a normal subgroup of $\widetilde{W}$ and in this way we can restrict the coefficient system $\lR_{\Q}$ to obtain a coefficient system defined on the orbit category of $\pi_{1}(Y)$.
\[Bredon rational\] Suppose that $G$ is a compact connected Lie group. Let $Y$ be a $W$-CW complex of finite type. For every $W$-equivariant homomorphism $\phi\colon \pi_{1}(Y)\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ there is an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$H^{*}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})
\cong H_{\pi_{1}(Y)}^{*}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})^{W}.$$
To start notice that the coefficient system $\lR_{\Q}$ is induced by the $\widetilde{W}$-module $R(T)_{\Q}$. Then as pointed out in [@Bredon I. 9] there is an isomorphism of cochain complexes $$C_{\widetilde{W}}^{*}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})\cong
\operatorname{Hom}_{\Z[\widetilde{W}]}(C_{*}(\widetilde{Y}),R(T)_{\Q})$$ and in particular $H_{\widetilde{W}}^{*}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})\cong
H^{*}(\operatorname{Hom}_{\Z[\widetilde{W}]}(C_{*}(\widetilde{Y}),R(T))\otimes \Q)$. Define the cochain complex $D^{*}=\operatorname{Hom}(C_{*}(\widetilde{Y}),R(T)_{\Q})$. This cochain complex has a linear action of $\widetilde{W}$ defined by $(w\cdot f)(x)=wf(w^{-1}x)$. Under this action we have an isomorphism of cochain complexes $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\Z[\widetilde{W}]}(C_{*}(\widetilde{Y}),R(T)_{\Q})= (D^{*})^{\widetilde{W}}$$ and thus $H_{\widetilde{W}}^{*}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})
\cong H^{*}( (D^{*})^{\widetilde{W}})$. On the other hand, define the cochain complex $E^{*}=\operatorname{Hom}_{\Z[\pi_{1}(Y)]}(C_{*}(\widetilde{Y}),R(T)_{\Q})$. This cochain complex is defined precisely to obtain $H^{*}_{\pi_{1}(Y)}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\widetilde{W}}\otimes \Q)=H^{*}(E^{*})$. We can see $\pi_{1}(Y)$ as a normal subgroup of $\widetilde{W}$ and we have $\widetilde{W}/\pi_{1}(Y)=W$. Also, by definition $(D^{*})^{\pi_1(Y)}=E^{*}$. Notice that we have a natural isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$(D^{*})^{\widetilde{W}}\cong \left[(D^{*})^{\pi_{1}(Y)} \right]^{W}\cong (E^{*})^{W}.$$ We conclude that there is a natural isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$H^{*}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})
=H^{*}((D^{*})^{\widetilde{W}})\cong H^{*}((E^{*})^{W}).$$ Consider now $H^{*}(W;E^{*})$; as usual, there are two spectral sequences computing this group cohomology with coefficients in a cochain complex. On the one hand, we have $$E_{2}^{p,q}=H^{p}(W;H^{q}(E^{*}))
\Longrightarrow H^{p+q}(W;E^{*}).$$ Since $E^{*}$ is a cochain complex over $\Q$ and $W$ is a finite group it follows that $$E_{2}^{p,q}=H^{p}(W;H^{q}(E^{*}))\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{q}(E^{*})^{W}
&\text{ if } &p=0,\\
0& \text{ if } &p>0 .
\end{array}
\right.$$ On the other hand, we have a spectral sequence $$E_{1}^{p,q}=H^{q}(W;E^{p})
\Longrightarrow H^{p+q}(W;E^{*}).$$ with the differential $d_{1}$ induced by the differential of the cochain complex $E^{*}$. In this case $$H^{q}(W;E^{p})\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
(E^{p})^{W}
&\text{ if } &q=0,\\
0& \text{ if } &q>0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Thus the $E_{2}$-term of this spectral sequence is given by $$E_{2}^{p,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{p}((E^{*})^{W})
&\text{ if } &q=0,\\
0& \text{ if } &q>0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Both of these spectral sequences trivially collapse on the $E_{2}$-term without extension problems and both converge to $H^{*}(W;E^{*})$. It follows that there is an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$ modules $$H_{\widetilde{W}}^{*}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})
=H^{*}((E^{*})^{W})
\cong H^{*}(E^{*})^{W}=H^{*}_{\pi_{1}(Y)}(\widetilde{Y};\lR_{\Q})^{W}. \qedhere$$
\[ss rational coeff\] Suppose $G$ is a compact Lie group acting on space $X$ with connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups and with a fixed point $x_{0}$. Let $p\colon P\to X$ be a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that is trivial over $x_{0}$. Assume that $X^{T}$ is a $W$-CW complex of finite type that admits a $W$-equivariant good cover. Then there is a spectral sequence with $E_{2}$-term given by $$E_{2}^{p,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{p}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR_{\Q})^{W}
&\text{ if } &q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } &q \ \ \text{ is odd}
\end{array}
\right.$$ which converges to ${}^{P}K^{*}_{G}(X)\otimes \Q$.
Take the $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle $p\colon P\to X$ and let $\phi\colon \pi_{1}(X^{T})\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ be the homomorphism provided by Proposition \[pi1action\]. This way we can construct the coefficient system $\lR_{\Q}$ as explained above. Now let $\U=\{U_i\}_{i\in \I}$ be the corresponding $G$-equivariant good cover on $X$ given by Lemma \[one-to-one cover\]. As above, associated to this cover we have a spectral sequence whose $E_{1}^{p,q}$-term is given by $$E_{1}^{p,q}=\prod_{i_{1}\le \dots\le i_{p}}
{}^{P_{i_{1},\dots,i_{p}}}K_{G}^{q}(U_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}})\otimes \Q$$ The differential $d_{1}\colon E_{1}^{p,q}\to E_{1}^{p+1,q}$ is given by the alternating sum of the corresponding restriction maps. Since $X$ is a $G$-CW complex of finite type, this spectral sequence converges to ${}^{P}K_{G}^{p+q}(X)\otimes \Q$. When $q$ is odd, we have $E_{2}^{p,q}=0$ in the same way as with integer coefficients. When $q$ is even, proceeding in the same way as in Theorem \[ss integer coeff\] we see that the $E_{2}$-term in this spectral sequence is given by $$E_{2}^{p,q}=H^{p}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR_{\Q}).$$ Using Theorem \[Bredon rational\] we obtain an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules. $$H^{*}_{\widetilde{W}}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR_{\Q})
\cong H_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})}^{*}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR_{\Q})^{W}. \qedhere$$
Suppose that the cohomology class $\eta_{P}\in H^{3}_{G}(X;\Z)$ associated to $p\colon P\to X$ is trivial. In this case the homomorphism $\phi\colon \pi_{1}(X^{T})\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ corresponding to $p$ is also trivial. Therefore we have a natural isomorphism $$H^{p}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\lR_{\Q})^{W}
\cong H^{p}(X^{T};R(T)_{\Q})^{W}$$ and the latter is isomorphic to $H^{*}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes R(G)$ as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$ by [@AG Theorem 4.3]. In this case the spectral sequence collapses at the $E_{2}$-term without extension problems by [@AG Theorem 5.4].
Root systems, actions and cohomology {#Section 4}
====================================
In this section we provide some algebraic background that will be essential for our calculations in twisted equivariant K–theory. We start by setting up some notation. From now on, $G$ will denote a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group of rank $r$. Let $\g$ be the Lie algebra of $G$ and denote by $\g_{\C}$ its complexification. We fix a maximal torus $T$ in $G$ with Lie algebra $\t$ and denote by $W=N_{G}(T)/T$ the corresponding Weyl group. We are going to see roots as $\C$-linear functions $\alpha\colon \t_{\C}\to \C$. The restriction of a root to $\t$ is purely imaginary and thus we can also see a root as an $\R$-linear function $\alpha\colon \t\to i\R$. Let $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ denote the Killing form. Since $G$ is assumed to be simple, $B$ is a non-degenerate, negative definite form on $\t$. For each root $\alpha$ we can find a unique element $h_{\alpha}\in \t_{\C}$ such that $B(H,h_{\alpha})=\alpha(H)$ for every $H\in \t_{\C}$. Define $H_{\alpha}=\frac{2h_{\alpha}}{B(h_{\alpha},h_{\alpha})}$ so that $\alpha(H_{\alpha})=2$. If we identify $\t_{\C}$ canonically with $\t_{\C}^{**}$ then $H_{\alpha}$ corresponds to the element $\alpha^{\vee}$ in the inverse root system. Consider $\exp_{|\t}\colon \t\to T$, the restriction of the exponential map to $\t$ and let $\Lambda:=\ker\left(\exp_{|\t}\colon \t\to T\right)$ be the unit lattice. For each root $\alpha\in \Phi$ define $K_{\alpha}:=2\pi iH_{\alpha}\in \t$. Since $G$ is simply connected, the vectors $\{ K_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in\Phi}$ span the unit lattice by [@Bourbaki1 Corollary 1 IX §4 no. 6]. Let $\Delta=\{\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{r}\}$ be a fixed set of simple roots and consider the fundamental weights $\{\omega_{1},\dots, \omega_{r}\}$ corresponding to the simple roots. These fundamental weights are $\R$-linear maps $\omega_{j}\colon \t\to i\R$ such that $\omega_{j}(K_{\alpha_{k}})=2\pi i \delta_{kj}$, where as usual $\delta_{kj}$ denotes the Kronecker delta function and $1\le k,j\le r$. Since $G$ is simply connected, the set $\{\omega_{1}/2 \pi i,\dots, \omega_{r}/2 \pi i\}$ is a basis for the lattice $\operatorname{Hom}(\Lambda,\Z)$. Also, by [@Hall Proposition 8.18] it follows that the vectors $K_{\alpha_{1}},\dots, K_{\alpha_{r}}$ form a basis for the integral lattice $\Lambda$. Let $\alpha_{0}$ be the highest root. We can write $\alpha_{0}$ in the form $$\alpha_{0}= n_{1}\alpha_{1}+n_{2}\alpha_{2}+\cdots+n_{r}\alpha_{r}$$ for some integers $n_{1},n_{2},\dots,n_{r}\ge 1$. The number $h=n_{1}+n_{2}+\cdots+n_{r}+1$ is the Coxeter number of the group $G$. On the other hand, we can write $K_{\alpha_{0}}$ in the form $$K_{\alpha_{0}}=n_{1}^{\vee}K_{\alpha_{1}}+n_{2}^{\vee}K_{\alpha_{2}}
+\cdots+n_{r}^{\vee}K_{\alpha_{r}}$$ for some integers $n_{1}^{\vee},n_{2}^{\vee},\dots,n_{r}^{\vee}\ge 1$. The number $h^{\vee}=n_{1}^{\vee}+n_{2}^{\vee}+\cdots+n_{r}^{\vee}+1$ is the dual Coxeter number of the group $G$. If $\rho:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{\alpha>0}\alpha\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{r}\omega_{i}$, then as $\rho(K_{\alpha_{j}})=2\pi i$ for every $1\le j\le r$ we have $$\rho(K_{\alpha_{0}})=2\pi i(n_{1}^{\vee}+n_{2}^{\vee}+\cdots+n_{r}^{\vee})=2\pi i(h^{\vee}-1).$$ For every $1\le i \le r$ define $d_{i}=d_{\alpha_{i}}:=
\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{B(h_{\alpha_{i}},h_{\alpha_{i}})}$. It can be seen that each $d_{i}$ is an integer such that $n_{i}=d_{i}n_{i}^{\vee}$. Let $\mathfrak{A}(\Delta)$ be the (closed) Weyl alcove that is contained in the (closed) Weyl chamber $\mathfrak{C}(\Delta)$ determined by $\Delta$ and that contains $0\in \g$. The alcove $\mathfrak{A}(\Delta)$ is bounded by the hyperplanes with equations $\alpha_{j}=0$ for $1\le j\le r$ and $\alpha_{0}=2\pi i$. As a topological space $\mathfrak{A}(\Delta)$ is an $r$-simplex whose vertices will be labeled by $v_{0}, v_{1},\dots,v_{r}$ in such a way that $v_{0}=0$ and $v_{j}$ is the vertex that does not lie in the hyperplane $\alpha_{j}=0$ for $1\le j\le r$. For every $1\le j\le r$ we have $\alpha_{0}(v_{j})=2\pi i$ so that $$\alpha_{j}(v_{j})=\frac{2\pi i}{n_{j}} \text{ for all } 1\le j\le r$$ and $\alpha_{j}(v_{k})=0$ for $1\le k\le r$ with $k\ne j$. On the other hand, if $f$ is an element in the weight lattice we denote by $\theta_{f}\colon T\to \SS^{1}$ the unique homomorphism of Lie groups whose derivative is $f$. Notice that the lattice $\operatorname{Hom}(\Lambda,\Z)$ can be identified with $\Pi=\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ under the following assignment $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma\colon \operatorname{Hom}(\Lambda,\Z)&\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})\\
\beta&\mapsto \Gamma_{\beta},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{\beta}\colon T\to \SS^{1}$ is the unique homomorphism that satisfies the equation $$\Gamma_{\beta}(\exp(tK_{\alpha}))=e^{2\pi i t\beta(K_{\alpha})}$$ for every real number $t\in \R$ and every root $\alpha\in \Phi$. From now on we will identify $\operatorname{Hom}(\Lambda,\Z)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ using this isomorphism.
When $G$ is compact, simple and simply connected acting on itself by conjugation, we have $H^3_G(G;\Z) \cong \Z$. By [@Meinrenken Proposition 3.1] it follows that we can choose a generator $\eta\in H^{3}_{G}(G;\Z)$ in such a way that the restriction of $\eta$ to $T$ corresponds to restriction of the basic inner product on $\g$ to $\Lambda$. We fix this choice from now on. Let $p_n \colon P_n \to G$ be a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-principal bundle that corresponds to the class $n\eta$. By Proposition \[pi1action\], we have an associated homomorphism $\phi_n \colon \Lambda \to \Pi$. The following proposition provides an explicit expression for $\phi_n$ in terms of the geometry of $G$.
\[Inducedhom\] Let $G$ be a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group and $n\in \Z$ an integer. The homomorphism $\phi_{n}\colon \Lambda\to \Pi$ corresponding to $p_{n}\colon P_{n}\to G$ is given by $$\phi_{n}(K_{\alpha})=\theta_{\alpha}^{nd_{\alpha}}$$ for every $\alpha\in \Phi$. Here $d_{\alpha}$ is the integer defined by $$d_{\alpha}=\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{B(h_{\alpha},h_{\alpha})}.$$
Let us show first the result for $n=1$; that is, let us prove the result for a principal bundle $p\colon P\to G$ whose class corresponds to $\eta\in H_{G}^{3}(G;\Z)$. The class $\eta$ is chosen so that its restriction to $T$ corresponds to restriction of the basic inner product on $\g$ to $\Lambda$. The restriction of this basic inner product defines a bilinear form $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>\colon \Lambda\times \Lambda\to \Z$ in such a way that the smallest non-zero element in $\Lambda$ has length $\sqrt{2}$. With our conventions the smallest element in $\Lambda$ is precisely $K_{\alpha_{0}}$, where as above $\alpha_{0}$ is the highest root. Therefore $\left<K_{\alpha_{0}},K_{\alpha_{0}}\right>=2$. On the other hand, since $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$ is a non-degenerate, $W$-invariant form on $\t$ we have that $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>=cB(\cdot, \cdot)$ for a certain constant $c$. This is because the Killing form is, up to multiplication by a constant, the only $W$-invariant non-degenerate form on $\t$. Since $\left<K_{\alpha_{0}},K_{\alpha_{0}}\right>=2$ we conclude that $$c=\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{2(2\pi i)^{2}}.$$ Therefore for every $X\in \t$ and every root $\alpha$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left<X,K_{\alpha}\right>&=\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{2(2\pi i)^{2}}B(X,K_{\alpha})
=\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{2(2\pi i)}B(X,H_{\alpha})\\
&=\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{B(h_{\alpha},h_{\alpha})}
\left(\frac{{\alpha}(X)}{2\pi i}\right)=d_{\alpha}\left(\frac{\alpha(X)}{2\pi i}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the homomorphism $\Lambda\to \Z$ given by $X\mapsto \left<X,K_{\alpha}\right>$ agrees with $\alpha/2\pi i$. With the identification of $\operatorname{Hom}(\Lambda,\Z)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ given above this homomorphism corresponds precisely to $\theta_{\alpha}^{d_{\alpha}}$. This proves that $\phi_{1}(K_{\alpha})=\theta_{\alpha}^{d_{\alpha}}$ for every root $\alpha\in \Phi$.
In general, if $p_{n}\colon P_{n}\to G$ is a principal bundle whose class corresponds to $n\eta\in H_{G}^{3}(G;\Z)$, then the restriction to $T$ of $n\eta$ corresponds to the restriction of $n\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$ to $\Lambda$, hence the result holds because of the case $n=1$.
In the next section, it will be important to understand the structure of $H^{*}_{\Lambda}(\t,R(T)_{\Q})$ as a $W$-module, hence we give a description here in terms of the geometry of the group. For this, let $R(T)^{sgn}$ denote the representation ring $R(T)$ with $W$-action given as follows: if $w\in W$ and $p\in R(T)^{sgn}$, then $$w\bullet p=(-1)^{\ell(w)}w\cdot p.$$ Here $\ell(w)$ denotes the length of $w$ relative to the reflections $s_{\alpha_{1}},\dots, s_{\alpha_{r}}$ and $w\cdot p$ denotes the natural action of $W$ on $R(T)$. Also, we denote $R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}=R(T)^{sgn}\otimes \Q$.
On the other hand, let $R:=\Z[\Lambda]$ and $M:=\Z[\Pi]=R(T)$. We can see $M$ as a module over $R$ via the homomorphism $\phi_{n}\colon \Lambda\to \Pi$. This homomorphism is injective by [@Meinrenken Proposition 3.1] whenever $n\ne 0$. The lattices $\Lambda$ and $\Pi$ have the same rank so that $M$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. The elements $K_{\alpha_{1}},\dots, K_{\alpha_{r}}$ form a free basis for the lattice $\Lambda$. If $x_{i}:=K_{\alpha_{i}}-1$ for $1\le i \le r$ then the Koszul complex $K_{*}=K(x_{1},\dots, x_{r})$ forms a free resolution of $\Z$ seen as a trivial module over $R$. Recall that in $K_{*}$ we have generators $a_{1},\dots, a_{r}$ of degree one and for each $0\le p\le r$ the module $K_{p}$ is a free $R$-module generated by elements of the form $a_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}}:=a_{i_{1}}\cdots a_{i_{p}}$, where $i_{1},\dots, i_{p}$ runs through all the sequences of integers satisfying $1\le i_{1}<\cdots <i_{p}\le r$. The differential $\partial\colon K_{p}\to K_{p-1}$ is given by the formula $$\partial(a_{i_{1},\dots, i_{p}})=
\sum_{s=1}^{p}(-1)^{s-1}x_{i_{s}}a_{i_{1},\dots, \hat{i}_{s},\dots, i_{p}}$$ Let $J_{n}$ denote the ideal in $R(T)^{sgn}$ generated by $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}}-1$ for $1\le i\le r$.
\[ideal-J\] Suppose that $G$ is a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group of rank equal to $r$, and $n\ne 0$ is an integer. If $p\ne r$, we have $H^{p}_{\Lambda}(\t,R(T))=0$ and for $p=r$ there is a $W$-equivariant isomorphism $$H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t,R(T))\cong R(T)^{sgn}/J_{n}.$$ Similarly, with rational coefficients we have $H^{p}_{\Lambda}(\t,R(T)_{\Q})=0$ for $p\ne r$ and for $p=r$, there is a $W$-equivariant isomorphism $$H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t,R(T)_{\Q})\cong R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}.$$
Recall that the elements $K_{\alpha_{1}},\dots ,K_{\alpha_{r}}$ form a basis for the integral lattice $\Lambda$. Therefore $\t$ has the structure of a $\Lambda$-CW complex in such a way that for each sequence of integers $1\le i_{1}<\cdots <i_{p}\le r$ we have a $p$-dimensional $\Lambda$-cell $e_{i_{1},...,i_{p}}$ corresponding to the sequence $\{K_{\alpha_{i_{1}}},\dots,K_{\alpha_{i_{p}}}\}\subset \Lambda$. If we consider the cellular complex $C_{*}(\t)$, then the natural action of $W$ on $\t$ makes $C_{*}(\t)$ into a free resolution of $\Z$ as a trivial module over $R = \Z[\Lambda]$, where all the maps in sight are $W$-equivariant. Moreover, if we identify the element $e_{i_{1},...,i_{p}}\in C_{p}(\t)$ with $a_{i_{1},..,i_{p}}$ we obtain an isomorphism of $C_{*}(\t)$ with the Koszul complex. Via this isomorphism we can give $K_{*}$ the structure of a $W$-equivariant chain complex. By definition $$H^{*}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T))=H^{*}(\operatorname{Hom}_{\Z[\Lambda]}(C_{*}(\t),R(T)))\cong H^{*}(\operatorname{Hom}_{R}(K_{*},M)).$$ Let $K^{*}$ be the dual of the Koszul complex. Explicitly, $K^{p}=\bigwedge^{p}(R^{r})$ and the differential $\delta_{x}\colon \wedge^{p}(R^{r})\to \wedge^{p+1}(R^{r})$ is given by $\delta_{x}(y)=x\wedge y$, where $x=(x_{1},\dots, x_{r})\in R^{r}$. We have an isomorphism of cochain complexes $\operatorname{Hom}_{R}(K_{*},M)\cong K^{*}\otimes_{R} M$. Also, the elements $x_{1},\dots, x_{r}$ form a regular sequence on $M$ so by [@Eisenbud Corollary 17.5] it follows that for $p\ne r$ $$H^{p}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T))\cong H^{*}(K^{*}\otimes_{R} M)=0.$$ Moreover, for $p=r$ we have an isomorphism of $R$-modules $$H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T))\cong H^{r}(K^{*}\otimes_{R} M)=M/(x_{1},\dots,x_{r})M.$$ By Proposition \[Inducedhom\] we have $\phi_{n}(K_{\alpha_{i}})=\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}}$ and thus we have an isomorphism of $R$-modules $$H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T))\cong M/(x_{1},\dots,x_{r})M\cong
R(T)/(\theta_{\alpha_{1}}^{nd_{1}}-1,\dots,\theta_{\alpha_{r}}^{nd_{r}}-1).$$ However, the above isomorphism is not $W$-equivariant. To obtain the correct $W$-action on $H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T))$ we observe that we have a $W$-equivariant isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\Z[\Lambda]}(C_{r}(\t),R(T))\cong R(T)^{sgn}.$$ With this observation we can conclude that we have a $W$-equivariant isomorphism $$H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T))\cong H^{r}(K^{*}\otimes_{R} M)=R(T)^{sgn}/J_{n}.$$ The rational coefficients case is proved in a similar way.
The twisted equivariant K-theory of inertia spaces
==================================================
Suppose that $X$ is a compact $G$-CW complex in such a way that the action of $G$ on $X$ has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups. Consider the inertia space $$\Lambda X:=\left\{(x,g) | g\cdot x=x \right\}.$$ The group $G$ acts on $\Lambda X$ by the assignment $h\cdot (x,g)=(h\cdot x,hgh^{-1})$. Notice that the isotropy subgroup of this action at $(x,g)$ is the centralizer of $g$ in $G_{x}$. If we assume that $G_{x}$ has torsion free fundamental group for every $x\in X$, then the action of $G$ on $\Lambda X$ also has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups (see [@AG Section 2]). Assume also that $x_{0}\in X$ is a point fixed by the $G$-action, then $(x_{0},1_{G})\in \Lambda X$ is also fixed by the $G$-action. We work under these assumptions from now on.
Since $G$ is compact and simply connected we have $H_{G}^{3}(G;\Z)\cong \Z$. We fix a generator $\eta\in H_{G}^{3}(G;\Z)$ as in the previous section and suppose that $p_{n}\colon P_{n}\to G$ is a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that corresponds to the class $n\eta\in H^{3}_{G}(G;\Z)$, where $n\in \Z-\{0\}$. Since $G$ is assumed to be simply connected the restriction of the bundle $p_{n}\colon P_{n}\to G$ to $1_{G}$ is trivial. Recall that the bundle $p_{n}\colon P_{n}\to G$ induces a homomorphism $\phi_{n}=\phi_{P_{n}}\colon \Lambda \to \Pi=\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$ that is $W$-equivariant by Proposition \[pi1action\]. Denote by $\pi_{2}\colon \Lambda X \to G$ the projection onto the second component and let $q_{n}\colon Q_{n}\to \Lambda X$ be the pullback of $P_{n}$ under $\pi_{2}$. We are interested in computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(\Lambda X)\otimes \Q$ as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$.
As a first step notice that $(\Lambda X)^{T}=X^{T}\times T$ and thus $\widetilde{(\Lambda X)^{T}}=\widetilde{X^{T}}\times \t$. Also, $\pi_{1}((\Lambda X)^{T})=\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda$ and the homomorphism associated to the bundle $q_{n}\colon Q_{n}\to \Lambda X$ is the map $$\phi_{Q_{n }}=\phi_{n}\circ \pi_{2}\colon \pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda\to \operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1}).$$ We can see $R(T)$ as a module over $\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda$ via this homomorphism. To compute ${}^{Q_n}K_{G}^{*}(\Lambda X)\otimes \Q$ we are going to use the spectral sequence previously described. By Theorem \[ss rational coeff\], the $E_{2}$-term in this spectral sequence is given by $$\label{E2-term1}
E_{2}^{p,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{p}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda}(\widetilde{X^{T}}\times \t;R(T)_{\Q})^{W}
&\text{ if } &q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } &q \ \ \text{ is odd.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Next we identify $H^{p}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda}(\widetilde{X^{T}}\times \t;R(T)_{\Q})$. Note that as a module over $\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda$ there is an isomorphism $R(T)_{\Q} \cong \Q\otimes R(T)_{\Q}$, where on the right hand side, $\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda$ acts trivially on $\Q$ and $\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda$ acts on $R(T)_{\Q}$ by the homomorphism $\phi_{Q_{n}}$. Using a suitable version of the Künneth theorem and applying Theorem \[ideal-J\], we obtain a $W$-equivariant isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
&H^{n}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})\times \Lambda}(\widetilde{X^{T}}\times \t;R(T)_{\Q})
\cong H^{n-r}_{\pi_{1}(X^{T})}(\widetilde{X^{T}};\Q)\otimes H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T)_{\Q})\\
\cong & H^{n-r}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes H^{r}_{\Lambda}(\t;R(T)_{\Q})\cong
H^{n-r}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}).\end{aligned}$$ The above can be summarized in the following theorem.
\[TheoremE2-term\] Let $G$ be a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group of rank equal to $r$ and $n\ne 0$ an integer. Suppose that $X$ is a compact $G$-CW complex such that $G_{x}$ is a connected subgroup of maximal rank that has torsion free fundamental group for every $x\in X$ and that there is a point fixed by the action of $G$. Then there is a spectral sequence with $E_{2}$-term given by $$E_{2}^{p+r,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\left[ H^{p}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}) \right]^{W}
&\text{ if } &p\ge 0\text{ and } q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } &q \ \ \text{ is odd}
\end{array}
\right.$$ which converges to ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(\Lambda X)\otimes \Q$.
It seems reasonable to conjecture that with the given hypotheses the above spectral sequence should always collapse at the $E_{2}$-term. We will provide some key examples where this collapse can be verified.
$G$ acting on itself by conjugation
-----------------------------------
To begin we consider the case $X=\{*\}$ with the trivial $G$-action. If $G$ is a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group then the hypotheses of Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\] are satisfied trivially. Here the inertia space $\Lambda X$ is $G$-homeomorphic to $G$, where $G$ acts on itself by conjugation. Let $n\ne 0$ and choose $p_{n}\colon P_{n}\to G$ a $G$-equivariant principal $PU(\H)$-bundle that corresponds to the cohomology class $n\eta\in H^{3}_{G}(G;\Z)$. In this case the bundle $Q_{n}=\pi_{2}^{*}(P_{n})$ agrees trivially with $P_{n}$. Also $H^{p}(X^{T};\Q)$ is trivial for $p\ne 0$ and $H^{0}(X^{T};\Q)\cong \Q$ with the trivial $W$-action. By Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\], the $E_{2}$-term in the spectral sequence computing ${}^{P_{n}}K^{*}_{G}(G)\otimes \Q$ is such that $$E_{2}^{r,q}= (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{W}$$ for even values of $q$ and $E_{2}^{p,q}=0$ in all other cases. Consider the short exact sequence of $W$-modules $$0\to J_{n} \to R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}
\to R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}\to 0.$$ Since we are working in characteristic zero and $W$ is a finite group, the exactness of this sequence is preserved at the level of $W$-invariants; that is, there is a short exact sequence $$0\to J^{W}_{n} \to (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}
\to (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{W}\to 0$$ and so $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{W}\cong (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}$. Consider the element $\delta:=\theta_{\rho}^{-1}\prod_{ \alpha\in \Phi^{+}}(\theta_{\alpha}-1)$, where $\rho$ denotes the half sum of the positive roots. Notice that $\delta$ is the denominator in the Weyl character formula. By [@Bourbaki Proposition 2, VI §3 no. 3] we have that $\delta\in (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}$ and the map $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi\colon (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}&\to R(T)_{\Q}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q} \\
p&\mapsto \frac{p}{\delta}\end{aligned}$$ is an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules. Let $L_{n}=\Psi(J_{n}^{W})\subset R(G)_{\Q}$. The map $\Psi$ defines an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}.$$ Therefore the $E_{2}$-term of the spectral sequence is given by $$E_{2}^{p,q}= \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ if } &p=r \text{ and } q \text{ is even},\\
0& \text{ if } &q \ \ \text{ in other cases}
\end{array}
\right.$$ as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$. In this situation trivially there are no extension problems and we conclude that there is an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $${}^{P_{n}}K^{p}_{G}(G)\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n} &\text{ if } & p\equiv r\ (\text{mod } 2),\\
0 &\text{ if } & p\equiv r+1\ (\text{mod } 2).
\end{array}
\right.$$ Suppose now that $k\ge 0$ is an integer such that $n=k+h^{\vee}$; that is, $k=n-h^{\vee}$. With this further assumption, we show in Proposition \[Verlinde\] that $L_{n}$ is precisely the rational Verlinde ideal $I_{k}$ at level $k=n-h^{\vee}$ and so $R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}$ is the rational Verlinde algebra $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}=R(G)_{\Q} /I_{k}$ at level $k=n-h^{\vee}$. Therefore for $p\equiv r\ (\text{mod } 2)$ we have that ${}^{P_{n}}K^{p}_{G}(G)\otimes \Q$ is isomorphic as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$ to the rational Verlinde algebra $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}=R(G)_{\Q} /I_{k}$ at level $k=n-h^{\vee}$. This shows that our computations in this particular case agree with the celebrated theorem of Freed, Hopkins, Teleman (see [@FHTIII Theorem 1]).
Suppose that $G=SU(m)$. We provide here an explicit basis for the $\Q$-vector space $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}$ in this case. Let $T\cong (\SS^{1})^{m-1}$ be the maximal torus consisting of all diagonal matrices in $SU(m)$. In particular, we have $r=m-1$. The Weyl group $W=\Sigma_{m}$ acts by permuting the diagonal entries of the elements in $T$. We can choose $\Delta=\{\alpha_{1}=X_{1}-X_{2},\dots, \alpha_{m-1}=X_{m-1}-X_{m}\}$ as a set of simple roots. In this case we have $$R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}=\Q[x_{1},\dots, x_{m}]/(x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{m}=1),$$ where $\Sigma_{m}$ acts by signed permutations. More precisely, if $\sigma\in \Sigma_{m}$ then $$\sigma\bullet (x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}}\cdots x_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}})
=(-1)^{sgn(\sigma)}x_{\sigma^{-1}(i_{1})}^{a_{1}}\cdots x_{\sigma^{-1}(i_{k})}^{a_{k}}.$$ Suppose that $n\ge m$ is a fixed integer. Then $J_{n}$ is the ideal in $R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}$ generated by $$\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{n}-1=\left(\frac{x_{i}}{x_{i+1}}\right)^{n}-1, \text { for } 1\le i\le m-1.$$ We conclude that $$R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}=\Q[x_{1},\dots, x_{m}]/
(x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{m}=1, x_{1}^{n}=x_{2}^{n}=\cdots =x_{m}^{n}),$$ with $\Sigma_{m}$ acting by signed permutations. Let $\A\colon \Q[x_{1},\dots, x_{m}]\to \Q[x_{1},\dots, x_{m}]$ denote the anti-symmetrization operator, that is, $$\A(p(x_{1},\dots,x_{m}))=\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_{m}}(-1)^{sgn(\sigma)}
p(x_{\sigma(1)},\dots,x_{\sigma(m)}).$$ In this example the set $\{\A(x_{1}^{i_{1}}\cdots x_{m-1}^{i_{m-1}})\}_{1\le i_{m-1}<i_{m-2}<\cdots<i_{1}\le n-1}$ forms a basis as a $\Q$-vector space for $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{\Sigma_{m}}$. Thus as a $\Q$-vector space $${}^{P_{n}}K^{q}_{SU(m)}(SU(m))\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\Q^{ \binom {n-1} {m-1}} &\text{ if } & q\equiv m-1\ (\text{mod } 2),\\
0 &\text{ if } & q\equiv m\ (\text{mod } 2).
\end{array}
\right.$$ One can compare this computation with the general results obtained in [@Douglas1 Theorem 1.1] and also with the well known description of the Verlinde algebra in terms of weights, see [@Meinrenken Section 5.3] for instance.
Inertia sphere {#inertia sphere}
--------------
Suppose now that $X=\SS^{\g}$ is the one point compactification of the Lie algebra $\g$. The group $G$ acts on $\SS^{\g}$ via the adjoint representation and fixing the point at infinity. This action has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups. (See [@AG Section 6.2]). Moreover, when $G$ is simple and simply connected, the isotropy subgroup $G_v$ of every $v\in \g$ has torsion–free fundamental group. To see this, we may assume without loss of generality that $v$ belongs to the Weyl chamber $\mathfrak{C}(\Delta)$. Let $I\subset \Delta$ be the set of simple roots for which $\alpha(v)=0$. Then $G_{v}=G_{I}$ is the maximal rank subgroup of $G$ that contains $T$ and that has $I$ as a set of simple roots. Let $\Lambda_{I}$ be the lattice generated by the set $\{K_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in I}$. By [@Dieck Theorem 7.1], we have that $\pi_{1}(G_{I})=\Lambda/\Lambda_{I}$ is a free abelian group of rank $|\Delta-I|$. We conclude that the action of $G$ on $\Lambda \SS^{\g}$ has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups and the hypotheses of Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\] are satisfied. In this example $X^{T}=\SS^{\t}$. Notice that $H^{0}(\SS^{\t};\Q)\cong \Q$ with $W$ acting trivially, $H^{r}(\SS^{\t};\Q)\cong \Q^{sgn}$, where $w\cdot x=(-1)^{\ell(w)}x$ for all $w\in W$ and all $x\in \Q$ and $H^{p}(\SS^{\t};\Q)=0$ for all $p\ne 0,r$. It follows by Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\] that the $E_{2}$-term of the spectral sequence computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(\Lambda \SS^{\g})\otimes \Q$ is given as follows: for $q$ even $$E_{2}^{r,q}= [H^{0}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})]^{W}
\cong (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}.$$ Also, $$E_{2}^{2r,q}=[H^{r}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})]^{W}
\cong (\Q^{sgn}\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}))^{W}.$$ Notice that $\Q^{sgn}\otimes R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}\cong R(T)_{\Q}$ as a $W$-module, where on the right hand side $W$ acts by the natural action. Let $K_{n}$ denote the ideal in $R(T)_{\Q}$ generated by $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}}-1$ for $1\le i\le r$, where $W$ acts on $K_{n}$ by the natural action. Note that $K_{n}$ and $J_{n}$ are equal as sets, but $W$ acts on $J_{n}$ by signed permutations and on $K_{n}$ by permutations. It follows that we have an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$E_{2}^{2r,q}\cong (R(T)_{\Q}/K_{n})^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}.$$ For other values of $p$ and $q$ we have $E_{2}^{p,q}=0$. In this case the only possibly non-trivial differential is $d_{r-1}$ for odd values of $r\ge 3$. However, comparing this spectral sequence with the one computing ${}^{P_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(G)$ via the inclusion map $i\colon *\to G$ and the projection map $\pi\colon G\to *$, we conclude that such differentials must be trivial. Hence $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ if } q \text{ is even and } p=r,\\
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}
&\text{ if } q \text{ is even and } p=2r,\\
0& \text{ otherwise, }
\end{array}
\right.$$ as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$.
When $r$ is odd, then trivially there are no extension problems. When $r$ is even, by comparing the spectral sequence computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda \SS^{\g})\otimes \Q$ with that computing ${}^{P_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(G)\otimes \Q$, we conclude that there are no extension problems in this case either. As a corollary, the following is obtained.
Suppose that $G$ is a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group. Let $n\ne 0$ be an integer and let $r$ be the rank of $G$. Then we have the following isomorphisms $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules:
1. For odd values of $r$ $${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda \SS^{\g})\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}
&\text{ for } p \text{ even,} \\
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ for } p \text{ odd.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
2. For even values of $r$ $${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda \SS^{\g})\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}\oplus R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ for } p \text{ even,} \\
0
&\text{ for } p \text{ odd.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
As before, if we further assume that $k\ge 0$ is such that $k=n-h^{\vee}$ then we can identify $R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}$ with the Verlinde algebra $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}=R(G)_{\Q} /I_{k}$ at level $k=n-h^{\vee}$.
As a particular example let us suppose that $G=SU(m)$ and that $n\ge m$. We already know that in this case $$R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}=\Q[x_{1},\dots, x_{m}]/
(x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{m}=1, x_{1}^{n}=x_{2}^{n}=\cdots x_{m}^{n}),$$ with $W=\Sigma_{m}$ acting by [**[signed permutations]{}**]{}. Also, $\{\A(x_{1}^{i_{1}}\cdots x_{m-1}^{i_{m-1}})\}_{1\le i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{m-1}\le n-1}$ forms a basis for $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{\Sigma_{m}}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n} $ as a $\Q$-vector space. On the other hand, $$R(T)_{\Q}/K_{n}=\Q[x_{1},\dots, x_{m}]/
(x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{m}=1, x_{1}^{n}=x_{2}^{n}=\cdots x_{m}^{n}),$$ with $W=\Sigma_{m}$ acting by [**[permutations]{}**]{}. If $\mathcal{S}$ denotes the symmetrization operator, that is, $$\mathcal{S}(p(x_{1},\dots,x_{m}))=\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_{m}}p(x_{\sigma(1)},\dots,x_{\sigma(m)}),$$ then it can be proved that the set $\{\mathcal{S}(x_{1}^{i_{1}}\cdots x_{m-1}^{i_{m-1}})\}_{0\le i_{1}\le i_{2}\le
\cdots\le i_{m-1}\le n}$ forms a basis as a $\Q$-vector space for $(R(T)_{\Q}/K_{n})^{\Sigma_{m}}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{\Sigma_{m}}$.
Inertia of the commuting variety in $\g$
----------------------------------------
For every integer $m\ge 2$ the commuting variety in $\g$ is defined to be $$C_{m}(\g)=\{(X_{1},\dots,X_{m})\in \g^{m} ~|~ [X_{i},X_{j}]=0
\text{ for all } 1\le i,j \le m \}.$$ Let $X=C_{m}(\g)^{+}$ denote the one point compactification of the commuting variety $C_{m}(\g)$. The group $G$ acts on $C_{m}(\g)^{+}$ via the adjoint representation and fixing the point at infinity. If we assume that $G$ is one of the groups $SU(l)$ or $Sp(l)$ with $l\ge 2$, then the action of $G$ on $C_{m}(\g)^{+}$ has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups and for every $x\in C_{m}(\g)^{+}$ the isotropy subgroups $G_{x}$ have torsion free fundamental groups (See [@AG Section 6.4]). Therefore the action of $G$ on $\Lambda (C_{m}(\g)^{+})$ has connected maximal rank isotropy subgroups and the hypotheses of Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\] are satisfied. In this example $X^{T}=\SS^{\t^{m}}$, the one-point compactification of $\t^{m}$, with $W$ acting diagonally. Notice that $H^{0}(\SS^{\t^{m}};\Q)\cong \Q$ with $W$ acting trivially, $H^{mr}(\SS^{\t^{m}};\Q)\cong (\Q^{sgn})^{\otimes m}$, where $W$ acts diagonally and by the sign representation on each factor $\Q^{sgn}$. Also $H^{p}(\SS^{\t^{m}};\Q)=0$ for all $p\ne 0, mr$. By Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\], the $E_{2}$-term of the spectral sequence computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(\Lambda(C_{m}(\g))^{+})\otimes \Q$ is given as follows: for $q$ even $$E_{2}^{r,q}=[H^{0}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})]^{W}\cong
(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}.$$ Also, $$E_{2}^{(m+1)r,q}=[H^{mr}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})]^{W}\cong
[(\Q^{sgn})^{\otimes m}\otimes R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}]^{W}.$$ For all other cases $E_{2}^{p,q}=0$. To describe this $E_{2}$-term explicitly we need to consider a few cases.
Suppose first that $m$ is even. In this case we have $(\Q^{sgn})^{\otimes m}\cong \Q$ with the trivial $W$-action. Therefore under this assumption $$E_{2}^{(m+1)r,q}\cong (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}.$$ Since $m$ is even, for dimension reasons there are no nonzero differentials and so the spectral sequence collapses at the $E_{2}$-term. We conclude that in this case $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ if } q \text{ is even and } p=r, (m+1)r\\
0& \text{ otherwise. }
\end{array}
\right.$$ as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$.
Assume now that $m$ is odd. With this assumption, we have $(\Q^{sgn})^{\otimes m}\cong \Q^{sgn}$ with the sign $W$-action. Therefore under this assumption $$E_{2}^{(m+1)r,q}\cong (\Q^{sgn}\otimes R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n})^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W},$$ where as above $K_{n}$ denotes the ideal in $R(T)_{\Q}$ generated by $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}}-1$ for $1\le i\le r$. In this case the only possibly non-trivial differential is $d_{mr-1}$ for odd values of $r$. However, comparing this spectral sequence with the one computing ${}^{P_{n}}K_{G}^{*}(G)\otimes \Q$ it follows that such differentials must be trivial. We conclude that in this case $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n} &\text{ if } q \text{ is even and } p=r,\\
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}
&\text{ if } q \text{ is even and } p=(m+1)r,\\
0& \text{ otherwise, }
\end{array}
\right.$$ as a module over $R(G)_{\Q}$.
In any of the above cases, by comparing the spectral sequence computing ${}^{P_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(G)\otimes \Q$ with that computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda (C_{m}(\g)^{+}))\otimes \Q$, we see that there are no extension problems thus yielding the following corollary.
Suppose that $G$ is one of the groups $SU(l)$ or $Sp(l)$ with $l\ge 2$. Let $n\ne 0$ be an integer and let $r$ be the rank of $G$. Then we have the following isomorphisms of modules over $R(G)_{\Q}$
1. If $m$ is even $${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda (C_{m}(\g)^{+}))\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
(R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n})^{2}
&\text{ for }p\equiv r\ (\text{mod } 2),\\
0
&\text{ for } p+1\equiv r\ (\text{mod } 2).
\end{array}
\right.$$
2. If $m$ and $r$ are odd $${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda (C_{m}(\g)^{+}))\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}
&\text{ for } p \text{ even,} \\
R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ for } p \text{ odd.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
3. If $m$ is odd and $r$ is even $${}^{Q_{n}}K_{G}^{p}(\Lambda (C_{m}(\g)^{+}))\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}\oplus R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}
&\text{ for } p \text{ even,} \\
0
&\text{ for } p \text{ odd.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
Commuting pairs in $SU(2)$
--------------------------
Suppose that $X=G$ acts on itself by conjugation. The inertia space for this action corresponds to $\Lambda X=\operatorname{Hom}(\Z^{2},G)$, the space of commuting pairs in $G$, equipped with the conjugation action of $G$. Assume that $G=SU(2)$. For this group, the space $\operatorname{Hom}(\Z^{2},G)$ is path-connected and the conjugation action has connected maximal rank isotropy by [@AG Example 2.4]. All the hypotheses of Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\] are met for this example so that we can use this theorem to compute ${}^{Q_{n}}K^{*}_{SU(2)}(\operatorname{Hom}(\Z^{2},SU(2)))\otimes \Q$. Let $T\cong \SS^{1}$ be the maximal torus consisting of all diagonal matrices in $SU(2)$. Then $X^{T}=T\cong \SS^{1}$ with $W=\Z/2=\left<\tau | \tau^{2}=1\right>$ acting by permutation on the diagonal entries of $T$. For this example $H^{0}(X^{T};\Q)\cong \Q$ with trivial $W$-action, $H^{1}(X^{T};\Q)\cong \Q^{sgn}$, where $\tau \cdot x=-x$ for all $x\in \Q$ and $H^{p}(X^{T};\Q)=0$ for $p\ne 0, 1$. Using Theorem \[TheoremE2-term\], the $E_{2}$-term of the spectral sequence computing ${}^{Q_{n}}K^{*}_{SU(2)}(\operatorname{Hom}(\Z^{2},SU(2)))\otimes \Q$. is given as follows: for $q$ even $$E_{2}^{1,q}=\left[ H^{0}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}) \right]^{W}
\cong (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n},$$ Also, $$E_{2}^{2,q}=\left[ H^{1}(X^{T};\Q)\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}) \right]^{W}
\cong \left[ \Q^{sgn}\otimes (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}/J_{n}) \right]^{W}\cong
R(G)_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}.$$ Moreover, $E_{2}^{p,q}=0$ for all other cases. We conclude that $$E_{2}^{p,q}\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{llc}
R(SU(2))_{\Q}/L_{n}&\text{ if } &p=1 \text{ and } q \text{ is even},\\
R(SU(2))_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}&\text{ if } &p=2 \text{ and } q \text{ is even},\\
0& &\text{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ The spectral sequence collapses trivially at the $E_{2}$-term without extension problems so that we obtain the following corollary.
For $G=SU(2)$ and an integer $n\ne 0$ we have $${}^{Q_{n}}K^{p}_{SU(2)}(\operatorname{Hom}(\Z^{2},SU(2)))\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
R(SU(2))_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}
&\text{ if } &p \text{ is even},\\
R(SU(2))_{\Q}/L_{n} & \text{ if } &p \text{ is odd}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
In this case we can find explicit bases for $R(SU(2))_{\Q}/L_{n}$ and $R(SU(2))_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}$ as $\Q$-vector spaces. Suppose for simplicity that $n> 0$. Recall that $$R(T)_{\Q}=\Q[x_{1},x_{2}]/(x_{1}x_{2}=1)$$ with $\tau$ permuting $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$. Also, $R(SU(2))_{\Q}=R(T)_{\Q}^{W}=\Q[\sigma]$ with $\sigma=x_{1}+\frac{1}{x_{1}}$. In this example $J_{n}^{W}$ is the $R(G)_{\Q}$-submodule in $R(T)_{\Q}^{sgn}$ generated by $x_{1}^{n}-x_{1}^{-n}$. Note that $\delta=x_{1}-x_{1}^{-1}$ so that $L_{n}$ is the ideal in $R(G)_{\Q}$ generated by the element $$\sigma_{n-1}:=\frac{x_{1}^{n}-x_{1}^{-n}}{x_{1}-x_{1}^{-1}}
=x_{1}^{n-1}+x_{1}^{n-3}+\cdots+x_{1}^{3-n}+x_{1}^{1-n}.$$ Moreover, the classes corresponding to the elements $$1, x_{1}+\frac{1}{x_{1}},\dots, x_{1}^{n-2}+\frac{1}{x_{1}^{n-2}}$$ form a free basis for $R(SU(2))_{\Q}/L_{n}$. Thus $R(SU(2))_{\Q}/L_{n}\cong \Q^{n-1}$ as a $\Q$-vector space. On the other hand, $K_{n}$ is the ideal in $R(T)_{\Q}$ generated by $x_{1}^{2n}-1$. The classes corresponding to the elements $$1, x_{1}+\frac{1}{x_{1}},...,x_{1}^{n-1}+\frac{1}{x_{1}^{n-1}}, x_{1}^{n}$$ form a basis for $R(SU(2))_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}$ as a $\Q$-vector space. Thus $R(SU(2))_{\Q}/K_{n}^{W}\cong \Q^{n+1}$ as a $\Q$-vector space. We conclude that $${}^{Q_{n}}K^{p}_{SU(2)}(\operatorname{Hom}(\Z^{2},SU(2)))\otimes \Q\cong \left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
\Q^{n+1}
&\text{ if } &p \text{ is even},\\\\
\Q^{n-1}&\text{ if } & p \text{ is odd},
\end{array}
\right.$$ as a $\Q$-vector space
Appendix:The Verlinde Algebra
=============================
In this section we recall the definition of the Verlinde algebra and relate it to the computations obtained in the previous section. Suppose that $G$ is a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group of rank $r$ with Lie algebra $\g$. Fix a maximal torus $T$ in $G$ and let $W=N_{G}(T)/T$ be the corresponding Weyl group. Throughout this section we will use the same notation as before.
Let $LG$ denote the loop group of $G$; that is, the infinite dimensional group of smooth maps $\SS^{1}\to G$. Let $k\ge 0$ be an integer that corresponds to a level and define $V_{k}(G)$ to be the group completion of the monoid of positive energy representations of $LG$ at level $k$. The group $V_{k}(G)$ equipped with the fusion product becomes a ring that is known as the Verlinde ring. In this section we are interested in the rational version of this ring, namely $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}:=V_{k}(G)\otimes \Q$ that we will refer to as the rational Verlinde algebra. The algebra $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}$ can alternatively be defined as the quotient $$V_{k}(G)_{\Q}=R(G)_{\Q}/I_{k}(G),$$ where $I_{k}(G)$ denotes the rational Verlinde ideal at level $k$. (See [@FHT Section 4] [@Meinrenken Section 4]). The rational Verlinde ideal at level $k\ge 0$ can be defined algebraically as follows. Let us identify $R(G)$ with $R(T)^{W}=\Z[\Pi]^{W}$, where as before $\Pi=\operatorname{Hom}(T,\SS^{1})$. For each $1\le j\le r$, let $\omega_{j}^{*}:=n_{j}^{\vee}v_{j}\in \t$. The element $\omega_{j}^{*}$ represents the fundamental weight $\omega_{j}$ in the sense that $\omega_{j}(X)=2\pi i\left<X,\omega_{j}^{*}\right>$ for every $X\in \t$ and every $1\le j\le r$. Recall that $\left<\cdot,\cdot\right>$ denotes the basic inner product in $\t$ such that the smallest non-zero element in $\Lambda$ has length $\sqrt{2}$. Also, let us denote $$\rho^{*}:=n_{1}^{\vee}v_{1}+\cdots+n_{r}^{\vee}v_{r}
=\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots+\omega_{r}^{*}\in \t.$$ Notice that
$$\alpha_{j}(\omega_{k}^{*})= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(2\pi i) n_{j}^{\vee}/n_{j}=2\pi i/d_{j} &\text{ if } k = j,\\
0 & \text{ otherwise. }
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $M_{k}$ denote the set of sequences of non-negative integers $(m_{1},\dots,m_{r})$ that satisfy $m_{1}n_{1}^{\vee}+\cdots +m_{r}n_{r}^{\vee}\le k$. With this definition $\{(m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots +(m_{r}+1)\omega_{r}^{*}\}_{(m_{1},\dots, m_{r})\in M_{k}}$ corresponds to the set of elements in the lattice generated by $\omega_{1}^{*},\dots, \omega_{r}^{*}$ that belong to the interior of $n\mathfrak{A}(\Delta)$. Here as before $n=k+h^{\vee}$ and $\mathfrak{A}(\Delta)$ denotes the Weyl alcove corresponding to the set of simple roots $\Delta$ and that contains $0$. Equivalently, the set $M_{k}$ is defined in such a way that the collection $\{(m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}+\cdots+(m_{k}+1)\omega_{r}\}_{(m_{1},\dots, m_{r})\in M_{k}}$ corresponds to the set of elements in the weight lattice that belong to the interior of $n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$. Here $\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ denotes the Weyl alcove in $\operatorname{Hom}_{\R}(\t,i\R)$ that contains all the elements $f\in \operatorname{Hom}_{\R}(\t,i\R)$ such that $$0\le \frac{f(K_{\alpha_{0}})}{2\pi i} \le 1.$$ With our notation the rational Verlinde ideal at level $k$ is defined as the vanishing ideal in $R(T)_{\Q}^{W}$ of the set $$S_{k}:
=\left\{\exp(t) \in T ~\left|~ t=\frac{1}{n}\left(m_{1}\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots +m_{r}
\omega_{r}^{*}+\rho^{*}\right),
\text{ where } (m_{1},...,m_{r})\in M_{k}\right\}\right. .$$ The goal of this section is to relate the Verlinde algebra with rational coefficients $V_{k}(G)_{\Q}$ with the quotient $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}$ that appeared in the computations provided in the previous section. Recall that $J_{n}$ is the ideal in $R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}$ generated by $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}}-1$ for $1\le i\le r$. Also recall that $R(T)^{sgn}$ denotes the representation ring $R(T)$ with the signed permutation action of $W$. That is, if $w\in W$ and $p\in R(T)^{sgn}$, then $w\bullet p=(-1)^{\ell(w)}w\cdot p$. Consider the anti-symmetrization operator $\A\colon R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q}\to (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}$ defined by $$\A(p)=\sum_{w\in W}w\bullet p=\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{\ell(w)}w\cdot p.$$ Clearly $\A(p)\in (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}$ for every $p$ and so $\A$ is well defined. On the other hand, consider $\delta:=\theta_{\rho}^{-1}\prod_{\alpha>0, \alpha\in \Phi}(\theta_{\alpha}-1),$ where $\rho$ denotes the half sum of the positive roots. Notice that $\delta$ is the denominator in the Weyl character formula. By [@Bourbaki Proposition 2, VI §3 no. 3] we have that $\delta\in (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}$ and the map $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi \colon (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}&\to (R(T)_{\Q})^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q} \\
p&\mapsto p/\delta\end{aligned}$$ is an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules. Let $L_{n}=\Psi(J_{n}^{W})\subset R(G)_{\Q}$. The map $\Psi$ defines an isomorphism of $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}\cong R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}.$$
\[Verlinde\] Suppose that $G$ is a compact, simple and simply connected Lie group. If $k\ge 0$ and $n=k+h^{\vee}$, then the ideal $L_{n}$ equals the rational Verlinde ideal $I_{k}(G)$. In particular there is an isomorphism $R(G)_{\Q}$-modules $$V_{k}(G)_{\Q}=R(G)_{\Q}/L_{n}\cong (R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}.$$
Let $(m_{1},...,m_{r})\in M_{k}$ and $t=\frac{1}{n}\left((m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots +
(m_{r}+1)\omega_{r}^{*}\right)$. Then the element $\exp(t)\in T$ is such that $\delta(\exp(t))\ne 0$. Therefore, via the isomorphism $\Psi$, the rational Verlinde ideal can be identified with the vanishing set of $S_{k}$ in $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}$. We denote this vanishing set by $\mathcal{W}_{k}(G)$. To prove the proposition we need to show that $\mathcal{W}_{k}(G)=J_{n}^{W}$. For this we follow the next steps.
[**[Step 1]{}:**]{} Let us prove that $J_{n}^{W}\subset \mathcal{W}_{k}(G)$. Since $J_{n}$ is generated by $\theta_{\alpha_{j}}^{nd_{j}}-1$ it suffices to prove that each $\theta_{\alpha_{j}}^{nd_{j}}-1$ vanishes on $S_{k}$. Indeed, suppose that $(m_{1},...,m_{r})\in M_{k}$ and let $t=\frac{1}{n}\left((m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots +(m_{r}+1)\omega_{r}^{*}\right)$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\alpha_{j}}^{nd_{j}}(\exp(t))&=e^{nd_{j}\alpha_{j}
\left(\frac{1}{n}\left((m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots +(m_{r}+1)\omega_{r}^{*}\right)\right)}
=e^{d_{j}\alpha_{j} \left((m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}^{*}+\cdots +(m_{r}+1)\omega_{r}^{*}\right)}\\
&=e^{d_{j}\alpha_{j} \left((m_{j}+1)\omega_{j}^{*}\right)}=e^{2\pi i(m_{j}+1)}=1.\end{aligned}$$ This proves that $\theta_{\alpha_{j}}^{nd_{j}}-1$ vanishes on $S_{k}$ for all $1\le j\le r$ completing the first step.
[**[Step 2]{}:**]{} If $f$ is an element of the weight lattice let us denote by $\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})$ the class in $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}$ corresponding to $\A(\theta_{f})$. Let $\mathcal{B}:=\{\overline{\A}(\theta_{(m_{1}+1)\omega_{1}+\cdots
+(m_{r}+1)\omega_{r}})\}_{(m_{1},...,m_{r})\in M_{k}}$. As the second step we are going to show that the set $\mathcal{B}$ generates $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W}$ as a vector space over $\Q$. If this is true, then it follows that $\dim_{\Q}((R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W})\le |M_{k}|$. On the other hand, it is known that $V_{k}(G)$ is a free $\Z$-module of rank $|M_{k}|$, hence $\dim_{\Q}(V_{k}(G)_{\Q})=|M_{k}|$. We conclude that $\dim_{\Q}((R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}/J_{n}^{W})\le \dim_{\Q}(V_{k}(G)_{\Q})$. This together with the fact that $J_{n}^{W}\subset \mathcal{W}_{k}(G)$ proves that $J_{n}^{W}=\mathcal{W}_{k}(G)$ completing the proof of the proposition.
To prove step 2 notice that $R(T)_{\Q}=\Q[\Pi]$ and therefore the elements of the form $\A(\theta_{f})$ generate $(R(T)^{sgn}_{\Q})^{W}$ as a $\Q$-vector space, where $f$ runs through the weight lattice. Therefore it suffices to show that the classes $\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})$, for $f$ in the weight lattice, can be generated with the collection $\mathcal{B}$. To prove this notice that if $w\in W$ then $$\label{eqn1}
\A(\theta_{f})=\pm \A(\theta_{w\cdot f}) \text{ for every element } f
\text{ in the weight lattice.}$$ Next we show that $\theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{n}-1$ belongs to $J_{n}$. Equivalently, we will show that $\theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{n} \equiv 1 \ (\text{mod } J_{n})$. To see this, recall that $\alpha_{0}=n_{1}\alpha_{1}+\cdots+n_{r}\alpha_{r}
=d_{1}n_{1}^{\vee}\alpha_{1}+\cdots+d_{r}n_{r}^{\vee}\alpha_{r}$. Therefore $n\alpha_{0}=nd_{1}n_{1}^{\vee}\alpha_{1}+\cdots+nd_{r}n_{r}^{\vee}\alpha_{r}$. Using this and the fact that $\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}} \equiv 1 \ (\text{mod } J_{n})$ we get $$\label{ideal1}
\theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{n}\equiv \prod_{i=1}^{r}(\theta_{\alpha_{i}}^{nd_{i}})^{n_{i}^{\vee}}
\equiv 1 \ (\text{mod } J_{n}).$$ On the other hand, given an integer $m$ let $s_{\alpha_{0},m}\colon \operatorname{Hom}_{\R}(\t,i\R)\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\R}(\t,i\R)$ be the map defined by $$s_{\alpha_{0},m}(f)=f-\left(\frac{f(K_{\alpha_{0}})}{2\pi i}-m\right)\alpha_{0}.$$ Geometrically the map $s_{\alpha_{0},m}$ corresponds to a reflection in $\operatorname{Hom}_{\R}(\t,i\R)$ with respect to the hyperplane defined by the equation $f(K_{\alpha_{0}})=2\pi im$. The reflection $s_{\alpha_{0},m}$ preserves the weight lattice. Note that $s_{\alpha_{0},0}$ agrees with the reflection with respect to the hyperplane defined by $\alpha_{0}=0$ so that $s_{\alpha_{0},0}=s_{\alpha_{0}}$ belongs to the Weyl group. Also, $s_{\alpha_{0},mn}=s_{\alpha_{0}}+mn\alpha_{0}$ and thus $$\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0},mn}(f)}=\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)}
\left(\theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{mn}-1\right)+\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)}.$$ Using (\[ideal1\]) we see that $\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)} \theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{mn}\equiv
\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)} \ (\text{mod } J_{n})$. This means that $\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)} \left(\theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{mn}-1\right)\in J_{n}$ and thus $$\A(\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0},nm}(f)})-\A(\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)})
=\A\left(\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)}
\left(\theta_{\alpha_{0}}^{mn}-1\right)\right)\in J_{n}^{W}.$$ On the other hand, we have $\A(\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0}}(f)})=-\A(\theta_{f})$. Therefore $$\label{eqn2}
\overline{\A}(\theta_{s_{\alpha_{0},mn}(f)})=-\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})
\text{ for every element } f \text{ in the weight lattice.}$$ If $f$ is any element in the weight lattice, we can find a unique $f'\in n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ such that $f$ is obtained from $f'$ by applying reflections of the form $s_{\alpha_{0},mn}$ and acting by elements of the Weyl group. Using (\[eqn1\]) and (\[eqn2\]) we conclude that $\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})=\pm\overline{\A}(\theta_{f'})$. This proves that if $f$ is any element in the weight lattice we can find a weight $f'\in n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ such that $\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})=\pm \overline{\A}(\theta_{f'})$. To finish the proof we are going to show that if $f$ belongs to any of the walls of $n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ then $\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})=0$. If $f$ belongs to any of the walls of $n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ that contains $0$, then $f$ is fixed by a reflection of the form $s_{\alpha}$ for some simple root $\alpha$. Let $M$ be a set of representatives of the left cosets of $W$ with respect to the subgroup $\{1,s_{\alpha}\}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\A(\theta_{f})&=\sum_{w\in W}(-1)^{\ell(w)}\theta_{w\cdot f}
=\sum_{w\in M}(-1)^{\ell(w)}\theta_{w\cdot f}+\sum_{w\in M}(-1)^{\ell(ws_{\alpha})}
\theta_{w\cdot (s_{\alpha}\cdot f)}\\
&=\sum_{w\in M}(-1)^{\ell(w)}\theta_{w\cdot f}-\sum_{w\in M}(-1)^{\ell(w)}\theta_{w\cdot f}=0. \end{aligned}$$ We conclude that if $f$ is fixed by a reflection of the form $s_{\alpha}$ then $\A(\theta_{f})=0$. The only possibility left is that $f$ belongs to the wall in $n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ that does not contain $0$ so that $f(K_{\alpha_{0}})=2\pi in$. By Lemma \[finallemma\] below we conclude that in this case $\A(\theta_{f})\in J_{n}^{W}$ so that $\overline{\A}(\theta_{f})=0$. This finishes the proof.
\[finallemma\] Let $G$ be as in the previous proposition and $n=k+h^{\vee}$ with $k\ge 0$. If $f\in \operatorname{Hom}_{\R}(\t,i\R)$ is such that $f(K_{\alpha_{0}})=2\pi in$ then $\A(\theta_{f})\in J_{n}^{W}$.
To prove this lemma we need to consider the following cases:
[**[Case 1]{}:**]{} $G=SU(2)$. In this case $G$ is of type $A_{1}$ and $h^{\vee}=2$. Fix some level $k\ge 0$ and let $n=k+h^{\vee}=k+2$. Consider the maximal torus $$T=\left.\left\{\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
x_{1} & 0 \\
0 & x_{2}
\end{array}
\right] \right| x_{1}, x_{2}\in \SS^{1},\ x_{1}x_{2}=1\right\}.$$ We have $W=\Z/2=\{1,\tau\}$ with $\tau^{2}=1$. The element $\tau$ acts by permuting the diagonal entries of elements in $T$. The Lie algebra $\t$ is given by $$\t=\left.\left\{\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
X_{1} &0 \\
0 & X_{2}
\end{array}
\right] \right| X_{1},X_{2}\in i\R, \ X_{1}+X_{2}=0\right\}.$$ Let $\Delta=\{\alpha_{1}=X_{1}-X_{2}=2X_{1}\}$ be our choice of simple roots. The fundamental weight in this example is $\omega_{1}=X_{1}$ and the highest weight is $\alpha_{0}=\alpha_{1}$. The representation ring with rational coefficients is $R(T)_{\Q}=\Q[x_{1},x_{2}]/(x_{1}x_{2}=1)$ and the action of $W$ on $R(T)_{\Q}$ permutes $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$. If $p(x_{1},x_{2})\in R(T)_{\Q}^{sgn}$, then $\tau\bullet p(x_{1},x_{2})=-p(x_{2},x_{1})$. In this case $J_{n}$ is the ideal in $R(T)_{\Q}^{sgn}$ generated by $\theta^{n}_{\alpha_{1}}-1=\frac{x_{1}^{n}}{x_{2}^{n}}-1$ so that $x_{2}^{n}(\theta^{n}_{\alpha_{1}}-1)=x_{1}^{n}-x_{2}^{n}\in J_{n}$. Moreover, $x_{1}^{n}-x_{2}^{n}\in J_{n}^{W}$ as $\tau\bullet(x_{1}^{n}-x_{2}^{n})=x_{1}^{n}-x_{2}^{n}$. The only weight that belongs to the wall $n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ defined by the equation $f(K_{\alpha_{0}})=2\pi in$ is $f=n\omega_{1}$. Note that $\A(\theta_{n\omega_{1}})=x_{1}^{n}-x_{2}^{n}\in J_{n}^{W}$, as we wanted to prove.
[**[Case 2]{}:**]{} $G=Sp(r)$ with $r \geq 2$. In this case $G$ is a simple Lie group of type $C_{r}$ and $h^{\vee}=r+1$. Fix some level $k\ge 0$ and let $n=k+h^{\vee}=k+r+1$. Consider the maximal torus in $G$ consisting of all diagonal matrices in $Sp(n)$. Here we see $Sp(n)$ as a subgroup of $U(2n)$ in the usual way. Let $\Delta=\{\alpha_{1}=X_{1}-X_{2},\dots, \alpha_{r-1}=X_{r-1}-X_{r}, \alpha_{r}=2X_{r}\}$ be our choice of simple roots. With this choice of simple roots the highest root is $\alpha_{0}=2X_{1}=2\alpha_{1}+\cdots +2\alpha_{r-1}+\alpha_{r}$ so that $n_{1}=2,\dots, n_{r-1}=2, n_{r}=1$. Also, $n_{1}^{\vee}=n_{2}^{\vee}=\dots=n_{r}^{\vee}=1$ and $d_{1}=2,\dots, d_{r-1}=2, d_{r}=1$. The fundamental weights are $$\omega_{1}=X_{1},\ \omega_{2}=X_{1}+X_{2},\ \dots, \omega_{r}=X_{1}+\cdots +X_{r}.$$ In this case $J_{n}$ is the ideal in $R(T)_{\Q}^{sgn}=\Q[x_{1}^{\pm 1},\dots,x_{n}^{\pm 1}]$ generated by $$\theta_{\alpha_{1}}^{nd_{1}}-1=\frac{x_{1}^{2n}}
{x_{2}^{2n}}-1,\dots, \theta_{\alpha_{r-1}}^{nd_{r-1}}-1=\frac{x_{r-1}^{2n}}
{x_{r}^{2n}}-1 \text{ and } \theta_{\alpha_{r}}^{nd_{r}}-1=x_{r}^{2n}-1.$$ Therefore $J_{n}$ is also generated by $x_{1}^{2n}-1, x_{2}^{2n}-1,\dots, x_{r}^{2n}-1$. Suppose that $f$ is an element in the wall in $n\mathfrak{A}^{*}(\Delta)$ that does not contain $0$. Therefore $f$ can be written in the form $f=s_{1}\omega_{1}+\cdots+s_{r}\omega_{r}$, where $s_{1},\dots, s_{r}\ge 0$ are integers such that $s_{1}+\cdots +s_{r}=n=k+h^{\vee}$. With this notation we have $$\theta_{f}=\theta_{\omega_{1}}^{s_{1}}\cdots\theta_{\omega_{r}}^{s_{r}}
=x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}},$$ where $a_{1}=n=s_{1}+s_{2}+\cdots +s_{r}\ge a_{2}=s_{2}+\cdots +s_{r}\ge\cdots\ge a_{r}=s_{r}\ge 0$. Note that $$x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}}-x_{1}^{-a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}}
=x_{1}^{-a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}}(x_{1}^{2n}-1)\in J_{n}.$$ Thus $\A(x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}})-\A(x_{1}^{-a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}
\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}})\in J_{n}^{W}$. Also, $x_{1}^{-a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}}
=s_{\alpha}\cdot x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}}$ with $\alpha=2X_{1}$. This implies that $$\A(x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}})=
-\A(x_{1}^{-a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}})$$ We conclude that $2\A(x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}})\in J_{n}^{W}$ and thus $\A(x_{1}^{a_{1}}x_{2}^{a_{2}}\cdots x_{r}^{a_{r}})\in J_{n}^{W}$. This finishes the proof in this case.
[**[Case 3]{}:**]{} Finally suppose that the group $G$ is not of type $A_{1}$ or of type $C_{r}$. Under this assumption we can find some $1\le j\le r$ (that we fix from now on) such that $$2\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{j}})}=-1.$$ The existence of such $\alpha_{j}$ can be verified by inspecting the extended Dynkin diagram associated to the root system of $G$. For the groups considered in this case we can find some vertex corresponding to a simple root $\alpha_{j}$ that is connected by a single edge to the vertex corresponding to $\alpha_{0}$. This implies that the angle between $h_{\alpha_{0}}$ and $h_{\alpha_{j}}$ is $2\pi/3$ and therefore $2\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{j}})}=-1.$ Suppose that $f$ is an element in the weight lattice that belongs to the hyperplane defined by the equation $f(K_{\alpha_{0}})=2\pi in$ and let $g=f+nd_{j}\alpha_{j}$, which belongs to the weight lattice. The element $g$ is defined in such a way that $$\begin{aligned}
g(K_{\alpha_{0}})&=f(K_{\alpha_{0}})+nd_{j}\alpha_{j}(K_{\alpha_{0}})
=2\pi in+2 \pi i nd_{j}\left( 2\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}
{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}\right)\\
&=2\pi in+2 \pi i n\left(\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}
{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{j}})}\right)
\left( 2\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}{B(h_{\alpha_{0}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}\right)\\
&=2\pi in+2 \pi i n\left( 2\frac{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{0}})}
{B(h_{\alpha_{j}},h_{\alpha_{j}})}\right)
=2\pi in-2\pi in=0.\end{aligned}$$ Let $s_{\alpha_{0}}$ be the reflection in $W$ that corresponds to the root $\alpha_{0}$. Since $g(K_{\alpha_{0}})=0$ we have that $s_{\alpha_{0}}\cdot g=g$. By the same argument provided above we conclude that Hence $\A(\theta_{g})=0$. On the other hand, notice that $(\theta^{nd_{j}}_{\alpha_{j}}-1)$ belongs to $J_{n}$ and so $\A(\theta_{f}(\theta^{nd_{j}}_{\alpha_{j}}-1))\in J_{n}^{W}$. Since $\theta_{g}=\theta_{f}(\theta^{nd_{j}}_{\alpha_{j}}-1)+\theta_{f}$, we conclude that $$0=\A(\theta_{g})=\A(\theta_{f}(\theta^{nd_{j}}_{\alpha_{j}}-1))+\A(\theta_{f})$$ and therefore $$\A(\theta_{f})=-\A(\theta_{f}(\theta^{nd_{j}}_{\alpha_{j}}-1))\in J_{n}^{W}.$$
[99]{}
A. Adem and J. M. Gómez. Equivariant K-theory of compact Lie group actions with maximal rank isotropy. Journal of Topology 5, (2012), 431–457.
S. Antonyan and E. Elfving. The equivariant homotopy type of $G$-ANR’s for proper actions of locally compact groups. Algebraic topology—old and new. Banach Center Publ. 85, (2009), 155–178, Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw.
M. Atiyah and G. Segal. Twisted [$K$]{}-theory. Ukr. Mat. Visn. 1, (2004), 3, 287–330.
N. Bárcenas, J. Espinoza, B. Uribe and M. Velásquez. Segal’s spectral sequence in twisted equivariant K-theory for proper and discrete actions. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 61, 2018, 1, 121–150.
N. Bourbaki. Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 4–6, Elements of Mathematics (Berlin), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, xi+300.
N. Bourbaki. Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 7–9, Elements of Mathematics (Berlin), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005, xii+434.
G. E. Bredon. Equivariant cohomology theories. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 34, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1967), vi+64 pp.
T. Bröcker and T. tom Dieck. Representations of compact Lie groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 98 Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, x+313.
C. L. Douglas. Fusion rings of loop group representations. Comm. Math. Phys. 319, 2013, 2, 395–423.
C. L. Douglas. On the structure of the fusion ideal. Comm. Math. Phys. 290 (2009), no. 1, 335-355.
C. Dwyer. Twisted equivariant K-theory for proper actions of discrete groups. K-Theory 38 (2008), no. 2, 95–111.
D. Eisenbud. Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 150, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995, xvi+785.
D. S. Freed, M. J. Hopkins and C. Teleman. Loop groups and twisted $K$-theory [I]{}. Journal of Topology, 4, (2011), 737–798.
D. S. Freed, M. J. Hopkins and C. Teleman. Loop groups and twisted [$K$]{}-theory [III]{}. Ann. of Math. (2), 174, (2011), 2, 947–1007.
B. Hall. Lie groups, [L]{}ie algebras, and representations, an elementary introduction. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 222, Springer, Cham, (2015), xiv+449.
V. Hauschild. Compact Lie group actions with isotropy subgroups of maximal rank. Manuscripta Math., 34, (1981), no. 2-3, 355–379.
R. K. Lashof. Equivariant bundles. Illinois J. Math., 26(2):257–271, 1982.
J. P. May and J. Sigurdsson. Parametrized homotopy theory. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 132. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006.
E. Meinrenken. On the quantization of conjugacy classes. Enseign. Math. (2), 55, (2009) no. 1-2, 33–75.
G. Segal. Equivariant K -theory. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., 34, (1968), 129–151.
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by NSERC. The second author was partially supported by CONACYT-SEP grant 242186. The third author acknowledges and thanks the financial support provided by the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics and by COLCIENCIAS through grant numbers FP44842-617-2014 and FP44842-013-2018 of the Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento para la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.